BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Forum > M3 / M4 Photos and Videos

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-01-2012, 12:34 PM   #397
NISFAN
Brigadier General
 
NISFAN's Avatar
 
Drives: The best kind of F30 :)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bedford UK

Posts: 3,453
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by US///M3 View Post
That didnt make sense if you consider all the V8's BMW,M-B have in their 7 series/S class.
It is a problem to all manufacturers, however in BMW's case as long as the big sellers are significantly below the average (1 series 3 series), then it offsets the low volume 6 and 7 series cars. BMW also have Mini which helps. Rolls Royce doesn't but again low volume.

Mercedes Benz have big worries coming their way, they don't sell enough SMART's to offset the V8's/Maybach's. So I expect a big push with the A and B class cars, which to be fair has already started. They have also discontinued the mighty 6.2litre AMG63 engine in favour of a 5.5TT.

Porsche of course are counted as VAG group I believe so they have a safe get out of sorts.

Watch this space and see how many all electric/Hybrids come out over the next few years.
NISFAN is offline   England
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 02:11 PM   #398
US///M3
Major
 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

Posts: 1,266
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
It is a problem to all manufacturers, however in BMW's case as long as the big sellers are significantly below the average (1 series 3 series), then it offsets the low volume 6 and 7 series cars. BMW also have Mini which helps. Rolls Royce doesn't but again low volume.

Mercedes Benz have big worries coming their way, they don't sell enough SMART's to offset the V8's/Maybach's. So I expect a big push with the A and B class cars, which to be fair has already started. They have also discontinued the mighty 6.2litre AMG63 engine in favour of a 5.5TT.

Porsche of course are counted as VAG group I believe so they have a safe get out of sorts.

Watch this space and see how many all electric/Hybrids come out over the next few years.
The M3 is a low volume car.BMW sells more 550i,750i than M3's. Nobody is asking BMW to put a V8 in the 1 or 3 series.

Dont be naive, the twin turbo 6 is to cut costs and improve the bottom line. Turbo is cheap power.
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
US///M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 02:19 PM   #399
BROCHOP
Lieutenant
 
BROCHOP's Avatar
 
Drives: '11 E92 335is
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Florida

Posts: 522
iTrader: (0)

that looks like it's going to be very costly when it's out of warranty and a hose cracks. YIKES
__________________
Current: '11 E92 335is DCT Blk Sph /Oyster/Every Option no mods..for now
Gone: '05 E46 330iZHP Jet Blk/Natural Brown
Mods: H&R race/18" Beyern Mesh Dinan: Stg 3 flash/ tranny software/90mm Throttle body/free flow exhaust/Custom midpipe/resonator delete/AFE intake
BROCHOP is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 02:58 PM   #400
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,943
iTrader: (1)

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 |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 03:02 PM   #401
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,943
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hwelvaar View Post
This sounds like redneck logic to me. How can one not care about the environment ?
That being said, I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean that each and every car has to become a green car.
Big +1. I would love my existing M3 to have much better mpg and to pollute way less.
__________________
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 |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 03:05 PM   #402
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,943
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by albertabahn View Post
The new engine will use the new electromechanical superturbocharger. See " patents". P.S. Are you a self proclaimed expert? or a Qualified one?.
It is not at all known what the final FI system on the car will be. A patent in no way means that specific tech will make production.

My background is in math, physics and mechanical engineering. That does allow some insight well beyond a typical consumer/enthusiast. I think I have brought a great deal of technical insight to the readers of this forum over a many year period. Look up some of my posts and contributions and decide for yourself if I am an "expert". Cheers.
__________________
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 |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 04:23 PM   #403
NISFAN
Brigadier General
 
NISFAN's Avatar
 
Drives: The best kind of F30 :)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bedford UK

Posts: 3,453
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by US///M3 View Post
The M3 is a low volume car.BMW sells more 550i,750i than M3's. Nobody is asking BMW to put a V8 in the 1 or 3 series.

Dont be naive, the twin turbo 6 is to cut costs and improve the bottom line. Turbo is cheap power.
Fair comment on the low volume.

Thing is you are just anti anything other than V8, not once have you conceded that anything other than V8 could be a good thing. You can say the S55 (or whatever it's name) is born due to costs, and yes of course that is a factor. There would be V8 (S65) backers within BMW (team in charge of the S65), obviously whatever concept they came up with was not as good a package as the N55 derived engine.
NISFAN is offline   England
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 04:24 PM   #404
NISFAN
Brigadier General
 
NISFAN's Avatar
 
Drives: The best kind of F30 :)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bedford UK

Posts: 3,453
iTrader: (0)

Lets get hypothetical here....just suppose the discussion at BMW went like this.....

We have xx million to develop a brand new F30/F32 based M3/M4. The options are:

a.)Spend most of that budget making the S65 more economical and powerful. Leaving not much for chassis tweaks, and poverty spec on the hardware due to the expensive engine. (Our M3 buyers won't appreciate a big price increase, and the competition means a set price)

b.)Develop a more powerful version of the brilliant N55 (which will meet our performance criteria), and spend the large amount remaining developing the chassis with carbon panels, etc, and due to the lower cost engine, equipping it with higher cost hardware likes brakes, ally panels, lightweight wheels, etc.

If you vote option (a.) in the above scenario you are simply a V8 fan above an M3 fan, simple!!!!
NISFAN is offline   England
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 04:26 PM   #405
US///M3
Major
 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

Posts: 1,266
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Big +1. I would love my existing M3 to have much better mpg and to pollute way less.
Is the 450hp reworked N55 goin to pollute less? As far as mpg a 450hp N55 city mpg is going to be around 15-16mpg, that's pretty close to the s65's.
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
US///M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 04:56 PM   #406
NISFAN
Brigadier General
 
NISFAN's Avatar
 
Drives: The best kind of F30 :)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bedford UK

Posts: 3,453
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
if you think engine designers are victims of poor jargon use by the enthusiast community then there is little hope for you....
They absolutely are, it is marketing that pulls the strings, marketing are suits and ties, not engineers....and they listen to suits and ties that buy M5's, M3's etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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.
Wrong, take a gander at Subaru (Sti vs NA 2.5), Mitsubishi (EVO engine vs. NA shit box variety), Toyata Supra (2JZ vs. NA version), Nissan R32-R34 GTR (RB26 vs. RB25 NA), need I go on, all the above examples are turbo charged versions of a same displacement NA engine. ALL of these have the same OR HIGHER rev limits. Note that they are all Japanese!!! Yep the Japs accept the shortcomings of boost threshold but love the turbo hit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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.
Not misleading in the slightest, answer lies in my last answer.

One more example is Subaru, they wanted a normally aspirated engine that produced similar power to the EJ20 (2 liter horizontally opposed 4 cylinder turbo), what did they come up with??? The 3.0 liter Spec B engine (added 2 cylinders to the EJ20 and of course 50% more cubes). And what the got was a thirstier, lower power, lower torque, lower revving engine than the EJ20 Turbo. Inferior in EVERY way, but yes it has a lovely linear power delivery...WoooHooooo!!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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.
I won't even argue this, it is a fact. It was well publicised by many of the manufacturers (and there are many) that dropped I6 for shorter V engines.

Surprisingly to you there were many enthusiasts that thought going V was selling out. V's are more expensive to make especially in Euro/Jap Twin cam form, 2 heads, more expensive boring machine lay outs, more parts to assemble, the list goes on. And V engines offer nothing in terms of performance, just compact (as in wide and short not overall volume)). If you know better please enlighten me as to why Toyota, Nissan, BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes, etc all dropped I6 engines within years of each other for more expensive V configurations?

I so want you to answer this as you claim BMW are cheaping out going I6.
NISFAN is offline   England
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 05:00 PM   #407
Carl L
Captain
 
Carl L's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 E92 M3 Jerez/Beige DCT
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: CA

Posts: 633
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by US///M3 View Post
Is the 450hp reworked N55 goin to pollute less? As far as mpg a 450hp N55 city mpg is going to be around 15-16mpg, that's pretty close to the s65's.
With all due respect, it's hard to take you seriously when you make up bizarre statements about mileage and CO2 etc on an unreleased engine.

But to answer your question, considering Mercedes are getting Euro 33.6mpg combined out of a 5.5, it's pretty obvious that the mpg and emissions will be significantly better on this new engine than on the 6 year old S65.

I mean BMWs 535d used to offer 35mpg combined upon it's 2006 release, well for 2012 the engine offers more power and 51mpg combined. Technology moves far faster than you realize.
__________________
09 M3 E92: Jerez/Bamboo
-prev M-car: 08 M5
F80 M3 on order
Carl L is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 05:23 PM   #408
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,943
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
Lets get hypothetical here....just suppose the discussion at BMW went like this.....

We have xx million to develop a brand new F30/F32 based M3/M4. The options are:

a.)Spend most of that budget making the S65 more economical and powerful. Leaving not much for chassis tweaks, and poverty spec on the hardware due to the expensive engine. (Our M3 buyers won't appreciate a big price increase, and the competition means a set price)

b.)Develop a more powerful version of the brilliant N55 (which will meet our performance criteria), and spend the large amount remaining developing the chassis with carbon panels, etc, and due to the lower cost engine, equipping it with higher cost hardware likes brakes, ally panels, lightweight wheels, etc.

If you vote option (a.) in the above scenario you are simply a V8 fan above an M3 fan, simple!!!!
This is called a fallacy of exclusion of the middle. The choices are not only A or B and are far more deep and complex. That being said it is likely that some of the money BMW M are saving in the engine category will be used for more use of lightweight materials and that is a good thing. Personally, I'm a big fan of the M3 being a great all arounder and actually do value increasing power to weight by lowering weight not increasing power. Of course, having both doesn't hurt either.
__________________
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 |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 05:37 PM   #409
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,943
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
They absolutely are, it is marketing that pulls the strings, marketing are suits and ties, not engineers....and they listen to suits and ties that buy M5's, M3's etc.
Marketing absolutely does not decide which technical approach will be implemented or how a particular approach will be used to reach a top level product design goal. Engine engineers and designers are far far too clever and knowledgeable to be swayed by poor use of jargon by end users. Brand new engines are again $100M or hundereds of millions of dollars. Folks don't screw around with poor jargon or a misunderstanding of a very fine technical details with this kind of money at a company of this size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
Wrong, take a gander at Subaru (Sti vs NA 2.5), Mitsubishi (EVO engine vs. NA shit box variety), Toyata Supra (2JZ vs. NA version), Nissan R32-R34 GTR (RB26 vs. RB25 NA), need I go on, all the above examples are turbo charged versions of a same displacement NA engine. ALL of these have the same OR HIGHER rev limits. Note that they are all Japanese!!! Yep the Japs accept the shortcomings of boost threshold but love the turbo hit.
But they appear in significantly different end products right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
I won't even argue this, it is a fact. It was well publicised by many of the manufacturers (and there are many) that dropped I6 for shorter V engines.
Don't state as fact if you won't discuss. I'd love to see the proof, not some BS gossip from a magazine...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
I so want you to answer this as you claim BMW are cheaping out going I6.
All I am saying is that an I6 is inherently less expensive than a similar V8. I have also shown how simple economy of scale makes high volume parts and systems less expensive than low volume ones. In this case, for BMW M, the I6 is the least expensive option, mostly due to economy of scale. I would also bet that at the same volume an I6 would be less expensive than a V6. There are other advantages of a V6 in terms of compactness that for some purposes may make that a necessity. The I6 physically may not fit.
__________________
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 |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 05:51 PM   #410
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,943
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl L View Post
With all due respect, it's hard to take you seriously when you make up bizarre statements about mileage and CO2 etc on an unreleased engine.

But to answer your question, considering Mercedes are getting Euro 33.6mpg combined out of a 5.5, it's pretty obvious that the mpg and emissions will be significantly better on this new engine than on the 6 year old S65.
+1.

The new M3/4 WILL indeed have significantly better fuel efficiency than the current model. It also WILL have significantly less CO2 output (basically the same thing as mpg). It will also have much better than 14-16 mpg city. The closest example for reference is the I6 turbo in the 1M. That gets 19/26. The new M will be a bit heavier but will also likely have an 8 speed transmission where 8th gear will very likely be an overdrive type of gear. I actually expect better fuel efficiency than the 1M simply due to all of the engine redesigns and improved component efficiency, new/improved VANOS, improved direct injection, etc. My prediction is that both first digits of the city/highway mpg will actually be 2's. If babied on cruise control I'd be willing to bet the car will be capable of 30 mpg.
__________________
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 |
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 08:19 PM   #411
US///M3
Major
 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

Posts: 1,266
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl L View Post
With all due respect, it's hard to take you seriously when you make up bizarre statements about mileage and CO2 etc on an unreleased engine.

But to answer your question, considering Mercedes are getting Euro 33.6mpg combined out of a 5.5, it's pretty obvious that the mpg and emissions will be significantly better on this new engine than on the 6 year old S65.

I mean BMWs 535d used to offer 35mpg combined upon it's 2006 release, well for 2012 the engine offers more power and 51mpg combined. Technology moves far faster than you realize.
So you're predicting better mileage and co2 for the s55 based on a new M-B engine improved numbers.

The N55 came out 3 or 4 years after the N54 without any significant improvment on mpg or co2 emissions. You think 3 years later and with an extra 150hp,the " s55" will have better mpg than the N55?
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
US///M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-01-2012, 08:29 PM   #412
US///M3
Major
 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

Posts: 1,266
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
+1.

The new M3/4 WILL indeed have significantly better fuel efficiency than the current model. It also WILL have significantly less CO2 output (basically the same thing as mpg). It will also have much better than 14-16 mpg city. The closest example for reference is the I6 turbo in the 1M. That gets 19/26. The new M will be a bit heavier but will also likely have an 8 speed transmission where 8th gear will very likely be an overdrive type of gear. I actually expect better fuel efficiency than the 1M simply due to all of the engine redesigns and improved component efficiency, new/improved VANOS, improved direct injection, etc. My prediction is that both first digits of the city/highway mpg will actually be 2's. If babied on cruise control I'd be willing to bet the car will be capable of 30 mpg.
Maybe it'll have better mpg than the E36 M3 as well.
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
US///M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-02-2012, 02:09 AM   #413
US///M3
Major
 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

Posts: 1,266
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hwelvaar View Post
This sounds like redneck logic to me. How can one not care about the environment ?
That being said, I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean that each and every car has to become a green car.
When He drives a 1M with a combined 17mpg fuel mileage, and there are plenty cars out there with s combined 30mpg .
This is as dumb as a guy driving a Suburban lecturing the guy who drives an Excusion on the environment because He gets 12mpg rather than 11mpg.
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
US///M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-02-2012, 04:42 AM   #414
NISFAN
Brigadier General
 
NISFAN's Avatar
 
Drives: The best kind of F30 :)
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Bedford UK

Posts: 3,453
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Marketing absolutely does not decide which technical approach will be implemented or how a particular approach will be used to reach a top level product design goal. Engine engineers and designers are far far too clever and knowledgeable to be swayed by poor use of jargon by end users. Brand new engines are again $100M or hundereds of millions of dollars. Folks don't screw around with poor jargon or a misunderstanding of a very fine technical details with this kind of money at a company of this size..
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
But they appear in significantly different end products right?
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?



Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Don't state as fact if you won't discuss. I'd love to see the proof, not some BS gossip from a magazine...
This is not magazine gossip, well it was, but was from an interview with a top director, and his answer quoted verbatim. I can't be bothered to look up the text, but he cited crash preformance as the killer of inline 6 engines. It is only now that pedestrian crash performance has meant longer noses anyway, that we are getting back to having a decent crumple zone capable of housing an I6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
All I am saying is that an I6 is inherently less expensive than a similar V8. I have also shown how simple economy of scale makes high volume parts and systems less expensive than low volume ones. In this case, for BMW M, the I6 is the least expensive option, mostly due to economy of scale. I would also bet that at the same volume an I6 would be less expensive than a V6. There are other advantages of a V6 in terms of compactness that for some purposes may make that a necessity. The I6 physically may not fit.
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?
NISFAN is offline   England
0
Reply With Quote
      10-02-2012, 09:40 AM   #415
Carl L
Captain
 
Carl L's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 E92 M3 Jerez/Beige DCT
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: CA

Posts: 633
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by US///M3 View Post
So you're predicting better mileage and co2 for the s55 based on a new M-B engine improved numbers.

The N55 came out 3 or 4 years after the N54 without any significant improvment on mpg or co2 emissions. You think 3 years later and with an extra 150hp,the " s55" will have better mpg than the N55?
You keep quoting 17mpg for the 3.0. It does 23 city and 33 hwy. Stop making up figures. Every EPA advertised fuel mileage I have (and most others) been able to achieve, or better, unless racing the car.

To answer your question, yes the S55 engine will be able to achieve close to 30mpg highway and be far cleaner than the S65. Power output isn't a key factor as I've tried to show you.

I used a BMW example as well as Mercedes example, but you chose to ignore that as it's abundantly clear that you're either clueless or trolling. Enjoy your motorbike.
__________________
09 M3 E92: Jerez/Bamboo
-prev M-car: 08 M5
F80 M3 on order
Carl L is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-02-2012, 10:05 AM   #416
US///M3
Major
 
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China

Posts: 1,266
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl L View Post
You keep quoting 17mpg for the 3.0. It does 23 city and 33 hwy. Stop making up figures. Every EPA advertised fuel mileage I have (and most others) been able to achieve, or better, unless racing the car.

To answer your question, yes the S55 engine will be able to achieve close to 30mpg highway and be far cleaner than the S65. Power output isn't a key factor as I've tried to show you.

I used a BMW example as well as Mercedes example, but you chose to ignore that as it's abundantly clear that you're either clueless or trolling. Enjoy your motorbike.
Some real world numbers, the s65 matted with a DCT isnt too far off.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=751357
__________________
BMW R1200RT
All purpose, No pretense.

I'm back.
US///M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-02-2012, 02:24 PM   #417
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,943
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NISFAN View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
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 |

Last edited by swamp2; 10-02-2012 at 02:35 PM.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-02-2012, 03:16 PM   #418
Red Bread
Brigadier General
 
Drives: My wife's car
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Dallas, TX

Posts: 4,158
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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.
Seriously?! Is there any successful car company that doesn't use this approach? Would an M3 with a smog friendly BRM H16 be cool? Of course it would. Would a 3.0L V8 that revved to 11k rpm be cool? Yep, that too.

But those things don't make financial sense. Does a 730 hp V12 make financial sense in a $330k F12? Yep, some. Does an LS7 make financial sense in a Z06? Enough. Does leaving mechanical LSD's out of all non M cars make financial sense? Probably. Does saddling every car with subsidized RFT's and saving the cost of a spare, a lug wrench and a jack make financial sense? Yep.

I'm an accountant and I can't think of a single car that isn't burdened by the reality of cost savings. Even the ne plus ultra of stupid cars, the Veyron, would be massively cooler if it didn't weigh as much a Suburban, but making it lighter would have made it even more expensive.

Give the M3 a straight six, the engine it's had more often than any other configuration.
Red Bread is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
2013 bmw m3, 2013 bmw m4, 2013 m3, 2013 m3 air curtain, 2013 m4, 2014 bmw m3, 2014 m3, 2014 m3 air curtain, 2014 m3 engine, 2014 m3 forum, 2014 m3 renders, 2014 m3 tire size, 2014 m3 tires, 2015 m3 engine, air curtain, air curtain bmw, air curtain bmw m3, air curtain m3, bmw air curtain, bmw f80, bmw f80 engine, bmw f80 forum, bmw f80 forums, bmw f80 m3, bmw f80 m3 sedan, bmw f80 m3 video, bmw f80 video, bmw f82, bmw f82 forum, bmw f82 forums, bmw f82 m3, bmw f82 m3 coupe, bmw f82 m3 forum, bmw f82 m4, bmw f82 m4 coupe, bmw f83, bmw f83 m3, bmw f83 m4, bmw m forum, bmw m forums, bmw m3 air curtain, bmw m4, bmw m4 coupe, bmw m4 coupe forum, bmw m4 forum, bmw m4 forums, bmw spy, bmw spy photo, bmw spy photos, bmw spy pic, bmw spy pics, bmw spy video, bmw spy videos, bmw spyshot, bmw spyshots, f30 m3 renders, f80, f80 bmw m3 engine, f80 engine, f80 m3 engine

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 PM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST