09-29-2012, 09:33 PM | #375 |
Lieutenant
45
Rep 537
Posts
Drives: 2013 335i M
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Syracuse,NY
|
Thats....gonna be a fun car!!
__________________
M5 with lots of goodies
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-29-2012, 10:16 PM | #376 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
827
Rep 1,585
Posts |
Quote:
Both my N55 and the N54 have perceptible lag, they're more responsive than almost any other turbocharged engine ever produced but they are still miles away from the responsiveness of a naturally aspirated motor. This isn't such a huge deal, but on an M car I expect very granular throttle control mid-corner and my 135i is seriously lacking in this department compared to the E90 M3 my brother used to have. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-29-2012, 10:37 PM | #377 | |
Colonel
123
Rep 2,024
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 04:26 AM | #378 | |
Major General
3422
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
Would be a stupid business model to ignore over 50% of their market. In fact BMW are actually increasing market share in Europe because they are the leaders in CO2 reduction. Manufacturers in Europe also have to reduce their average CO2 emissions below set targets, otherwise recieve fines. The M3 is not exempt. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 05:00 AM | #379 | |||
Major General
3422
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
Where they feel the biggest deficit of boosted power is just off idle. This is not lag, this is a Turbo below it's boost threshold. i.e. in a rev range where the turbo is not getting enough exhaust energy to produce positive boost. If the engine were kept below this threshold boost would never be produced. Quote:
Quote:
Now if you were to drive this Turbo S65 M3 you would get used to the intoxicating power that the turbo produces. After a few hours behind the wheel you would start to notice the how poor the response is below 4000rpm. This is your same beloved S65 but without boost, that seemed to have a lovely spread of torque, but now feels flat un boosted. This is what I mean, a Normally aspirated engine has lag all the way to the red line, as it never gets that high torque boost hit. Make sense now? |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 11:13 AM | #380 | |||
Moderator
7537
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Quote:
The bottom line is that no matter what costs we are talking about, having two engines that provide the same power output is going to cost more than having just one. I don't think that point is really up for debate. It is elementary. So, do you know how much these engines we are discussing cost to produce? Do you at least have relative figures, or estimates based on some hard data? If not I don't know how much sense it makes to debate that particular issue further. Quote:
Quote:
And yet I'd all but guarantee that the I6 will not replace the V8. I'd put money on it in fact. So, if you allow yourself to believe the same then you must also admit that there are other factors at play here. And those factors, as I mention earlier, relate to marketing and branding concerns such as exclusivity and buyer perception. After all, BMW has been building M engines since the very inception of the brand which overlap in function with engines in their normal series vehicles. This is not likely to change any time soon in my opinion - but if it did you better believe that it would save BMW a heap of money. And that is why I cannot agree that a bespoken M engine is the cheapest route, nor for that matter do I believe that the development of the S65 and S85 were the cheapest way for BMW to get to the current generation 414hp M3 and last generation 500hp M5. The S65 did not receive further developments because of cost - sure. We all know that. But when you make statements like this one: "It absolutely is not the Government(s) that are causing BMW to majorly change engine platforms in M cars. It is higher profit through much higher part commonality." You lose credibility in my eyes because you have never once demonstrated with hard numbers that it would be possible to produce a 450hp S65 that would lead to any profit whatsoever. In fact it may have led to a loss which easily disqualifies it from consideration. You have no proof that this is not the case, and the "it's all about money" argument falls flat for the reasons I stated above. Furthermore, you seem to suggest BMW will be more profitable using an N55 based solution for the M3, but if that is the case then why did they ever move to the S65 and S85 to begin with? They had been successfully building engines based on series engine architecture from the beginning. Did they suddenly decide back in 2000 or so that they didn't want to be as profitable as they had been in the past? It doesn't add up. To my trained eye, M Division is doing exactly what they have been doing all along - building special cars for enthusiasts based on their more pedestrian products for the masses, and with a good deal of major changes and upgrades to accomplish that goal. There is no fundamental difference this time around, and there is no new focus on money grabbing vs. providing a product that is true to the brand. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 11:14 AM | #381 |
Moderator
7537
Rep 19,368
Posts |
I don't think it will be called the S55Tu simply because the N55 was designed from the outset with Valvetronic. BMW added the Tu suffix to the S63, and later then N63, when those gained Valvetronic throttle operation. That upgrade won't be happening with I6 engine family, so there will be no need for the name change.
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 04:43 PM | #383 | |
Colonel
376
Rep 2,388
Posts
Drives: M2 Competition
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay, CA
|
Quote:
I do have a question for you. Do you think there is a possibility of a larger displacement I6? (I remember reading that the best size was .5L/cylinder for maximum output.) for the intelligent reply |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 06:44 PM | #384 | |||||||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
There is simply no debate that a very high volume turbo I6 will cost less to produce than a similar turbo V8. There is also no debate that an engine being produced to the tune of 400k/year will be less expensive than 20k/year. Quote:
Quote:
If you think that there costs, specifically cost of their engine, are either staying flat or going up that is pure absurdity. Quote:
Quote:
If you think BMW M of 2015 is or will be the same as BMW M of 2000 either in terms of R&D, cost structure or key philosophies you are just wrong. As BMRLVR points out should we really be surprised that companies are primarily driven by profit? Time to stop the romance...
__________________
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
|
09-30-2012, 07:49 PM | #385 |
Banned
100
Rep 1,265
Posts
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China
|
In line 6's are a thing of the past,there was a time when a lot of car manufacturers offered the inline 6 with M-B producing the most refined inline 6's.
Even Jeep quit making inline 6's about 10 years. A short block engine is the way to go imo. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 08:54 PM | #386 | |
Banned
100
Rep 1,265
Posts
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 09:13 PM | #387 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Engine Costs (and price): (A continuation/expansion of comments above in my post #388)
According to BMWfans.info, which I believe is just data directly from BMW repackaged, a 2009 (no newer data) S65 motor costs about $22.5k, an N54 costs $13.5k. Now this is the cost to a consumer. We can not deduce actual cost to the manufacturer from this but we can get a rough idea. Obviously these consumer costs are much higher than actual cost as you can not have an engine that costs over $20k in car that has a base sticker cost of $58k. You also have both OEM and dealer profit margins included in these figures. This factor of almost 2 between the engines cost should not be surprising. The N54 is less expensive because (not counting the FI system):
Now we know the version of the N55 in the M3/4 will be fairly heavily massaged. Probably a different head, different turbos, more costly cooling system and maybe even some internals. This will raise its cost above the base engine. What I would be willing to guarantee is that the first digit of the total replacement cost of this new engine will be 1 not 2! The twin turbo V8 from the X6 and 7er (again 2009) has a cost of $21.9k. It cost more than the N55 due to the same points above but the opposite:
This should answer definitively why a V8 turbo is not in the M3. BMW M does not believe the V8 is required in the application for prestige nor to make the required power and the N55 based engine will be substantially less expensive. An educated guess on what factor these consumer costs are compared to actual production costs is not easy. Thus I would offer a reasonable range. Call this a bounding argument. I think the total markup factor is between 2-4. Thus I would place the cost to BMW of the N54 somewhere in the $3.5k-$7k range (probably closer to the lower end). Similarly the cost of the S65 is likely in the range of $5.5k-11k. That means the likely savings of a N54 priced N55 (using N54 cost estimate) is about 100,000 x ($2k - $4k) or between $200-400 million. 100,000 is the rough production volume of the M3 over its lifespan. This does not account for the other vehicles that may get a slightly tweaked version of the M3/4 specific engine. Development Costs: I have seen multiple references (internet/google, nothing special/secret) that peg complete new engine development at a major OEM in the $1B dollar range. However, I have also seen more references that an entire vehicle development costs that much. I think the latter is much more accurate. $1B is a stinking lot of cash. That is $100k in salary and $100k in facilities for about 3500 workers working for 18 months... (typical new vehicle development time). An engine is however a truly major component of a new vehicle development. At the big OEMs a figure on the order of $100M is probably reasonable. With these numbers I would revise my prior statements that the cost of the economy of scale likely dwarfs development costs. I think this is a very reasonable argument that for these particular engines, the savings from taking the M3/4 to an I6 from NA V8 are on the same order as the development cost of an entirely new engine. However, the development cost is largely a moot point since we are talking about a massaged N55 NOT an entirely new engine. Certainly though when considering the possibility of another vehicle specific M engine, possibly an evolved direct injected S65 vs. a massaged N55 we are clearly talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of savings in development and production. This is clearly THE primary reason why the car does not have an existing turbo V8 nor a totally new M specific engine. I am open to anyone's estimates or data to revise these numbers. However, because of the bracketing and large range of the concluded figures it is probably a very reasonable figure. The number here is certainly not $1B and is also not only $10's of millions 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 | |
Appreciate
0
|
09-30-2012, 09:45 PM | #388 | |||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
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
|
10-01-2012, 03:57 AM | #389 |
Major General
3422
Rep 9,708
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-01-2012, 04:23 AM | #390 | |
Major
118
Rep 1,140
Posts |
Quote:
That being said, I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean that each and every car has to become a green car. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-01-2012, 04:50 AM | #391 | ||||
Major General
3422
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
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. There are plenty of Nissan RB26 engines (inline 6, 2.6litre) revving to well over 10,000rpm Turbo charged, producing in excess of 600hp. You have to understand with those engines that the powerband only starts at 3,500rpm, but if driven correctly on a track, you would never go below 4000rpm so never out of boost threshold region. This concept is very sporty and such a rewarding sensation when you get it right in rif=ding that Turbo charged wave of power..... .....but because all the NA enthusiast whining, engine designers are building low boost threshold twin /triple turbo systems with a compact rev range overall. Not fun to drive. Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
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. 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. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
10-01-2012, 06:05 AM | #392 |
Banned
100
Rep 1,265
Posts
Drives: 1973 Jensen Interceptor
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Shanghai, People's Republic of China
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-01-2012, 07:04 AM | #393 | |
Enlisted Member
2
Rep 40
Posts
Drives: Drives Nov. delivery 335i 6mt
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Alberta
|
Seriously?!
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-01-2012, 10:27 AM | #394 |
European Editor
10757
Rep 22,992
Posts |
Lets not forget this little gem I posted awhile back... its looking to be right on the money so far!
332kw = 452 PS While this engine should have ended up in the 1M... it looks like it is destined for the new M3. I have heard from three sources so far that the next M3 will be based on the N55 and called the S55. It will have vanous head and forged camshaft/crankshaft and pistons and rods. I hear the power output will be in the 440 PS range. It also might have some pretty cool CF use of part slike a CF driveshaft. I also hear the DCT is all new with "more gears" than currently employed. I guess in time we shall see whats what. Dack
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-01-2012, 12:23 PM | #395 | |
Major
196
Rep 1,248
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-01-2012, 12:27 PM | #396 | |
European Editor
10757
Rep 22,992
Posts |
Quote:
The above screen shot is an old picture from almost two years ago! Dack
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|