View Single Post
      10-01-2012, 02:58 PM   #400
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
609
Rep
10,407
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
Yes there is harm in collectively calling this lag. It means that engine builders are tackling a problem that shouldn't require the effort that goes into it.
if you think engine designers are victims of poor jargon use by the enthusiast community then there is little hope for you...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
Most anti Turbo protagonists whine about a low rev limit and that an M engine should have a high rev limit. Well turbo charging does not limit the revs.
In a theoretical sense no the turbo does not specifically limit rpms, however, in a practical sense nearly all (MP4-12C is an exception...if you count exotics as "exceptions") production turbo engines have lower redlines than corresponding NA engines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
I don't understand, all normally aspirated engines have lag from idle to redline....so to you a half and half engine is not acceptable?
...
A sporty set up turbo charged S65 would produce 4 litre S65 NA torque and power to say 3000rpm then produce 5.5 liter S65 type power and torque to the redline. You saying you would prefer just plain NA 4.0 litres all the way?
Again a very misleading way to look at the turbo vs. non turbo case.

This specific case is exactly the kind of apples to oranges case that does not really make a point. A much better comparison is a real world one where one compares engines of roughly equal peak power. There is no other apples to apples way to make a comparison. You never find an OEM who takes an existing engine and simply adds a turbo system (i.e. maintaining architecture and displacement). The displacement always goes down, typically a lot and with that torque is significantly reduced. You can't have the fuel efficiency benefits any other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
All this aside I don't understand the debate on engines costing less. Of course ANY manufacturer will persue cheaper engines, doesn't mean they are selling the M power theme down the river.
BMW M enthusiasts often romanticize and IMO completely miss the true reasons that certain decisions are made regarding their precious vehicles. This argument shows the changes at BMW M and the results of their new obsession with cost control. You get much less special engines.

However, again, for the nth time.. I still have faith that BMW has some good tricks up their sleeve that will make the engine an overall winner despite it being less special and more mass production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
And by the way, the reason all the others have dropped Inline 6 in favour of V6/8's .....this is to do with crash test performance. Much more difficult to stop a long engine from being pushed into the cabin area.
I highly doubt this. There are many variables more important than block length in crashworthiness. The strategy with all modern vehicles to deal with extreme frontal crash scenarios is to force the engine and transmission to move in a downward fashion in addition to rearward. The 2010 335 gets 4/5 stars from Motortrend (their source probably NHTSA) for frontal crash with its I6.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
Appreciate 0