S55 vs. S65

[Technic]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Right, but can we all agree this is an outlier? I didn't bring it up to open the debate on that car's legitimacy again, just to use it as a point of contrast.

Regarding cost - lets also keep in mind that the cost of not using the N54 in the 1M may very well have been to not build the 1M at all, given the age of the E82 and the timing of the product. In the real world, we can't always throw more money at a problem to get it done faster. Maybe small company X can design an all new engine for new product Y on arbitrary timeline Z, but let's keep our expectations in line with reality for the corporate world.

Given the proper development timeframe, M has taken the approach of thoroughly reengineering the series engine for the F1x M-proper vehicles and F8x M-proper vehicles. I'll bet you believe they will do the same with F2x M-proper products as well. Am I right?

My point about the 1M engine was that the "tuned series engine" was more applicable to this one than to the other ///M engines that you mentioned. I am not even talking about "bespoke" because, as nice as it sounds, it is not something that really defined what fundamentally ///M really did with the their engines. It was something more than "tuned" but less than "bespoke", if you will.

Other than that, I did not have a problem with the 1M engine, as you stated, this was basically a "midnight special on a budget". And it worked more that fine.

I don't agree with your characterizations and verbiage, necessarily, but I'm not going to nitpick. There's no question that an M engine is becoming more like a series engine. And not just more as compared to the S65/S85 of last generation (which had no series counterpart at all), but indeed arguably more than generations past as well. For the sake of argument let's go with that.

Turbocharging can make a displacement change unnecessary, right? Well, I mean you can do whatever you want, but if you meet the performance target with no displacement change from the parent engine, then you can't really make a business case in saying "yeah, but let's bump it up just because it makes it special".

Valvetronic and HPI make individual throttle bodies redundant too. Sure you can still use ITB, but again there's no reason to add complexity if it does not benefit performance and responsiveness.

Now, should M engines even be using things like Valvetronic and turbocharging? Well, that's another argument. My point is that the transformations we saw M make in the past to series engines were all very purposeful and not to make sure the engine met some quota of unique parts or satisfied some layman's terms of specialness. This is important to keep in mind. I know you know this, and others do too. But sometimes we get spoiled by side-effects and come to appreciate them more than the simplicity that was the motivation for the elixir.

Obviously, I see this a little different.

What turbos did to ///M, more than any other speed shops (AMG, V, RS, et al), was to get the regular Series engines too close to the ///M engines, instead of further separating them, IMO. So sharing engines with the least amount of tuning is a business decision and it is ok cost-wise. But at this level, image is everything. I was expecting this time not a repeat of 2007 with the E46 M3 and the 335i, when the performance bump of the 335i arguably met or even exceeded that of the E46 M3, stock vs stock. With the inevitable 340i coming and the M Performance tuning the M3/M4 again will be too close to a 3-Series. A slight bump of displacement -to a 3.2l I6 and a minimum of 460hp- would have solved that in this M3/M4 both in image and in output, IMO.

We are not on different pages. You seem to have a pretty level head about it all.

I wouldn't presume to tell other people how to see the world. We all have our grouses. I do notice that lately around here there is a lot of apparent hostility, vilification and finger pointing. I'm not sure its all properly placed, properly substantiated, deserved, fair, and frankly - a healthy approach. Make no mistake, the almighty dollar figures in, but what appears to be overlooked more often than not is that the cost of doing business changes.

My impression of the new M3/M4 comes from almost 30 years following the ///M, and buying only ///M for 10 years. It was a great run, for sure. I consider this new approach a necessity in the economic and ecological times that we live in. And after seeing the E9x M3 not meeting its sales projections notswithstanding its "special" engine, I definitely understand that changes on the whole M3/M4 business model must be done. But I wonder -no hostility, vilification or much less finger pointing, as we are talking about cars and not about divorce or health care- if there was any necessity of doing it in this particular way.

[JoeFromPA]

I really really reallllyyyy have to roll my eyes at some of this stuff. Let's get some history straight:

1. The S14, the engine that made the m3 come to life in the first place, was based off the m10/m88 and was based off a 6-cylinder with 2 cylinders chopped off. It was built from concept to prototype in TWO WEEKS and the first model was literally just a plate welded onto the gaping hole in the block of 2 cylinders removed.

That engine is at the heart of the m3 series and is still famed today.

2. The s52 in the e36 m3 was heavily based on the m52 with basically some special parts-bin stuff and some tuning.

It's an incredibly reliable, daily driven engine coming on 20 years worldwide. It was also developed quickly based upon an existing platform.

3. The S54 was an M50 evolved for M. More specialized tuning, more unique parts, special VANOS systems - but at heart was an iron block great engine based off an existing engine. The e46 was famous and an amazing new M vehicle

4. The s65 was the first m3 engine that was based off another M engine, which was based off a unique design - the S85. Nevertheless, at heart, the S65 was yet another existing BMW engine modified for use in an M application. This was a special engine, no doubt, but the M3's fame and glory was built on the backs of taking existing engines and improving upon them.

In many ways, the S55 is a cross between the s54 and the s65 - it is a unique block (closed deck, unique valvetronic system, etc.) based upon an existing platform. It is neither a tweaked s54 nor a whole new platform like the s65.

[Glina]

@ Technic. Watch video at 3:00 "M cars are not about engines. M cars are about chassis"

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Technic

Obviously, I see this a little different.

What turbos did to ///M, more than any other speed shops (AMG, V, RS, et al), was to get the regular Series engines too close to the ///M engines, instead of further separating them, IMO.

Let's wait and see. It's a slowly moving tide, and the others will be swept in over the next few years.

You are going to see all of the performance cars (with > 400hp, so ignoring the smaller I4 powered models for a second) from these brands move to turbocharged engines with 3L to 4L displacement, and probably not see any of them tweaking displacements for engines shared with the non-performance arm. Only AMG has released a new, bespoke motor, and there will probably be a non-AMG version for the future *500/*550 products (it is not likely they'll continue with 4.7L when the new 4.0L makes more power).

With the inevitable 340i coming and the M Performance tuning the M3/M4 again will be too close to a 3-Series. A slight bump of displacement -to a 3.2l I6 and a minimum of 460hp- would have solved that in this M3/M4 both in image and in output, IMO.

But like I said, you can't just add displacement when it isn't necessary and make a good case. Boost increases effective displacement.

I believe you will see a 460hp 3.0L S55 in a few years. Whether that's for a ZCP or a more special model, I don't know yet. But I don't think they'll have a problem building one for production. The current one may be closer than that in actuality than to 425hp for that matter (we'll know soon).

My impression of the new M3/M4 comes from almost 30 years following the ///M, and buying only ///M for 10 years. It was a great run, for sure. I consider this new approach a necessity in the economic and ecological times that we live in. And after seeing the E9x M3 not meeting its sales projections notswithstanding its "special" engine, I definitely understand that changes on the whole M3/M4 business model must be done.

Well put. This is exactly where I sit.

But I wonder -no hostility, vilification or much less finger pointing, as we are talking about cars and not about divorce or health care- ...

And to think that some people seem to take their automotive enthusiasm more seriously than those other affairs.

...if there was any necessity of doing it in this particular way.

If there is a better way, then someone else will figure it out and we will all be able to buy the products that are the fruits of that approach instead. We all know who the players are, so it's just a matter of determining who delivers the best package for the individual's taste.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

1. The S14, the engine that made the m3 come to life in the first place, was based off the m10/m88 and was based off a 6-cylinder with 2 cylinders chopped off. It was built from concept to prototype in TWO WEEKS and the first model was literally just a plate welded onto the gaping hole in the block of 2 cylinders removed.

That engine is at the heart of the m3 series and is still famed today.

I honestly don't know what point you are making with the above. (?)

I didn't see anyone contradict these historic facts nor the others you've cited. So if the point was to correct misinformation, I guess I didn't see any to begin with. If the point is to merely lend perspective, sure, it's a nice summary of where we've been and where we are.

In many ways, the S55 is a cross between the s54 and the s65 - it is a unique block (closed deck, unique valvetronic system, etc.) based upon an existing platform. It is neither a tweaked series engine nor a whole new platform like the s65.

I think I've fixed it for you? Not sure if I understood your point there either.

My take away from your post is that while times have changed, M Division is still spending a great deal of money and care on developing engines just like they did from inception. If that wasn't the point, I apologize I missed it.

[Technic]

Originally Posted by Glina

@ Technic. Watch video at 3:00 "M cars are not about engines. M cars are about chassis"

That's the opinion of a reviewer. My opinion is from being a customer...

[solstice]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Tuned standard engine?

A 1M has a tuned series engine. The F8x uses the S55, derived from the N55. Just like the S50/S52/S54 I6 in past M3s are derived from series engines, but completely reengineered.

Absolutely. However the S55 has exactly the same dimensions ( volume, bore x stroke ) as the N55 and the N54, this is a first for an M-engine. It is also not to be built in the special engine facility but alongside the series cars. I see what you are saying that boost increase displacement and therefore the effective volume is larger. However the perception of the cost and specialness of boost increase is very different from actual cylinder volume increase. To what degree the S55 technically is a tuned standard engine vs. it's predecessors is up for discussion but I think the perception will be that it is closer than ever since the most commonly listed specs. for an engine other than power is induction type,displacement, bore x stroke and compression.

[gymtime]

I believe one of the reasons for it being so cheap is the engine is just a tuned up 435i engine which keeps costs down rather than an entirely different engine like the previous M3

[gee-m-w]

Originally Posted by gymtime

I believe one of the reasons for it being so cheap is the engine is just a tuned up 435i engine which keeps costs down rather than an entirely different engine like the previous M3

And begin debating this for the next 10 pages.

[Real Deal]

If anyone could have an M3 with a tuned N54 engine and larger turbos would do it. Well I know I would and I am since I am buying the new M3. Looks like all the old e92m fan boys will be buying the zo6 (I am as well next year). How many m3s got their asses handed to them by a moded n54 and then had to bring up how trackable their cars were lol. Well now not only your old m3 is going to get its ass kicked by the new m3 on the streets, it will also on the track. But yeah keep taking about the v8 and the amazing sound as I am passing you by with a car that has an engine built on the series line and it's cheap.

[tdizzle]

Originally Posted by solstice

Absolutely. However the S55 has exactly the same dimensions ( volume, bore x stroke ) as the N55 and the N54, this is a first for an M-engine. It is also not to be built in the special engine facility but alongside the series cars. I see what you are saying that boost increase displacement and therefore the effective volume is larger. However the perception of the cost and specialness of boost increase is very different from actual cylinder volume increase. To what degree the S55 technically is a tuned standard engine vs. it's predecessors is up for discussion but I think the perception will be that it is closer than ever since the most commonly listed specs. for an engine other than power is induction type,displacement, bore x stroke and compression.

Maybe that's the way BMW is going with //M. Look at the //M5 vs the 550i. We're basically looking at the same thing. With just a tune the 550s are putting out near M5 hp (and apparently the M5 can use the same tune).

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by solstice

Absolutely. However the S55 has exactly the same dimensions ( volume, bore x stroke ) as the N55 and the N54, this is a first for an M-engine.

Second when we consider the S63(/tu), but I know what you mean. Of course, it's also the first turbocharged M(3) engine as well.

It is also not to be built in the special engine facility but alongside the series cars.

A good point, but again it goes back to the business case. If you can build it cheaper with the series engine, then you don't spend the money not to just for the sake of doing so.

I see what you are saying that boost increase displacement and therefore the effective volume is larger. However the perception of the cost and specialness of boost increase is very different from actual cylinder volume increase. To what degree the S55 technically is a tuned standard engine vs. it's predecessors is up for discussion but I think the perception will be that it is closer than ever since the most commonly listed specs. for an engine other than power is induction type,displacement, bore x stroke and compression.

Sure, the perception is what it is. But the it only really matters if the car isn't able to perform and thus isn't able to generate sales. I don't think that will happen. So again, from a business perspective, you can't justify spending money on something that doesn't contribute to the car's profitability.

[TTSam]

Originally Posted by Real Deal

If anyone could have an M3 with a tuned N54 engine and larger turbos would do it. Well I know I would and I am since I am buying the new M3. Looks like all the old e92m fan boys will be buying the zo6 (I am as well next year). How many m3s got their asses handed to them by a moded n54 and then had to bring up how trackable their cars were lol. Well now not only your old m3 is going to get its ass kicked by the new m3 on the streets, it will also on the track. But yeah keep taking about the v8 and the amazing sound as I am passing you by with a car that has an engine built on the series line and it's cheap.

What are you like 12 years old? No need to prove it by responding by the way..............

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I honestly don't know what point you are making with the above. (?)

I didn't see anyone contradict these historic facts nor the others you've cited. So if the point was to correct misinformation, I guess I didn't see any to begin with. If the point is to merely lend perspective, sure, it's a nice summary of where we've been and where we are.

I think I've fixed it for you? Not sure if I understood your point there either.

My take away from your post is that while times have changed, M Divisions is still spending a great deal of money and care on developing engines just like they did from inception. If that wasn't the point, I apologize I missed it.

The point I was making is we've seen legendary M engines emerge from engines that were chopped M-series blocks that were built in 2 weeks (the s14) to formula inspired specialty engines like the S65.

But overall, most of the M3's success, history, and most loved models were based upon tweaked series engines.

My second point was that the S55 is an amalgamation of a tweaked series engine and a specialty M engine. It has a different block, not just different components, though it appears to be heavily based upon the n54.

In other words, the S55 thus far is following in the footsteps of many great M engines that have come before....

[solstice]

Originally Posted by tdizzle

Maybe that's the way BMW is going with //M. Look at the //M5 vs the 550i. We're basically looking at the same thing. With just a tune the 550s are putting out near M5 hp (and apparently the M5 can use the same tune).

True, the same can said about the power numbers of a tuned N54 vs the S55. So, I think now more than ever it will be the character of the M engine that need to differentiate it from the standard engine. I think they achieved a good distance between them in terms of the 550 and the M5. The response and rev. happiness is significantly better in the M5. I expect the S55 to be quite a bit better than the M5 and put more distance between itself and especially tuned N54s than the M5 vs 550 which it will inevitably be heavily compared to.

[Real Deal]

Originally Posted by TTSam

What are you like 12 years old? No need to prove it by responding by the way..............

Tired of all the bashing and the hate for a car that no one on here has yet driven.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Second when we consider the S63(/tu), but I know what you mean.

Sorry I should have said M3.

Originally Posted by mkoesel

A good point, but again it goes back to the business case. If you can build it cheaper with the series engine, then you don't spend the money not to just for the sake of doing so.

Sure, the perception is what it is. But the it only really matters if the car isn't able to perform and thus isn't able to generate sales. I don't think that will happen. So again, from a business perspective, you can't justify spending money on something that doesn't contribute to the car's profitability.

I agree and that goes back to the original point I made quoting Hans lecturing Gunther. Special engines are not needed to generate sales at elevated M prices, just good engines in good cars. Most don't care about the details or maybe not even the character of the engine just the paper and real world performance. For some of us it did matter though, not to the extent as being a deal breaker but nevertheless something that added to the special feel and overall owner pride and satisfaction.

( Sorry if we got a bit OT and back to the never ending topic of the old engines vs. the new but it does have some relation to the pricing topic. )

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

In other words, the S55 thus far is following in the footsteps of many great M engines that have come before....

Ok, so I did get your point then.

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Ok, so I did get your point then.

Yeah, I may have made it obtuse but you got it

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by solstice

I agree and that goes back to the original point I made quoting Hans lecturing Gunther. Special engines are not needed to generate sales at elevated M prices, just good engines in good cars. Most don't care about the details or maybe not even the character of the engine just the paper and real world performance.

As Joe's post underscores, the reality is that Hans and Gunther are having the same conversations they did from the beginning: let's take a series engine and reengineer it for our needs. It's very different from saying: let's take a series engine, figure out what we can change, and then figure out how to justify those changes. They increased displacement in the past because that was the best way to achieve the desired results, not because they thought they needed to so in order for people to think the engine was special.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

As Joe's post underscores, the reality is that Hans and Gunther are having the same conversations they did from the beginning: let's take a series engine and reengineer it for our needs. It's very different from saying: let's take a series engine, figure out what we can change, and then figure out how to justify those changes. They increased displacement in the past because that was the best way to achieve the desired results, not because they thought they needed to so in order for people to think the engine was special.

No argument here. I understand why they did it but it doesn't change the fact that making an M engine more powerful mainly with boost is very different from doing it by physical displacement and high rpm. It's perceived as a much cheaper and easier solution which in some sense lower the "specialness" and also make it easier to tune the standard engine closer to the M engine. Most don't care but some do. Personally I'm accepting it and I'm looking forward to some change up. I switched between NA and FI many times and I like both while a good NA engine will always be my favorite.

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

As Joe's post underscores, the reality is that Hans and Gunther are having the same conversations they did from the beginning: let's take a series engine and reengineer it for our needs. It's very different from saying: let's take a series engine, figure out what we can change, and then figure out how to justify those changes. They increased displacement in the past because that was the best way to achieve the desired results, not because they thought they needed to so in order for people to think the engine was special.

I think it's also time to realize that they reached the point of diminishing returns at the s65 performance levels. Really, it takes significant expense to make a higher performing engine that translates into actual greater acceleration at these levels. Traction, aerodynamics, and vehicle weight become the enemies that are easier to tackle for less cost than adding another 50hp to gain a few more tenths.

From a cost/benefit scenario, the new m3 offers still notably greater acceleration (as far as we know thus far), more efficiency, less emissions, and a boatload more torque.

The most common complaints about the S65 were terrible fuel economy and poor low-end torque.

I give BMW credit. Looks like smart decision making to me.