|
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 |
12-28-2013, 07:34 AM | #353 |
Banned
10
Rep 390
Posts |
Perhaps when some M4's roll into Mich, we can run a little expero..
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 08:07 AM | #354 | |
Banned
10
Rep 390
Posts |
Quote:
4.0 liter BMW V8, is much easier to modulate, than a V8 Vette. Quite frankly, there are more increment on the tach, with a high revving engine, than with a low revving engine. That's your fist clue. Power has zero to do with the equation my friend. Modulation is a function of response of the mechanical energy and gearing. We could be talking about electric motor (w/same hp) spinning at diff rates, and diff gearing. The one with the higher revolutions, has more modulation, fact! There is more precision, thus more modulation. Granted, depending on the exact car, exact manifold and engine, there will be different response times (or lag) to that modulation. PS: re-maping your throttle only change the modulation, it doesn't add more increment of modulation. PPS: I only mentioned a turbo, because they are not high revving engines and I was keeping it in the BMW family. Last edited by w3rkn; 12-28-2013 at 08:12 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 08:27 AM | #355 | |
Major General
1718
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
Us poor Europeans with our diesel engined passenger cars then... They only rev to around 4000rpm. It's SOOOO hard to modulate the throttle on those engines Not to mention the poor truck drivers that only has a rev range of 1500-2000rpm... So what you are saying is that any regular US V8 engine in a pickup is more difficult to modulate throttle on than the M3 V8... You are confusing the range of modulation with ease of modulation. You can have a short range, but modulation can be easy or difficult. As well as having a long range and easy or difficulty in modulation. The point is that a low rpm engine can have a proportionally longer throttle pedal travel, so that each millimeter of pedal movement amounts to less movement of throttle opening than in a different engine. Thereby giving you the same ability to accurately modulate throttle input. And the point about the turbo is that it's the way the power is delivered that can create a difficulty in throttle modulation. It's kinda like if you have a volume knob on your stereo that is linear from 0-3, but then has a abrupt rise from 3 to 5 and then goes back to being linear again. Around 3-5 you will have problems getting the volume exactly as you want because the modulation at that point is very tricky... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 09:10 AM | #356 | |
Banned
10
Rep 390
Posts |
Quote:
My friend, I never said it was hard, just harder. All cars have the same length pedal, you mean "longer" in the sense you can go threw that car's powerband longer... not that the pedal actually has longer travel. It takes more precision, to modulate a car that has less RPMs. than one that has more rpms. This is a fact! Holding 3,350rpms on a tach that goes to 5k, or doing the same with one that goes to 8,900rpms..? Those increment on the tachometer, illustrate what you feel with your foot.. rpms. More increment, more modulation. This is a simple fact my friend. example: (constant 30mph) 1mm of pedal travel on a 1M in 3rd gear, gives more thrust, more MPH, than the same 1mm of pedal travel on a high-revving M3. Every single movement of you foot on a 9k engine, is felt by the passenger, because the modulation is near 1 to 1. (Higher multiplier in low revving engines.) Secondly, why do u keep bringing up Turbo vs V8? I am strictly talking about RPM range. I already clarified that I brought up "turbo" because they are not high-revving engines. Lastly, turbo lag has zero to do with my point, as turbo lag is different from every manufacturer, or design. Lag hinders modulation.. everyone knows that. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 10:12 AM | #358 | |||
Major General
1718
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
The Ferrari F40 had a redline at 7750rpm, the McLaren MP4-12C is redlined at 8500rpm and the S55 at 7600rpm. Quote:
On my F10 I can choose between two settings on throttle modulation. Normal which uses all the throttle pedal movement to go from 0-100% throttle valve opening. In Sport I only use approximately 2/3rds of pedal movement to get to 100%. In Sport it's "harder" to modulate the throttle because small throttle pedal changes makes larger inputs on the throttle valve (I.e a 5mm pedal change means 10degree change in throttle valve, whereas in Normal a 5mm pedal change means only 5 degree change in throttle valve movement - Just as an example). That is one way of making it easy to modulate throttle on low rpm engines... And say that you have 10cm (100mm) of throttle pedal movement available and assuming, as you do, that the ratio between throttle input and output is the same on all cars: -On a engine with a 10.000rpm redline, each cm of pedal travel would mean a 1000rpm change -On a engine with a 5000rpm redline, each cm of pedal travel would mean a 500rpm change Which of the above would be more difficcult to modulate? The one where 1cm of pedal travel equates to a 1000rpm change or the one where 1 cm equates just a 500rpm change? I drive cars which has both a 4000rpm redline and a 7500rpm redline. It's not even slightly more difficult to modulate the throttle on those low rpm engines than it is on the two with 7000+rpm redline... Last edited by Boss330; 12-28-2013 at 10:18 AM.. |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 11:32 AM | #359 | |
Banned
10
Rep 390
Posts |
Quote:
My friend, I am not assuming anything. I have stated simple facts that are mathematically proven so that YOU understand my premise. I simply have not said ANY of the things you are accusing me of. I have no reason to type, if it isn't the truth, not here to win a war of words, but what I have laid out for you is indeed factual. Secondly, your analogies are defunct, because they go off on a tangent that isn't germane to the convo. Your whole F10 is meaningless, because even though the software changes how/when/why, that Ferrari's engine modulation is based on the size (length) of it's powerband. You rebuttals are nothing more than u adding on a bunch of qualifiers (ie: throttle maping), which can be done on both high revving cars, or low revving cars. Utterly moot points. Thirdly, you mention degrees and throttle positions, trying to get specific, but fail to understand that those are engine speeds, but when placed on the ground, you still have mechanical gearing that multiplies those subtle inputs of RPMs. Taller gears, multiply every little input more. FACT. High rpm engines typically have smaller gear, not taller ones. As it stands, really hard to understand your point honestly, because you have not made any counter claims, other than "It's not even slightly more difficult to modulate the throttle". Which I call hogwash.. as your statement sounds way more illogical than mine, doesn't it? Anyways, I am in favor of the turbo engine & torque. Screaming engines do nothing for me. Last edited by w3rkn; 12-28-2013 at 11:50 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 12:22 PM | #360 | |
Major General
1718
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
Ferrari's modulation is based on size of it's powerband, yes. Just as the modulation of a 4500rpm redline diesel is based on the size of that engine's powerband Second bold point: Throttle mapping, is exactly how manufacturers go about creating a throttle system that the driver can modulate Third bold point: Are you in reality rather talking about gearing and not throttle modulation? If so, let's take one more example: Car 1 with a redline of 5000rpm and tall gearing. 10cm throttle pedal travel to go 0-100% Car 2 with a redline of 10.000rpm and short gearing. 10cm throttle pedal travel to go 0-100% Car 1 with a 5000rpm redline, each cm of pedal travel would mean a 500rpm change Car 2 with a 10.000rpm redline, each cm of pedal travel would mean a 1000rpm change Car 1 does 30MPH at 1000rpm and 60MPH at 2000rpm in 6th Car 2 does 30MPH at 2000rpm and 60MPH at 4000rpm in 6th To increase the speed from 30MPH to 60MPH in each car the throttle pedal has to be depressed as follows in each car: Car 1: 1cm of pedal travel equals 500rpm increase, so a 2cm pedal input is needed to go from 1000rpm to 2000rpm, or from 30 to 60MPH in 6th gir Car 2: 1cm of pedal travel equals 1000rpm increase, so a 2cm pedal input is needed to go from 2000rpm to 4000rpm, or from 30 to 60MPH in 6th gir My whole point is that throttle modulation/travel is mapped (in todays fly by wire throttles) to suit the engine and it's rev range. And if a low rpm engine has a pedal travel of 2cm, instead of 1cm, to increase rpm by 1000rpm, then that negates the effect of taller gearing BTW, it's just as hard/easy to go to a set rpm in both the low rpm diesel and the 7000+rpm NA engine. In the diesel the throttle pedal feels "lazy" as it needs more travel to get the same response compared with my NA engined cars. As I explained above, on the diesel it needs more pedal travel to increase rpm by 1000rpm, making it just as easy to hit a set target speed (or rpm). And then we should also take into consideration that manufacturers actually have different length of pedal travel and different ratio between pedal movement and throttle valve opening... I'm sure you believe what you are saying is correct and that you aren't just arguing for the sake of it And I have thought through your comments. But I don't see the logic. Because if a engine with half the rev range has the same pedal travel at disposal, then surely every similar input gives only half of the rpm increase as the high rpm engine does. Thereby also negating the taller gearing of that lower rpm engine... But to stay on topic, the S55 has a 7600rpm redline so it's "only" 900rpm down on the S65. Last edited by Boss330; 12-28-2013 at 12:55 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 12:52 PM | #361 | |
General
21117
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
I think what w3rkn is alluding to is more the modulation of torque rather than the increase in RPM. Bigger engines tend to produce more torque at lower RPM where the full throttle opening is not required to get maximum torque. This means that this big torque output is controlled only by the first few degrees of throttle opening, making it more difficult to modulate. Having had the opportunity to drive a Z06 C6 and a Viper, I can attest to that. In the lower RPM, you barely need to press on the gas to get the rear wheels to spin. This phenomenon is not noticeable in the higher RPM range. On a truck or pick-up, it is also less noticeable because of the weight of the vehicle. As for Diesels, the gas pedal is an actual "gas" pedal and not an "air" pedal, so the full pedal movement is necessary to get full power (max fuel flow), even in the lower RPMs. Last edited by CanAutM3; 12-28-2013 at 01:01 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 01:06 PM | #362 | |
Major General
1718
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
But he hasn't mentioned small vs large capacity. It's only been about different rev range. You are probably on to the issue with large engines and high torque from low rpm, but both a low rpm engine and a high rpm engine can have plenty of torque low down. Like the C6 Z06 which has a redline at 7000rpm. So more a power delivery issue than a rev range issue. Some cars also have a variable throttle ratio to take care of these issues. A longer travel is needed in those parts of the rev range where power/torque rises more dramatically than elsewhere. Last edited by Boss330; 12-28-2013 at 05:48 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-28-2013, 06:00 PM | #363 | |
Brigadier General
380
Rep 3,934
Posts |
Quote:
with that said i never considered the S55 to be a low revving motor. i think for what the car is. small turbo engine. 7600RPM is great. although again there isn't anything magically to it. IMO |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 04:06 AM | #365 | |
S0THPAW
8717
Rep 7,846
Posts |
Quote:
This one has a small(1.6) turbo 4cyl engine. 6000-6500rpm redline only . It won't get more sporty/excited than that. Even at low revs Cheers Robin |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 04:17 AM | #366 | |
Major
192
Rep 1,292
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 05:38 AM | #367 | |
Major General
592
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
Acura rsx type s Civic si from 2000-present Honda s2000 Integra type r Celica gts Honda prelude - close to 8k ? The ap1 s2000 revs to 9k. Last edited by Black Gold; 12-29-2013 at 09:15 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 10:45 AM | #368 |
Brigadier General
380
Rep 3,934
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 10:52 AM | #369 | |
Brigadier General
380
Rep 3,934
Posts |
Quote:
lol old ass Japanese cars, i knew someone would bring them up. but ya, you listed 6 cars. how many performance engines we got on the road today ? no matter what you TRY to say. or the BS cars you try to bring up. revving past 8k is STILL not common. even with the BS. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 10:57 AM | #370 | |
S0THPAW
8717
Rep 7,846
Posts |
Quote:
You said the S55 is a 'small turbo engine'. There are a lot of smaller(4 cylinder) turbo engines around. The 959 and the F40 had 2.85 and 2.9 litres displacement. You 're always mentioning the S65s high revving. I come up with a real small rallycar engine which revs only to about 6500 and works fine. If you keep comparing the E9x M3 and its engine to cars which are out of its league,(and you know you do) I will do the same. Not because I'm tired of you repeating how fantastic your E92 M3 is vs the oncoming new one. Just because I can too. Cheers Robin |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 11:14 AM | #371 | |
Major General
592
Rep 5,396
Posts |
Quote:
Not my fault your statement was bs. You said cars revving to 8k+ were limited to exotics, too bad they aren't. Now you get mad when your statement is proved to be inaccurate. Glorify the s65 and m3 all you want, but just don't make things up while doing it. That won't fly here. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 11:18 AM | #372 | |
Brigadier General
380
Rep 3,934
Posts |
Quote:
I was talking about red line. in fact i was putting the new M3 in a good spotlight. saying for what the engine is, it revs pretty good. 7600RPM is pretty good for a small turbo engine. sure i was talking about revving past 8k, because revving past 8k is something to talk about. I didn't REALLY compare a S65 to a exotic on that post. although i maybe put it in a place with all the high revving cars. but again its not REALLY a direct comparison. if you analyze what i said. remember i keep saying this. my dislike for the engine has nothing to do with power or the fun factor of it. its solely based of two things. one is the different characteristics of a high revving motor to a small turbo engine, and the sound of the engine. keeping in mind i used the word different. not better, not sounds better etc..... Last edited by Ezio; 12-29-2013 at 11:26 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-29-2013, 11:22 AM | #373 | |
Brigadier General
380
Rep 3,934
Posts |
Quote:
i said mostly. also those cars you listed aren't even on my "radar" . which is why i said what i said. but again. most of the ROAD cars that have the ability to rev that high are what ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redline look at the cars listed, sure some are Japanese cars. but a lot are are high end cars. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|