04-12-2012, 03:04 PM | #23 |
Brigadier General
433
Rep 3,888
Posts |
Back on topic, of course a small dispalcement V8 will be better, but it will have to be build from ground up, what would be too expensive.
However, a possibily would be to build the 1.6l I4 engine into a 3.2l V8 engine, buy putting the two blocks together in a 90° V8 form. The 1.6l I4 making up to 220 PS, as a V8 it would make 440 PS, all this from a light 3.2l V8. There were rumors of Alfa Romeo working on a 3.0l V8 for their falgship 169, but I guess it is no more in the works as the 169 is cancelled. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-13-2012, 08:19 AM | #24 | ||
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
Quote:
Keep in mind, Audi is not sticking with N/A except possibly for the R8. Aside from that car, the RS5 and new RS4 will be the last applications for the 4.2L FSI. There are also rumors of Porsche moving to turbocharged engines for the base Carrera and Carrera S. Presumably, however, the GT3 family will remain N/A for the forseeable future. Quote:
In fact, BMW has always had more than one displacement V8 engine in their stable until the current generation N63 V8 TT. And, with the N62 and M62 at least, to my knowledge, the differences in parts between the different displacement applications is quite minimal. Just the crank, rods, and block (which is cast the same, but machined differently). However for a potential lower displacement S63, they could even use the same bore size as the the current 4.4L, destroking it only, meaning the block would be identical. This would also give them a very short stroke engine at ~3.0L displacement or so, ideal for revving. Perhaps they could then increase the redline from the current 7200RPM to 8000RPM for more top end power. Now, I acknowledge that there would still be the issues of weight and size vs. a V6, though an I6 may also have some of those same issues as well. A better solution from an engineering standpoint would obviously be a completely original small displacement V8 design that took advantage of the small ~3.0L displacement to shrink the block down somewhat. Rather like the various custom Hayabusa-based V8s out there. These are very compact and light - lighter than most V6s, and probably even lighter than an N55. This of course, would be very costly. But I am not convinced it would have to be any more costly than a V6 which also be a completely new design. This is partly why I don't believe in the V6 to begin with. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-13-2012, 08:43 AM | #25 | |
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
Quote:
When you think about it on those or other terms it sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? Sure, there is a lot of congruity between similar parts, subsystems, and assemblies of similar automotive products (or any industry for that matter). And certainly, in reocognition of this fact, common engineering and design tenets are adhered to. And yes, of course we do share parts as much as possible. But the N63 is an evolution of the modern BMW V8, going back to the M60. It was not designed with a V6 in mind. You don't just hack something together (or apart as it were). So, yes, while we know BMW is working to achieve more commonality across their engines, they are also starting with a "clean sheet" design to achieve this. The real world isn't like building with Legos. You don't just take parts off to reshape your creations into others. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-13-2012, 08:51 AM | #26 |
Private First Class
5
Rep 103
Posts |
What are you discussing around here?
But anyway is just a pimped N55 ... so it was a I6 ... more ... everything is pointless to discuss. I will pay at least not for the additional cost of 30,000 € 335i for a little software, suspension, brakes and optics. Good-bye BMW ... |
Appreciate
0
|
04-13-2012, 08:56 AM | #27 | ||
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
Sorry to quote myself, but it is a nice segue.
Do you all suppose the Hayabusa V8s were cheap to develop? After all, its just two Hayabusa engines stuck together, right? Do yourself a favor and google the development process for these. It was VERY challenging and expensive. Quote:
Quote:
It would nevertheless be neat. But how compact? You may end up with something 95% of an N63 in size. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-13-2012, 09:49 AM | #28 | |
Lieutenant
105
Rep 585
Posts |
Quote:
Greets Uli_HH Last edited by Uli_HH; 04-13-2012 at 03:54 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-13-2012, 02:04 PM | #29 | |
Brigadier General
433
Rep 3,888
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-13-2012, 09:03 PM | #30 |
Private First Class
32
Rep 172
Posts |
Why is there this utter contempt for basing the M3/M4's engine on a series production motor? Besides the E90/E92 M3 and the E60 M5, this has been the case for every generation of the M3 and all other M vehicles. I have no qualms of the F8X using an engine based on the N55 so long as there is significant differentiation and development to make it special as the S54 was.
__________________
2004 E46 M3, Jet Black/Black Interior, SMG II, Nav/Fully Loaded
"I feel the need... ...the need for speed!" |
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2012, 05:41 AM | #31 | |
Brigadier General
433
Rep 3,888
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2012, 06:18 PM | #32 | |
Special Agent
74
Rep 1,731
Posts |
Quote:
Look at the N54 lifecycle- look at the N55 life cycle- When is the F80 debuting and how long will it be around? Will the N55 be the basis? Or will BMW debut a new engine layout in the F80 which will preclude the series production vehicle (They just did this with the 63tü). Food for your thoughts... and remember how much power BMWi is getting out of that i8 3 cylinder (then double it).
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 06:26 AM | #34 |
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
No at all likely.
Displacement, not cylinder count, will figure into the efficiency equation. So a 3L V8, like the OP specifically mentioned, should be just as efficient as a 3L I6, all else being equal (i.e. similar valvetrain, ignition, fuel injection, and induction system technology). |
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 09:04 AM | #35 | |
Major General
4463
Rep 9,160
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 09:47 AM | #36 | ||||
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
I don't know why there is need for a hostile, sarcastic tone. I would ask that you lighten it up a bit. Becoming aggressive does not strengthen your argument, it weakens it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...isplacement.29 The best V8 is marginally lower than the best six cylinder. And note that these are very nearly the same displacement engine. The difference could easily be due to other factors involved, such as the design of the valvetrain, heads, induction system, etc. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 10:08 AM | #37 |
Major General
4463
Rep 9,160
Posts |
Sorry if I seemed hostile, this is just a pretty simple issue. Of course we're speculating, BMW won't build another small displacement V8. They've done it numerous times in the past, but I suspect the S65 will be the smallest V8 they build for the next decade or more.
I'm a huge fan of unique motors, but the I6 is plenty unique these days and more tied to BMW than a V8. However, the aluminum block 4.0l S65 was lighter than the iron block 3.2l S54b32, so that was an example of the M folks taking advantage of a good opportunity to up their game with natural aspiration. The E9x cars, while heavy and complex are pretty impressive track machines, and sound glorious. I can see why you'd be interested in a continuation of the V8 character, but emissions, complexity and available engine designs just made the I6 decision that much easier. I was trying to point out that the inherent lack of balance in a V8 will make it heavier than an I6 if constructed with similar designs, meaning that the crankshaft will have to be heavier, the extra valves, plugs, etc will also more than offset any gains from lighter pistons and con rods. It's a neat idea, I'd love it if BMW wasn't in the game of making money and could build a great, small displacement V8 for an actual sports car like the Z2. I'm not a fan of turbos in M cars, but at the same time, the horrific efficiency of the S65 kept me from buying an E90, I just can't personally own a car that gets such poor mileage. So hopefully the F8x cars address that and continue to move the M brand forward, there's a lot riding on this, as each generation of M3 has sold more in proportion to the "regular", non M cars. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 10:25 AM | #38 |
Major General
4463
Rep 9,160
Posts |
One more thing to discuss. This has actually been the most unknown period of M3 engine speculation I can recall, I was actually quite intrigued to watch it play out. I was hoping for a V6, just to continue the ever-changing nature of the M3. While it's certainly not tied to any BMW history, it would have made for the best packaging. Something the E9x M cars, and the N20 F30 have revealed to many dyed in the wool BMW drivers is that the I6, while nicely balanced and smooth is also long and generally lends a nose heavy feel to the cars.
So a V6 was intriguing, but it would still have two cylinder heads and four cams like a V8, unlike an I6, but could retain the same individual cylinder displacement, which does help with low end torque. It would have been interesting to see the M approach for a V6, but I guess we'll have to wait. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 11:06 AM | #39 | |
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
Quote:
It comes down to the one thing that matters to a business: money. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 11:09 AM | #40 | |
Major General
4463
Rep 9,160
Posts |
Quote:
I was really hoping that Jaguar would get the F-Type right and do a straight six, but I suppose Jag doesn't have the resources for that and they saddled it with a V6. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 11:14 AM | #41 |
Moderator
7509
Rep 19,370
Posts |
When Ford owned both Jaguar and Volvo, there were rumors of the Volvo I6 seeing use in future Jags - too bad then that Volvo went to Geely instead of Tata. It is a pretty stout engine - on par with an N55 in my opinion. Would have made a nice engine for the F-Type (reconfigured for longitudinal application, of course).
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2012, 11:30 AM | #42 | |
Major General
4463
Rep 9,160
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2012, 02:02 AM | #43 |
Lieutenant
40
Rep 544
Posts
Drives: BMW 435i xDrive M-Sport
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Montreal, QC
|
M3 is a sports car, not a family targeted fuel-efficient car IMO.
It's engine should keep getting bigger.. They arguably built the world's best V8 from 07 to 12, why go back to an I6 for fuel-efficiency? We're talking M3 for God's sake... I am currently pissed at BMW for this. Long live S65. E9X M3 will be prestigious. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2012, 04:18 AM | #44 |
Colonel
232
Rep 2,643
Posts |
IMO if BMW wants to make a V6, they should design a new block with 60 degree V angle. Otherwise a V6 with 90 degree V angle will sound worse and vibrate more than the Japanese competitors, eg. Nissan GTR.
I would also prefer if BMW would make a smaller capacity turbo six for the 1 series and non-M models. In my usage, the N55 gets better fuel efficiency than the 2.5 litre naturally aspirated N52, so I expect a 2.5 litre turbo six would be the most efficient of all. I will never buy a BMW with a 4 cylinder. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|