Power potential limited?

[Transfer]

I think people are forgetting there are physical limitations to what the stock turbos can do. Do we even know any specs about the turbos other than "small Mitsubishi"? How about turbine and compressor sizes? Journal or BB? Also heat is going to be a major issue with the S55. It looks like they have it pretty well figured out for stock boost and power but I would expect heat management will be a big problem pushing toward 500hp. I'm surprised the S55 is good for multiple laps as it is, but if you push the turbos to their limits, look for meltdowns.

Now if there are turbo upgrades available, that changes everything but kits will probably cost as much as a supercharger for an E9x.

[Maddict3]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

no, you cant make 500whp with bolt ons.

you cant make 500whp with E85, meth and bolt ons

you need upgraded turbos and meth and e85 to make 500whp

a supercharged m3 will crush a bolt on 335 from a roll unless its at really high elevation

Thank you!

I have a 335is with full bolt ons and while I havent dyno'ed the car yet a friend with a 335is with full bolt ons told me that our cars make anywhere from 390-410 whp.

500whp with full bolt ons is way off

[Maddict3]

What do you guys reckon the M4 will make extra with DP, Intake, Titanium exhaust? I plan on doing these bolt ons once I get my car.

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by Jockey

Smaller turbos? Where did you get that info?

The N54 at the track just needs an upgraded oil cooler. Bigger intercooler helps too.

Straight out of Car and Driver.

"Despite its similarity to the 1 M’s N54 engine in concept and characteristics, this inline-six is an all-new, M-developed unit. (BMW wouldn’t divulge the M3/M4’s engine code yet.) Its turbos are smaller and can reach a higher maximum boost pressure of 18.1 psi."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...st-ride-review


If the turbos are smaller but can push more air, they must be running closer to highest efficiency stock. Surely they have not left as much power on the table as they did with the N54?

Did you guys see the pictures of the M3 engine bay? I am not sure there is more than a cubic inch of open space anywhere in there. It just really makes me concerned about how robust this thing is going to be.

This is two generations in a row now that BMW has gone all-in on the M5 powerplants while treating the M3 as kind of an afterthought.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Transfer

I think people are forgetting there are physical limitations to what the stock turbos can do. Do we even know any specs about the turbos other than "small Mitsubishi"? How about turbine and compressor sizes? Journal or BB? Also heat is going to be a major issue with the S55. It looks like they have it pretty well figured out for stock boost and power but I would expect heat management will be a big problem pushing toward 500hp. I'm surprised the S55 is good for multiple laps as it is, but if you push the turbos to their limits, look for meltdowns.

Now if there are turbo upgrades available, that changes everything but kits will probably cost as much as a supercharger for an E9x.

Remember that in ideal conditions you will never see the 18,xPSI maximum boost. Boost will be increased by the ECU to compensate for heat, humidity, altitude etc. On a crisp cold day at sea level you might only see 12PSI of boost, meaning there should be a lot of potential for more power, under ideal circumstances.

[swamp2]

catpat8000, mkoesel:

I have debated mkoesel pretty vigorously on the reason for BMW Ms change from NA to FI. I firmly believe it is all about cost. Fleet averages are what matter from an economics punishment by any government. For tax purposes in many countries displacement is also a big factor. What surprises me quite a bit it that it appears that the S55 block is totally novel in the new M3/4 pretty heavily cutting into the coast savings there. Nonetheless, there is still going to be some significant engine commonality.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by basscadet

Straight out of Car and Driver.

"Despite its similarity to the 1 M’s N54 engine in concept and characteristics, this inline-six is an all-new, M-developed unit. (BMW wouldn’t divulge the M3/M4’s engine code yet.) Its turbos are smaller and can reach a higher maximum boost pressure of 18.1 psi."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...st-ride-review


If the turbos are smaller but can push more air, they must be running closer to highest efficiency stock. Surely they have not left as much power on the table as they did with the N54?

Did you guys see the pictures of the M3 engine bay? I am not sure there is more than a cubic inch of open space anywhere in there. It just really makes me concerned about how robust this thing is going to be.

This is two generations in a row now that BMW has gone all-in on the M5 powerplants while treating the M3 as kind of an afterthought.

Keep in mind that the turbos will normally not make the maximum 18,xPSI of boost, see my previous posts on BMW philosophy on boost management and boost reserve for worst case scenarios (temperature, humidity, altitude etc.). So under ideal conditions, there should be quite a bit of reserve built into the engine and turbos.

Not sure I follow your analogy on M5 vs M3 powerplants

The S63TÜ in the M5 is a reworked S63 from the X5/6M, which again is based on the N63. It shares the same block, bore spacing, bore/stroke as the N63, but has different ancilliaries and rotating assemblies.

The S55 is loosely based on the N55, but has a brand new block with different bore spacing, requiring new tooling, and goes to a undersquare bore/stroke ratio vs the oversquare bore/stroke of the N55.

The S55 is based on the N55 probably so it can share some ancilliaries and some of the tooling, but it's a much more specially designed engine than the S63. The S55 can in many ways be classified as a brand new engine since block, cylinder head, bore/stroke and rotating assemblies can only be found in the S55. The S63 shares far more with the N63...

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

catpat8000, mkoesel:

I have debated mkoesel pretty vigorously on the reason for BMW Ms change from NA to FI. I firmly believe it is all about cost. Fleet averages are what matter from an economics punishment by any government. For tax purposes in many countries displacement is also a big factor. What surprises me quite a bit it that it appears that the S55 block is totally novel in the new M3/4 pretty heavily cutting into the coast savings there. Nonetheless, there is still going to be some significant engine commonality.

Remember that in EU it's not about only about a calculated average, but based on how many cars of each model is sold. Doesn't help if you have a few models with zero emission, if you only sell two of them per year... (which also should work in M models favour as they represent a small percentage of total BMW's sold).

In many European countries the yearly road/vehicle tax is calculated based on the cars CO2 emissions. This can amount to a major difference/advantage for owners. These taxes has led to many onwers of company cars no longer can choose an M version because it won't be viable under the tax system anymore. Some European countries also have taxation on CO2 and engine displacement on registration of vehicles.

And, not least, the political and public climate (pun intended), in Europe demands that car companies show a responsible approach towards reducing emissions. Even many car magazines are critical of companies if they introduce a new gas guzzler (possibly unless it's a supercar or something). I think this might be something that is very different between the public climate in Europe and the US, and which might have played a vital part in BMW's decision to distance itself from dinosaur gas guzzler engines...

And then there is the more available power band of the turbo engines which, like it or not, probably is more suited to 99% of todays potential buyers and todays traffic. Like I wrote previously, the E36 M3 3,2 was a fantastic engine for it's time, but today just feels underwhelming to be honest. To compete with modern competition, you can't have a NA 3,2l i6 or even a 4l V8, you would need a even larger displacement NA engine to be able to compete. That is just not viable anymore.

The 570hp 4,5l V8 in the 458 is a flat plane crank engine that works fine in a mid engine sports car which doesn't have to be a family car as well. But that engine has a CO2 emission value of 307g/km, where the M5 CP engine with 575hp only has 232g/km...

Just to illustrate how important CO2 is in Europe, if you configure a M5 on a European BMW website, the first information that you will see is CO2 emissions. Car makers are by law required to have information about their models CO2 emissions displayed at a visible place in showrooms and in adverts.

They also have to use this pictogram so buyers easily can figure out if the car is green or not:



Cost is obviously of vital importance to any company that has to rely on profits to survive (as any private company has to). But I believe, especially seeing how much development they have done with the S55 engine, that factors such as emissions, public image and more useable power are the main reasons for the change to Turbo engines.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by swamp2

catpat8000, mkoesel:

I have debated mkoesel pretty vigorously on the reason for BMW Ms change from NA to FI. I firmly believe it is all about cost.

It most certainly is a cost issue of course. I don't think there is any argument about that. And if there were I certainly don't see any point in debating it; business decisions are always based around money. The S65 did not make the case. We know that since it's not in the car. It is impossible to know exactly why, but I gave my opinions above (and in the past in other discussions). I will say right now that if some new F8x competitor arrives on the market with a high revving N/A V8 then I'm fully prepared to rethink things. Until then, I'm sticking with what I've got.

What surprises me quite a bit it that it appears that the S55 block is totally novel in the new M3/4 pretty heavily cutting into the coast savings there. Nonetheless, there is still going to be some significant engine commonality.

It just might be that there is more to the business case than the cost of development and production of the engine itself.

[BMW M3 CRT]

Originally Posted by swamp2

catpat8000, mkoesel:

I have debated mkoesel pretty vigorously on the reason for BMW Ms change from NA to FI. I firmly believe it is all about cost. Fleet averages are what matter from an economics punishment by any government. For tax purposes in many countries displacement is also a big factor. What surprises me quite a bit it that it appears that the S55 block is totally novel in the new M3/4 pretty heavily cutting into the coast savings there. Nonetheless, there is still going to be some significant engine commonality.

Good post ... thanks, in the case of the M3/M4 its really all about costs the green/fuel consumtions in this case are all about marketing.
With very few FI engines you can fit the hole car range of BMW ... look at the B-(Baukasten)engines, all are base on the same 1-cylinder and fills an hp-range from <100hp to >370hp. I accept that downsizing/FI is an key factor to reduce the fleet average, but only for the mass production AG models not for the M models ... and if I could accept an FI engine in the M3/M4 than this would be an small displacement V8TT like all/most of the competitors.

To the S55:
Most important for BMW (not for the M-GmbH) it fits on the regular produktion line in the Steyr Engine Production Plant.
As of the S55 block ... I don´t know where the N74 block was produced, which nearly share the bore/Stroke ratio with the S55 ... but it seems that the S55 also fits on the regular R6 engine production street ... and many parts could be produced together with the N63Tü/S63Tü/N74.

So my question was:
Why BMW couldn´t be so clever/smart and brings an ~400hp M Performnance Automobile M340i/M440i (sedan/coupe/convertible/estate and GC!) with an 3.0ltr. I6TT for all customers where fuel consumpition, range, low taxes an the other economic points counts ... and an more hardcore, race orientated and lightweight racier M3/M4 (only sedan and coupe) with an modified 4.0ltr.V8 NA S65 with ~430-4440hp. I think both together would be sold well beyond the old E9xM3 numbers ... and every M fan gets the car he needs and which fulfil his demands.
Take a look at Porsche with Turbo and GT3 !!!

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by basscadet

Straight out of Car and Driver.

"Despite its similarity to the 1 M’s N54 engine in concept and characteristics, this inline-six is an all-new, M-developed unit. (BMW wouldn’t divulge the M3/M4’s engine code yet.) Its turbos are smaller and can reach a higher maximum boost pressure of 18.1 psi."

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...st-ride-review

Very interesting info if indeed accurate. Thanks for posting this; I think it's quite relevant to the OPs question. Once full details of the S55 are revealed, I look forward to hearing about all the technical differences between it and the N54. And the Alpina motor is yet another take on the I6 TT as well.

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Keep in mind that the turbos will normally not make the maximum 18,xPSI of boost, see my previous posts on BMW philosophy on boost management and boost reserve for worst case scenarios (temperature, humidity, altitude etc.). So under ideal conditions, there should be quite a bit of reserve built into the engine and turbos.

Not sure I follow your analogy on M5 vs M3 powerplants

Hi Boss, thank you for your comment. I do understand how the turbos have an operating range based on air density to insure performance in a wide range of scenarios.

My point about the M5 powerplant vs. M3 powerplant was that it just seems that the M5 motors for both E60 and F10 were class-leading. The M3 motors for both E9x and F8x are looking to be bottom of the class. (Class being C63, RS4, ATS-V, etc)

I believe the M3 to be superior to those cars listed above but it would just be refreshing to have a beast motor for good 60-130mph runs.

[tdizzle]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

no, you cant make 500whp with bolt ons.

you cant make 500whp with E85, meth and bolt ons

you need upgraded turbos and meth and e85 to make 500whp

a supercharged m3 will crush a bolt on 335 from a roll unless its at really high elevation

You're right, don't know what I was thinking. A N54 will 'only' make 450whp with DP, DCI and E85 and no other mods (well maybe an upgraded fuel pump which cost $90)

Looks like tossing on a RB turbo will put you in the 525whp (ish) range.

I'm pretty sure Terry's 135 on stock turbo's pretty much beat most things it lined up against (he's putting on upgraded turbos now), but I didn't bother finding videos. I did find a few videos of a 335 with upgraded turbos beating a supercharged M3 pretty handily in the shiftsector racing (along with a host of other cars like a ferrari and GTR).

I'm not sure what the point was of this though. My first post was in agreement to someone talking to the OPs post about the F80 probably getting beat in a straight line by a tuned N54. I just tossed in the comment about a supercharged m3 because I've seen plenty go down to N54s, but most seem to have the turbo upgrade. It was more of a comparison > if a supercharged m3 has to worry about tuned N54s, then surely a stock F80 won't have a chance. Not knocking any of the cars, just that the potential is there in the 'old' 335s that can't be denied with tuning (cheaply at that).

[tdizzle]

Originally Posted by Maddict3

Thank you!

I have a 335is with full bolt ons and while I havent dyno'ed the car yet a friend with a 335is with full bolt ons told me that our cars make anywhere from 390-410 whp.

500whp with full bolt ons is way off

Maybe try E85?

http://www.burgertuning.com/images/jb4_dyno/dyno3.jpg

With just DP and intake and JB4 an otherwise stock 335 usually makes in the 380whp -385whp range on 93 octane.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by tdizzle

You're right, don't know what I was thinking. A N54 will 'only' make 450whp with DP, DCI and E85 and no other mods (well maybe an upgraded fuel pump which cost $90)

Looks like tossing on a RB turbo will put you in the 525whp (ish) range.

I'm pretty sure Terry's 135 on stock turbo's pretty much beat most things it lined up against (he's putting on upgraded turbos now), but I didn't bother finding videos. I did find a few videos of a 335 with upgraded turbos beating a supercharged M3 pretty handily in the shiftsector racing (along with a host of other cars like a ferrari and GTR).

I'm not sure what the point was of this though. My first post was in agreement to someone talking to the OPs post about the F80 probably getting beat in a straight line by a tuned N54. I just tossed in the comment about a supercharged m3 because I've seen plenty go down to N54s, but most seem to have the turbo upgrade. It was more of a comparison > if a supercharged m3 has to worry about tuned N54s, then surely a stock F80 won't have a chance. Not knocking any of the cars, just that the potential is there in the 'old' 335s that can't be denied with tuning (cheaply at that).

With tuned N54's, are you referring to new turbos etc, or just a tune?

Because it seems to me that a tuned 335i with a JB3 is slower than a stock E9x M3. The F8x M's will be faster than the E9x M3.

And, besides the N54 is getting old now, the F3x 335i or 435i will have the N55 engine which hasn't got the same tuning potential as the older N54. Of course there can be the odd few that goes all out with a turbo upgrade etc. But if you want to compare apples with apples, then a turbo upgrade on the M3/4 will take care of that...

Even back in the days of the E30 M3 there where companies like Hartge and others here in Europe that made faster versions than the M3 based on the std E30 3-series. That competition has allways been there. It's not a new thing that tuners have made versions of a standard model that is faster than the M version...

It's not like simply sticking a JB3/4 tune on your 335i will leave the F8x M3/4 in the dust.

[JoeFromPA]

I don't get this concept of the m3 motor not being "class leading" because it makes "only 430hp".

Let's discuss this a bit: The 2008+ DCT e9x m3 would do the quarter mile in ~ 12.6-12.7 seconds reliably, right from the factory floor.

The 2012+ c63 AMG will do a quarter mile in ~12.3 seconds, reliably, right from the factory.

Now we are reaching a point at these acceleration times where RWD, in showroom form, starts to hit a severe traction problem. In addition, AMG is achieving these numbers at the expense of weight because they don't put as much emphasis on track worthiness - their models are german dragsters.

Now, we can safely assume the f8x m3 with a DCT or similar transmission is going to pull a quarter mile time in ~12.3 seconds because we know it'll put out ~430hp and will have notable weight reduction.

This is huge. This m3 will, based upon the information I know of at least, pull a quarter mile time that is almost at the limits of what showroom RWD 4-seaters have been able to pull, even with much larger engines.

I am personally glad BMW is keeping the m3 in the ~430-470 crank HP range and focused instead of weight. I would've been far less happy if BMW had focused on 500 crank HP and the m3 weighed 3750-3900 pounds.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

I don't get this concept of the m3 motor not being "class leading" because it makes "only 430hp".

Let's discuss this a bit: The 2008+ DCT e9x m3 would do the quarter mile in ~ 12.6-12.7 seconds reliably, right from the factory floor.

The 2012+ c63 AMG will do a quarter mile in ~12.3 seconds, reliably, right from the factory.

Now we are reaching a point at these acceleration times where RWD, in showroom form, starts to hit a severe traction problem. In addition, AMG is achieving these numbers at the expense of weight because they don't put as much emphasis on track worthiness - their models are german dragsters.

Now, we can safely assume the f8x m3 with a DCT or similar transmission is going to pull a quarter mile time in ~12.3 seconds because we know it'll put out ~430hp and will have notable weight reduction.

This is huge. This m3 will, based upon the information I know of at least, pull a quarter mile time that is almost at the limits of what showroom RWD 4-seaters have been able to pull, even with much larger engines.

I am personally glad BMW is keeping the m3 in the ~430-470 crank HP range and focused instead of weight. I would've been far less happy if BMW had focused on 500 crank HP and the m3 weighed 3750-3900 pounds.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

I don't get this concept of the m3 motor not being "class leading" because it makes "only 430hp".

Let's discuss this a bit: The 2008+ DCT e9x m3 would do the quarter mile in ~ 12.6-12.7 seconds reliably, right from the factory floor.

The 2012+ c63 AMG will do a quarter mile in ~12.3 seconds, reliably, right from the factory.

Now we are reaching a point at these acceleration times where RWD, in showroom form, starts to hit a severe traction problem. In addition, AMG is achieving these numbers at the expense of weight because they don't put as much emphasis on track worthiness - their models are german dragsters.

Now, we can safely assume the f8x m3 with a DCT or similar transmission is going to pull a quarter mile time in ~12.3 seconds because we know it'll put out ~430hp and will have notable weight reduction.

This is huge. This m3 will, based upon the information I know of at least, pull a quarter mile time that is almost at the limits of what showroom RWD 4-seaters have been able to pull, even with much larger engines.

I am personally glad BMW is keeping the m3 in the ~430-470 crank HP range and focused instead of weight. I would've been far less happy if BMW had focused on 500 crank HP and the m3 weighed 3750-3900 pounds.

It's not all about ¼ mile times, where traction is a key factor. Some of us track junkies are more concerned about 40mph-140mph acceleration (speed range that covers most tracks) that is not traction limited but very power dependent.

I am glad the F8X has shed some weight and would have wished for more of it. I would have also liked to see 20-40hp more.

I know, I know, I want to have my cake and eat it too

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

I don't get this concept of the m3 motor not being "class leading" because it makes "only 430hp".

Let's discuss this a bit: The 2008+ DCT e9x m3 would do the quarter mile in ~ 12.6-12.7 seconds reliably, right from the factory floor.

The 2012+ c63 AMG will do a quarter mile in ~12.3 seconds, reliably, right from the factory.

Now we are reaching a point at these acceleration times where RWD, in showroom form, starts to hit a severe traction problem. In addition, AMG is achieving these numbers at the expense of weight because they don't put as much emphasis on track worthiness - their models are german dragsters.

Now, we can safely assume the f8x m3 with a DCT or similar transmission is going to pull a quarter mile time in ~12.3 seconds because we know it'll put out ~430hp and will have notable weight reduction.

This is huge. This m3 will, based upon the information I know of at least, pull a quarter mile time that is almost at the limits of what showroom RWD 4-seaters have been able to pull, even with much larger engines.

I am personally glad BMW is keeping the m3 in the ~430-470 crank HP range and focused instead of weight. I would've been far less happy if BMW had focused on 500 crank HP and the m3 weighed 3750-3900 pounds.

Having more torque over a broader powerband combined with the lighter weight is going to make the F8x a faster car in the real world and most certainly on a proper race track .

[Jockey]

Well, you're getting less weight and more torque, so that helps

Edit: Bah, Gearhead beat me to it. Look at WRC cars, 300 hp but around 500 ft/lbs of torque.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Having more torque over a broader powerband combined with the lighter weight is going to make the F8x a faster car in the real world and most certainly on a proper race track .

Agreed, faster than an E9X.

But will it be enough to keep up with the competition?

[C17MooseDriver]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Agreed, faster than an E9X.

But will it be enough to keep up with the competition?

I agree. Everyone keeps touting that it'll be faster than the predecessor, but the competition has taken really big leaps.