Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN
The point is, engineers are told what to do. (Surely if you believe engineers arrive at the ultimate solution, then an S66 would be the new M3 engine provided the S66 is a better package engineering wise? which you insist is the case?)
You are the exact example of what gets fed back to engineers, you don't like that delay in throttle reponse in ANY rev range. (By the way that delay, isn't an engine response delay, just boosted engine response delay). So now engineers have to add that second and third turbo, and limit overall rpm range all to appease some guy who doesn't get Turbo engines. Very very sad indeed.
|
We have two possibilities here.
1. OEMs including marketing guys and engineers actually understand, in detail, their own products including their FI systems. They make products that address the concerns of both internal and consumers, enthusiasts and regular folks. Lag is a real issue and their solutions actually address a real problem.
2. No one, consumers, OEM Marketing folks and their brilliant engineers actually understand FI systems, benefits and drawbacks. You and a select group of enthusiasts are the only ones who really understand the problem. The OEM waste 10s of millions of dollars solving non existent problems.
I know which I believe...
Whether it is lag or rpms below a boost threshold the result is the same - a delay in obtaining full power from the time it is requested by throttle application.
I never insisted that an evolved S65 is a better "engineering solution" for the next generation M3/4. What is the case is that such an engine is a better fit with the history, legacy and long term principles of BMW M. The thing is though, those principles are a changin' with more emphasis on cost and profit at the expense of abandoning principles.
For you to continue to think that folks who enjoy NA engines just "don't get" turbo's is both arrogant and narrow minded. There are advantages and disadvantages of each.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN
Nope not at all, all the examples I have given are available in the same body styles. In fact the Toyota Supra you wouldn't know whether it had the Turbo or NA engine from the outside, by all accounts exactly the same car. For your info the stats for the two are:
Normally Aspirated (2JZ-GE) 220hp 210lb.ft
Turbo charged (2JZ-GTE) 320hp 315lb.ft
No doubt you would plump for the NA version as it has NO LAG?  |
But the version with the higher power motor is sold as a premium/performance version with a much higher price, correct? This is argument, ad absurdum. I've always said more torque and more power is always better, however, putting up with the negative aspects of lag is also never a good thing. In this particular case one could say that the NA motor is always experiencing lag, however, that does not account for the actual feel and responsiveness of the two cars. You won't actually feel any lag in the NA car but you clearly do in the turbo version. The flip side argument remains as well. If you have a fixed torque and fixed power would you choose the engine with or without lag?
On a last related note it is obvious why such engine configurations are offered. Lower component prices through the economy of scale!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN
OK, so it is cheaper to make an inline 6. Don't think anyone disputes that.
So what is exactly your point? That more expensive engines are somehow better?
|
Again my point is simply to elucidate BMW Ms decision making process. Many here romanticize BMW M and think the BMW M of today is the same BMW M of 5-10 years ago. They are being driven almost entirely by cost and the reason the new car will get an inline 6 turbo is almost entirely to use the least expensive engine possible.