Pandora Car Alarm System
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Forum > M3/M4 versus...

View Poll Results: S65 option or S55 standart ?
YES ... I would choose the S65 if an option at this price would be availiable 93 46.04%
NO ... I would choose the standart S55 engine 109 53.96%
Voters: 202. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-02-2014, 11:27 AM   #595
jc05e46m3
Brigadier General
jc05e46m3's Avatar
United_States
844
Rep
3,249
Posts

Drives: '21 F90 M5 Comp
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Everywhere.

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
Well consider you keep using that as reference, you should stop making unsubstantiated comments about what the S55 can handle since, according to you, you can only make an informed opinion if you own a car with the engine.

And since you don't own a car with an S55, stop talking.
lol. You sir, are using logic.
__________________
'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
      06-02-2014, 12:01 PM   #596
M3guy3
Captain
131
Rep
690
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Michigan

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey View Post
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.
Any improvement on the F80 would have pretty much been the same. If they put a 460HP V8 in. The reason why there would be a price jump is the cost to make the engine.

The point is not to put a S65 V8 in the F80, but a improved S65. that makes more power!
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 12:03 PM   #597
jeremicium
Major
jeremicium's Avatar
United_States
170
Rep
1,178
Posts

Drives: 2011 E92 328i
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tacoma, Wa. USA

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Sometimes you read a long thread and come out wiser. Sometimes you come out with a loss of faith in humanity. Why did I get sucked into reading so many of these posts? Skip 5 months worth of posts and its still the same shit. People with different opinions, passing off their opinions as fact, or as some sort of gospel. Then you get the others attempting to belittle the opinions of others with their superior understanding or enlightenment. Sad.

If I didn't know better i'd think this was a bunch of 18 year old testosterone laden dudes arguing.

There are pros and cons with both engines. The efficiency and instantly available torque of an FI engine are hard to beat. On paper they win every time. On the other hand, the throttle response, linearity, feeling (and sound) of a high revving NA engine give me a feeling that is more visceral, more enjoyable despite the lack of instantly available torque.

I solve this problem with cars that provide me with the best of both worlds. a high revving 9,000 rpm car that I can afford to flog at the track and provides me with the more raw feeling that I enjoy SOMETIMES. And a mildly tuned FI car that is refined, smooth, and provides all the power and efficiency I could want for a daily driver.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 01:02 PM   #598
M4TW
///M Uber Alles
M4TW's Avatar
Canada
329
Rep
1,601
Posts

Drives: '15 MW M4
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: GSA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FogCityM3 View Post
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.
So .... 460-470 bhp on the top end, improved fuel economy, 420 bhp on the downshift, and all for the same price eh?!?!

Well ... Hot Dog ... sign me up!!!!

Are you kidding me? I would LOVE an engine like that in my M4. Imagine, a more fuel efficient engine cranking out that many horses in a high revving, sweet sounding V8. My M4 would haul ass like nobody's business and there would be no worry about any of the drawbacks associated with lazy-assed turbo charging!!!

It just sounds too good to be true. So I'm not buying it. Literally. I'm not buying it. It's not an option for my M4 because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist I suspect because the Dream Engine that you are describing is likely neither realistic nor feasible, or it would have been built by the engineering masters over in the ///M Division. But you know more than they do I guess.

Instead the path you are describing - considering that the platform is not being built by a division with an unlimited budget for buyers with unlimited budgets - likely would lead to a thirstier engine with modest performance gains that would be put to shame by the new S55.

Lest you think that the previous model's throttle response and power delivery was the Shangri-La of motorsport consider this Motor Trend article pitting your vaulted M3 against a standard-issue Mustang:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...m3_comparison/

Quote:
So, shockingly good on the road course, but enough to beat the M3? Perhaps, because the first thing out of Randy's mouth after lapping the BMW is, "I missed the mid-range torque of the Mustang. The BMW ramps up more slowly and is skewed toward high rpm whereas the Mustang has a much broader, flatter torque curve."
Ouch.

The new IS-F is supposedly coming out with a 5.0 liter NA V8. It will have north of 400 horses, but they are not saying how much. Perhaps it might be a better metric of what might have been.

Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I will be enjoying all that lovely torque on tap and you can hug your e90 M3.
__________________
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
      06-02-2014, 02:28 PM   #599
CanAutM3
General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
21105
Rep
20,741
Posts

Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
So .... 460-470 bhp on the top end, improved fuel economy, 420 bhp on the downshift, and all for the same price eh?!?!

Well ... Hot Dog ... sign me up!!!!

Are you kidding me? I would LOVE an engine like that in my M4. Imagine, a more fuel efficient engine cranking out that many horses in a high revving, sweet sounding V8. My M4 would haul ass like nobody's business and there would be no worry about any of the drawbacks associated with lazy-assed turbo charging!!!

It just sounds too good to be true. So I'm not buying it. Literally. I'm not buying it. It's not an option for my M4 because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist I suspect because the Dream Engine that you are describing is likely neither realistic nor feasible, or it would have been built by the engineering masters over in the ///M Division. But you know more than they do I guess.
Just for comparison sake, Audi is getting 450hp and a 8500RPM redline with the RS4/RS5 4.2L direct injection engine. Doing quick math, a 4.4L direct injection S65B44 development could do 470hp. Not far fetched at all.

Further, the heavy and AWD RS5 is EPA rated at 16/23, which is better than the 14/20 for the E9X M3. Better fuel economy than the E9X could have been achieved with a DI S65B44 development. Also not that far fetched.

This engine would have been more expensive than the S55 and would have not met BMW's emissions target for the car (S55 is EPA rated at 17/26). The engineers did not build it because they were told not to (through the targets they were imposed).

IMO, as I posted previously, BMW gave us the S55 to meet two corporate objectives: cost and emissions. Not because it is a better performance engine.

That being said, the world is changing and I have no choice to accept it. I am looking forward to driving my M4 in 8 weeks and see how much of a compromise (if at all) the S55 really is .

Last edited by CanAutM3; 06-02-2014 at 03:41 PM..
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 03:25 PM   #600
FogCityM3
Colonel
FogCityM3's Avatar
497
Rep
2,400
Posts

Drives: M3 (E90) & Porsche GT3 RS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: San Francisco

iTrader: (0)

S65B44 was the natural extension as seen in the GTS/CRT. Want to know how the new M3/4 performs? Look at the GTS/CRT, pretty much the same times that have come out so far for straight line and N-ring time should also be similar, despite the huge torque “disadvantage” of the 444 bhp stroked engine. German and US tuners are with software/intake revisions are getting 440 bhp S65B40 with stock exhaust. Would only have software, DCT programming (to skip gears), new cams (already exist), crank/ cylinder de-activation and I don’t think It would be that much more expensive considering the heavy lifting R&D was done in the early part of the 2000 decade and 470 should be easily achievable with better fuel efficiency. The engine was WAY ahead of its time and has some features still non-existent in current road cars. Don’t see how companies like Porsche can do it with brand new engines and not have these “infeasibility issues” and their profit margins are growing over the years...this would have simply been an extension of what already existed.

Also my point is BMW should have not been as greedy and not striven for the extra $2k per vehicle they’ll probably be making on the new car vs the old. The formula I described would probably get the M3/4 to win every comparo, like its predecessors, which would probably have increased sales of other BMW cars (will outsell the M3/4 by 7-8 to one).

Love how everyone thinks they can get a mustang and think they could keep up with an M3, based on Randy’s time and its so obvious he totally man-handles the car on the track to extract everything and the thing is not planted/confidence inspiring based on the videos (and based on the prior gen Mustangs I’ve driven). In the hands of your typical track amateur, the results would have been completely different. Even the Boss 302s, C6 vettes, while very fast in the right hands, are not so easy to drive on technical tracks. Everyone who thinks that Mustangs are comparable to M3s spend some time on a difficult track and see how important handling, feel, engine feedback, throttle modulation and linear/smooth application of power are. Mustangs can be beaten by E36s with a few suspension mods and a tightened nut behind the wheel.

Agreed the car I described doesn’t exist at BMW. That is a problem (or quasi problem) to me and a lot of others, but we’re probably in the minority and given a blank slate on considering a 70K+ car, I would probably still buy it if I had to make a decision today, or be in my top 3 to consider (anticipating the future competition). So my comments are not to take away from the M3/4s performance, but I think BMW could have done a more creative job and give up some money making and have a killer not only in its own category, but in higher echelon categories, in effect a halo car for the masses (similar to the Ms of the past) not in terms only of performance but also in driver experience/gratification.



Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
So .... 460-470 bhp on the top end, improved fuel economy, 420 bhp on the downshift, and all for the same price eh?!?!

Well ... Hot Dog ... sign me up!!!!

Are you kidding me? I would LOVE an engine like that in my M4. Imagine, a more fuel efficient engine cranking out that many horses in a high revving, sweet sounding V8. My M4 would haul ass like nobody's business and there would be no worry about any of the drawbacks associated with lazy-assed turbo charging!!!

It just sounds too good to be true. So I'm not buying it. Literally. I'm not buying it. It's not an option for my M4 because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist I suspect because the Dream Engine that you are describing is likely neither realistic nor feasible, or it would have been built by the engineering masters over in the ///M Division. But you know more than they do I guess.

Instead the path you are describing - considering that the platform is not being built by a division with an unlimited budget for buyers with unlimited budgets - likely would lead to a thirstier engine with modest performance gains that would be put to shame by the new S55.

Lest you think that the previous model's throttle response and power delivery was the Shangri-La of motorsport consider this Motor Trend article pitting your vaulted M3 against a standard-issue Mustang:

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...m3_comparison/



Ouch.

The new IS-F is supposedly coming out with a 5.0 liter NA V8. It will have north of 400 horses, but they are not saying how much. Perhaps it might be a better metric of what might have been.

Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I will be enjoying all that lovely torque on tap and you can hug your e90 M3.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 03:47 PM   #601
M4TW
///M Uber Alles
M4TW's Avatar
Canada
329
Rep
1,601
Posts

Drives: '15 MW M4
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: GSA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
Just for comparison sake, Audi is getting 450hp and a 8500RPM redline with the RS4/RS5 4.2L direct injection engine. Doing quick math, a 4.4L direct injection S65B44 development could do 470hp. Not far fetched at all.

Further, the heavy and AWD RS5 is EPA rated at 16/23, which is better than the 14/20 for the E9X M3. Better fuel economy than the E9X could have been achieved with a DI S65B44 development. Also not that far fetched.

This engine would have been more expensive than the S55 and would have not met BMW's emissions target for the car. The engineers did not build it because they were told not to (through the targets they were imposed).

IMO, as I posted previously, BMW gave us the S55 to meet two corporate objectives: cost and emissions. Not because it is a better performance engine.

That being said, the world is changing and I have no choice to accept it. I am looking forward to driving my M4 in 8 weeks and see how much of a compromise (if at all) the S55 really is .
Well cost is a pretty big factor and efficiency isn't only arbitrarily being imposed from above - it is also is coming from below in the form of consumer demand. ///M cars have to sell regardless of how well they perform and I happen to think that doubling down on a big V8 would have been the wrong move for BMW to have made right now.

Not all change is bad and turbos definitely have their fun side. Plus there is some history with that I6. It belongs in an M3. Hopefully, you'll soon be forgetting how things used to be when you're kicking the snot out of one of these V8 behemoth throwbacks you mentioned in your fuel efficient turbo I6 and telling them all to say ello to my lille friends.
__________________
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
      06-03-2014, 12:23 AM   #602
tooch
Captain
United_States
112
Rep
806
Posts

Drives: F82
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NOR-CAL

iTrader: (0)

S55
__________________

96 E31 JB
07 E92 AW
F82 BSM
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2014, 01:30 AM   #603
M3guy3
Captain
131
Rep
690
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Michigan

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
Not all change is bad and turbos definitely have their fun side. Plus there is some history with that I6. It belongs in an M3. Hopefully, you'll soon be forgetting how things used to be when you're kicking the snot out of one of these V8 behemoth throwbacks you mentioned in your fuel efficient turbo I6 and telling them all to say ello to my lille friends.
i would say I6 engines are more of a BMW thing overall. not just with M cars.
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2014, 03:12 AM   #604
BMW M3 CRT
Lieutenant
BMW M3 CRT's Avatar
177
Rep
464
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

How says S65 vs. S55 is only an no sence discussion ... should only take a look at the poll results !
1/3 of the voters says that they would pay an extra ~10T€ for getting an S65 with the old M-DCT this mean ~6T€ only for getting an unique engine with round the same hp- and lower torque-numbers, but an totally different and more traditionally M style power delivery characteristic.

And I bet, if such an option would be offered from BMW M Performance (Individual), it would be sold in numbers big enough to make no loss or a little profit.
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2014, 03:43 AM   #605
Thurman Murch
Lieutenant
Seychelles
62
Rep
499
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Island in the sun

iTrader: (0)

http://www.press.bmwgroup.com/united...chmentId=29964

Highlights some of the bespoke features of the S8/65

See that turbo solution usually requires a reinforced, heavy drivetrain but CFRP answers that...

While I find the S65 a marvel, I feel the S55 and drivetrain is awesome as well in its own regard... Welcome fixed calipers and nice steering turn in

I don't like the interior, build quality of the interior, cost savings and air intake design of the new car

Makes me more curious how BMW. M will get the next .25 out of the next version
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2014, 08:49 AM   #606
JRV
Captain
United_States
119
Rep
922
Posts

Drives: 2011.75 AWE90M3
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: CT

iTrader: (1)

Yep the M history is a NA high revving motor with razor sharp throttle response. The I-6 was a BMW 3 series thing. This is the first time they have downsized the engine on the M3, M5 and M6.

How do you outperform the predecessor in numbers while downsizing your motor? Turbo or some sort of hybrid at this pace.
I wouldn't be surprised really if the rumor about an I-4 turbo M3/4 comes to fruition. It should be a hybrid though like BMW hints with the i8. Anyone else notice this lately about BMW? The success of the 1M coupe and thinking now the i8 are hints of a future gen.
__________________
'11 Black/Black GLK350 (Wife)
'19 Black RAM 1500 Big Horn Night Package
'11 Loaded AW Fox Red/Black/Black Carbon Leather ZCP E90 M3 (Halloween Delivery)
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2014, 04:18 PM   #607
Soliris
New Member
17
Rep
20
Posts

Drives: Ferrari California
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

I really not get the point of all this "throttle response high rev thing".

My Audi R8 4,2 V8 had a very similar engine to the old M3. I did not enjoy the lack of power in everyday use, especially not on the Autobahn.

Keeping the car in a certain rev range to utilise its power might be fun on a sunday afternoon on a racetrack. In everyday use the car just felt "tired".
Just like you need to kick it in the bumm all the time, just for make it go. Sorry.
Appreciate 0
      06-03-2014, 05:10 PM   #608
CSanto
Brigadier General
634
Rep
3,039
Posts

Drives: 2015 BSM/SO M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York

iTrader: (3)

To me its about variety. Why are we fighting about which is better than which? I've had the V8 for damn near 6 years. It's now SCd with close to 600hp, its fucking epic, and I love it.
Still, I will spice up my life in a few months and sell this epic beast for something else. Turbo would be fun, do a little torque action for the next 4-5 years. I just don't get why all the arguing lol, both have their positives and negatives, both aren't perfect, one isn't better than the other.
Appreciate 0
      06-12-2014, 06:34 PM   #609
Kurt_OH
Captain
Kurt_OH's Avatar
United_States
12
Rep
734
Posts

Drives: E90 M3 ZCP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Columbus, OH

iTrader: (0)

God if only anyone WANTED to drive a truck motor BMW, the new M cars would be great.

What's next, diesel M cars?

Remember, the diesel audi was dominating LeMans. Yippie! Fast lap times and dioxin odors!

Turbo & low rpm = ///M is dead.
Appreciate 0
      06-12-2014, 06:48 PM   #610
Sir Loin
M3AT LOVER
Sir Loin's Avatar
United_States
322
Rep
1,853
Posts

Drives: Silverstone F80 M3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Seattle

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt_OH View Post
God if only anyone WANTED to drive a truck motor BMW, the new M cars would be great.

What's next, diesel M cars?

Remember, the diesel audi was dominating LeMans. Yippie! Fast lap times and dioxin odors!

Turbo & low rpm = ///M is dead.
Yep, a truck motor-powered car is faster than your E90 M3. U MAD BRO?
__________________
2015 F80 M3 | SSII ext SO int | M-DCT | 19" Black Wheels
Appreciate 0
      06-12-2014, 06:51 PM   #611
gthal
Major General
gthal's Avatar
Canada
1901
Rep
5,678
Posts

Drives: 2018 340i xDrive
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt_OH View Post
God if only anyone WANTED to drive a truck motor BMW, the new M cars would be great.

What's next, diesel M cars?

Remember, the diesel audi was dominating LeMans. Yippie! Fast lap times and dioxin odors!

Turbo & low rpm = ///M is dead.


Yeah, OK. I love it when people judge a car they haven't driven. I guess ignorance is bliss

///M is very far from dead. It is just faster with more torque is all.
__________________
2020 X3 M40i | Black | Current DD
2020 C8 Corvette | Z51 | Torch Red ... built and waiting for delivery
2016 M2 | Long Beach Blue | 6MT
2015 M4 | Austin Yellow | DCT
2012 MB C63AMG | 2011 E92 M3 | 2010 E92 M3
Appreciate 0
      06-13-2014, 07:13 AM   #612
M4GTS
Second Lieutenant
United Kingdom
66
Rep
248
Posts

Drives: Car
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK, San Jose

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
Just for comparison sake, Audi is getting 450hp and a 8500RPM redline with the RS4/RS5 4.2L direct injection engine. Doing quick math, a 4.4L direct injection S65B44 development could do 470hp. Not far fetched at all.

Further, the heavy and AWD RS5 is EPA rated at 16/23, which is better than the 14/20 for the E9X M3. Better fuel economy than the E9X could have been achieved with a DI S65B44 development. Also not that far fetched.

This engine would have been more expensive than the S55 and would have not met BMW's emissions target for the car (S55 is EPA rated at 17/26). The engineers did not build it because they were told not to (through the targets they were imposed).

IMO, as I posted previously, BMW gave us the S55 to meet two corporate objectives: cost and emissions. Not because it is a better performance engine.

That being said, the world is changing and I have no choice to accept it. I am looking forward to driving my M4 in 8 weeks and see how much of a compromise (if at all) the S55 really is .
Great post!
Appreciate 0
      06-13-2014, 09:57 AM   #613
G80indy
Save the Manuals
G80indy's Avatar
United_States
1710
Rep
2,937
Posts

Drives: Z3, E46, G80
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Indy

iTrader: (0)

The throttle response in the S65 leaves one with anything but "it's tired" as a feeling.
It is gentile if you want it to be, and ready to romp at a moment's notice.
It's all controlled by your right foot.
__________________
2023 G80 6MT, CCBs
2002 330i Dinan, 5MT
2000 Z3 Conforti, 5MT
Appreciate 0
      06-13-2014, 11:56 AM   #614
Alex07M3
Banned
82
Rep
2,688
Posts

Drives: E92 M3, Evo X MR, A4 Allroad
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Gatineau

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
Just for comparison sake, Audi is getting 450hp and a 8500RPM redline with the RS4/RS5 4.2L direct injection engine. Doing quick math, a 4.4L direct injection S65B44 development could do 470hp. Not far fetched at all.

Further, the heavy and AWD RS5 is EPA rated at 16/23, which is better than the 14/20 for the E9X M3. Better fuel economy than the E9X could have been achieved with a DI S65B44 development. Also not that far fetched.

This engine would have been more expensive than the S55 and would have not met BMW's emissions target for the car (S55 is EPA rated at 17/26). The engineers did not build it because they were told not to (through the targets they were imposed).

IMO, as I posted previously, BMW gave us the S55 to meet two corporate objectives: cost and emissions. Not because it is a better performance engine.

That being said, the world is changing and I have no choice to accept it. I am looking forward to driving my M4 in 8 weeks and see how much of a compromise (if at all) the S55 really is .
Appreciate 0
      06-16-2014, 10:00 PM   #615
Kurt_OH
Captain
Kurt_OH's Avatar
United_States
12
Rep
734
Posts

Drives: E90 M3 ZCP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Columbus, OH

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gthal View Post


Yeah, OK. I love it when people judge a car they haven't driven. I guess ignorance is bliss

///M is very far from dead. It is just faster with more torque is all.
Interesting that you judge a car you haven't driven. Perhaps a re-read of what you replied with above is in order, Mr. Hypocrite?
__________________
... a glorious V8 that screamed and hollered as the revs rose and then howled in an orgy of what sounded like BDSM ecstasy as it neared the red line.
Well, you can forget all that. The new car is fitted with a turbocharged straight six. Turbocharging? In an M car? That’s like putting gravy on an ice cream.
- Jeremy Clarkson, discussing the S65 and then S55 M3 engines.
Appreciate 0
      06-16-2014, 10:05 PM   #616
gthal
Major General
gthal's Avatar
Canada
1901
Rep
5,678
Posts

Drives: 2018 340i xDrive
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada

iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurt_OH View Post
Interesting that you judge a car you haven't driven. Perhaps a re-read of what you replied with above is in order, Mr. Hypocrite?
Ahhh... but I have driven it No hypocrite here... sorry.
__________________
2020 X3 M40i | Black | Current DD
2020 C8 Corvette | Z51 | Torch Red ... built and waiting for delivery
2016 M2 | Long Beach Blue | 6MT
2015 M4 | Austin Yellow | DCT
2012 MB C63AMG | 2011 E92 M3 | 2010 E92 M3
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
2014 bmw m3, 2014 bmw m3 horsepower, 2014 bmw m3 specs, 2014 bmw m4 horsepower, 2014 bmw m4 specs, 2014 m3, 2014 m3 engine, 2014 m3 forum, 2014 m3 horsepower, 2014 m3 hp, 2014 m3 specs, 2014 m3 weight, 2014 m4 engine, 2014 m4 horsepower, 2014 m4 hp, 2014 m4 specs, 2014 m4 weight, 2015 bmw m3, 2015 bmw m3 specs, 2015 bmw m4, 2015 bmw m4 specs, 2015 m3, 2015 m3 engine, 2015 m3 specs, 2015 m4, 2015 m4 engine, 2015 m4 hp, 2015 m4 specs, 2015 m4 weight, bmw f80, bmw f80 forum, bmw f80 forums, bmw f80 m3, bmw f80 m3 s55, bmw f80 m3 sedan, bmw f82, bmw f82 forum, bmw f82 forums, bmw f82 m3 coupe, bmw f82 m4, bmw f82 m4 coupe, bmw f82 m4 s55, bmw f82 m4 video, bmw f83, bmw f83 m3, bmw f83 m4, bmw m forum, bmw m forums, bmw m3 forum, bmw m3 forums, bmw m3 s55, bmw m3 s55 engine, bmw m4, bmw m4 coupe, bmw m4 coupe forum, bmw m4 forum, bmw m4 forums, bmw m4 horsepower, bmw m4 hp, bmw m4 redline, bmw m4 rev limit, bmw m4 rev limiter, bmw m4 weight, f80 m3, f82 m4

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:02 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST