|
View Poll Results: S65 option or S55 standart ? | |||
YES ... I would choose the S65 if an option at this price would be availiable | 93 | 45.81% | |
NO ... I would choose the standart S55 engine | 110 | 54.19% | |
Voters: 203. You may not vote on this poll |
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
06-01-2014, 08:27 PM | #574 |
First Lieutenant
131
Rep 371
Posts |
Ok, but again, unless you raise the base price of the car, in what other category could you have cut costs while improving performance? And without departing from the M luxo sports car formula?
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 08:42 PM | #575 |
Lieutenant Colonel
1998
Rep 1,759
Posts |
It's of course cost + emission that drives a manufacturer to choose specific engine design for their car.
Horse power & Torque are just one of the many objectives to meet. Porsche 997 GT3 RS 4.0 developed 500 PS/493 hp at 8250 rpm and 460N·m/ 339 lbf·ft of torque at 5750 rpm. I personally would rather to have this type of racing heritage engine from BMW M. It makes the car more special. A high power/torque engine can be fitted onto any cars. When a high power, high revving engine with lightning response you know it's made for specific purposes. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 09:15 PM | #576 |
Captain
131
Rep 690
Posts |
They downsized because of a overall goal to decrease emissions and fuel.
They could have made a reworked S65 V8. that was little bigger, and had more modern tec. Power could have been 450HP EASY. with a MPG bump. although torque still wouldn't be like the S55. Look at the C63 AMG. the next gen is going to make just about the same power as the 507 edition. Yet they are going to use a 4.0L Trubo V8. the trubo rotue isnt really bring more power to the table. more so keep the power around the same while getting better fuel economy/emission. anyone who think BMW went trubo solely on the reason to get better performance. is fanboy at there best. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 09:40 PM | #577 | |
General
21145
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
An S65B44 with DI could have comfortably made 460~480ps. The engine would have likely weighed slightly less than the S55. This would have made fantastic F8X M3s and M4s that would have outperformed the cars with the S55 (better acceleration, better throttle response and better sound). DI would have improved emissions slightly but not sufficiently enough to meet European legislation corporate targets. The cost of the engine would have also likely been prohibitive. As stated, IMO, BMW went with the S55 for two reasons: cost and emissions. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 09:49 PM | #578 |
Banned
1132
Rep 4,686
Posts
Drives: L'Orange
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 09:54 PM | #579 | |
Major General
903
Rep 9,034
Posts |
Quote:
Isn't the S55 lighter than the S65 by a few pounds? I'm sure the S55 was HUGE in allowing BMW to essentially keep the price the same as the E9x M3. .
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 10:00 PM | #580 |
General
21145
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 10:23 PM | #581 | |
///M Uber Alles
333
Rep 1,601
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 10:25 PM | #582 | |
General
21145
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
That is not what I said. I stated that a development of the S65 would have not met corporate emissions targets. IMO, from a pure performance point of view, a development of the S65 would have made a better engine. But it could not meet two very important targets: cost and emissions. Last edited by CanAutM3; 06-01-2014 at 10:32 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 10:55 PM | #583 | |
///M Uber Alles
333
Rep 1,601
Posts |
Quote:
I'm saying ... I don't think it's as simple as that. The likely result of going the direction you suggest would have been a thirstier engine that would not perform as well - unless they could sell them way above their current price point. Another factor you are not considering is that there would be a big risk for BMW to hitch its wagon to a big V8 for the next seven years when they might not be able to sell enough of them because even enthusiasts are turning away from the "ain't no replacement for displacement" mentality.
__________________
die Welt ist meine Auster 2015 M4, MW, Black Full Merino, DCT, CCB, Adaptive M Suspension, Premium, Executive. Technology, ConnectedDrive, CF Trim, Convenience Telephony, European Delivery |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-01-2014, 11:34 PM | #584 | |
Captain
131
Rep 690
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 12:38 AM | #585 | |
Colonel
503
Rep 2,397
Posts |
The S55 or other TC engines are not what the M-Division originally intended to produce. There are direct quotes from the former (yes, former and now 'retired') management at M who said stated they will never go forced induction.
Why didn't they want to produce a TC/FI M engine? Is it because they are anti-power and torque? Is it because they don't want cost savings? Or is it because in motorsport applications a linear power curve and instant throttle response are highly desirable characteristics due to throttle control and smooth application. Ever drive a TC vs and NA car on the track? I know what I prefer and we can also surmise that they didn't say this stuff just to be controversial. No one will know the answer, but I'm willing to bet that the development of the S65 and S85 probably were at very little to no profit per vehicle. This is about emissions and cost savings and if you don't believe it, just look at BMW's own investor presentations and conferences, particularly the ones from 4-5 years ago. That is what has been driving all the decisions at the company. Linear power curves and instantaneous throttle response didn't make the investor powerpoints. Cylinder de-activation, more aggressive/flexible cams, direct injection, better ECU coding, variable plenum sizing, higher displacement, lower mass on engine/transmission parts, gear skipping, rpm limits on eco modes can easily wring 460-470 bhp on the top end and improve fuel economy. Also, with proper gearing at least 420 bhp on the downshifts could be achieved, thereby equaling or surpassing the S55 performance wise. Yes, the new M3/4 is faster than its predecessor, but I'm still not at all convinced this is the best BMW could have given us for this price point (and keep their profit margin the same as with the S65, ie lower than what they are getting with the S55, as this is their Halo car.. they have plenty of other high volume applications to exercise their greed). A higher hp N/A car would have been ideal and would have made the decision of getting the new one vs keeping mine a no-brainer. A high TQ number (to the crank) is so overrated, especially on the track. You get a little more speed exiting corners, but for a broad powerband range for the S65, any shortcoming on that front is more than made up with the powerband breadth, top end speed, and smooth throttle application. I see this over and over again against N/A and TC cars on the track. Especially for amateurs like myself, throttle control and not disrupting the chassis is so important, that the S65 is already pretty much perfect and tuned/improved to the order of 450-470 bhp would have been the ideal solution IMO. I have driven the 1M on the track and way too lumpy/punchy power delivery for my taste. Know the S55 improves on this, but unless physics can change how fast air molecules can travel, there will always be turbo lag or lack of initial response to changes in throttle application and power delivery will not be as linear. Quote:
Last edited by FogCityM3; 06-02-2014 at 12:44 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 01:49 AM | #586 | |
Major General
903
Rep 9,034
Posts |
Quote:
On the flip side, BMW know's MAYBE 2% of the F8x will go on a track more than 1-2 times, if that, and all the torque and pushi n the back down low is what the average //M buyer wants now. because it "feels fast." .
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 02:28 AM | #587 | |
Captain
131
Rep 690
Posts |
Quote:
Radical gearing, high revving N/A engine is epic on the tracks. i guess these days are over. unless you wanna drop 300k on a Lamborghini. dont worry once everything single car is a small turbo engine. once they all sound like rice and all make the same noise. People will look back at these days. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 03:30 AM | #588 | |||
Lieutenant
179
Rep 464
Posts |
Quote:
Whow ... it could not be explained better Quote:
What really counts for the BMW AG are mainly costs ... and here not development cost but production cost ... the one-of-a-kind unique S65 has to be produce in the munich "Sondermotorenbau" because it fit in no BMW engine production plant. Emmission is only another problem, but if there would be any minimum will to go the traditional NA way it would be solved. And to my informations an S65B44 was not the choise if they would go NA further ... but an S65B40 with all the internals of the GTS engine - better internal cylinder materials with less friction would be the way they would go with the V8 and also I don´t think DI wouldn´t be an real option they had. And lightly modified S65B40 would easily produce the needed 440-460hp. Also there are other (better than the N55) turbo concepts which will bring an power delivery in the traditional BMW M way ... like for example an 3.0(?)ltr.V6 BiTurbo based on an shorted S63Tü which were developed but also ruled out because of production cost reasons. I beleave many would be pissed off if BMW brings this engine in the all new BMW/Toyota sportwagen(?) ... because they see how capable and M worthy this concept is. Quote:
According the my informations the weight numbers S65 vs. S55 are 202kg to 205kg - the stated 10kg minus are only for the basic engine without cooling and other parts. And because the old M-DCT is also some kg lighter than the new one ... an M3/M4 with an S65 and the best availiable gearbox would also some few kg lighter (not really important for performance, but indeed the case!) |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 08:50 AM | #590 | ||
...
11832
Rep 15,400
Posts |
Quote:
stfu Clan, or I'll analyze you.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 09:04 AM | #591 |
Law Enforcer
26687
Rep 22,641
Posts
Drives: '22 Chalk Gray Porsche C2S
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ..in your rearview!!!
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 09:18 AM | #592 | |
...
11832
Rep 15,400
Posts |
LOL, yes, we are. Not all of us are all fun and games, some of us needs coffee too.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 11:15 AM | #593 |
Major General
3545
Rep 5,001
Posts |
And if BMW M would've put that S65 engine into the F8X with the changes they needed to make for any improvement over the predecessor, we would've been spending $10k-15k more on the car.
No thanks. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-02-2014, 11:27 AM | #594 | |
Brigadier General
853
Rep 3,242
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
'21 /// M5 Comp - Frozen Brilliant White/Black
'18 Porsche GT3 Carrara White/Black/Red - Sold '18 /// M3 - Individual Imola/Black - Sold '15 /// M4 - YMB/SO - Sold '12 E92 ///M3 ZCP - AW/FR - Sold |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|