S55 vs. S65

[w3rkn]

Originally Posted by Ezio

i would be down for that experiment. but i feel doing it at a car meet would be more ideal though. like a weekend night on woodward or a cars and coffee meet.

in fact i would love to do the same with a M4.

Perhaps when some M4's roll into Mich, we can run a little expero..

[w3rkn]

Originally Posted by Boss330

You are mixing throttle modulation on NA vs Turbo engines here, not high rpm vs low rpm...

A NA engine usually is easier to modulate than a turbo engine, because of lag. Lag means that throttle input doesn't allways equal power output immediately, but power comes delayed from throttle input. A engine like the S65 is easier to modulate than a 1M because throttle input equals immediate response and linearity of power output. I explained that in my previous post as well.

And, in most modern BMW's you can change throttle modulation via the dynamic drive button anyway. In Sport mode, less throttle pedal travel gives same throttle opening as longer pedal travel does in Normal mode. Doesn't mean it's hard to modulate power, it just gives you a more direct and instant response from the engine. It kinda feels like the engine is more powerfull because less pedal travel gives more power than in Normal. And a engine that "needs" more pedal travel surely has that programmed into its fly by wire throttle today, or in the good old days in the gearing of the throttle linkage.

Ask someone with a Ford F150 6,2l V8 if it's difficult to modulate the throttle, or someone with a Chevrolet LT1/LS7 engined Corvette... Low rpm engines, high torque, but not difficult to modulate the throttle on. The engine in those examples gives you the power that you ask for via the throttle pedal. If your theory would be correct, then every US Pickup would be difficult to modulate throttle and power on...

Then ask someone with a Ferrari F40 with it's big turbo, small displacement (2,9l), engine and 7750rpm redline if that's easy to modulate power on (as it should be because it has a high rpm according to your theory). Hint; It's not easy to modulate throttle input and power output as will be explained below.

It's the way the engine delivers it's power that decides whether it's hard to modulate the throttle. Turbo engines used to be said had a "ketchup effect" in their power delivery... Like in how you pour ketchup from a old Heinz bottle. Nothing, nothing, nothing... EVERYTHING!

Think of a NA engine as pouring milk out of a glass. It's very easy to control the flow of the milk from the glass by the angle you tilt the glass. A turbo engine will be more like pouring syrup, it's harder to control the flow, or change the flow, as there is more resistancy to flow (viscosity). That's a very crude way of illustrating how difficult it can be to maintain and keep boost, or especially the delay in boost when throttle input changes (just like the difference between pouring milk and syrup, and the slight delay in flow of syrup to every change of tilt of the glass, where the milk responds much quicker to those inputs...).

A turbo is delayed in it's response to throttle input because:

-Open the throttle, equals more air to the engine and more fuel is injected
-The above chain of events then leads to a larger combustion which leads to more exhaust
-Only now (after the first explosions with more air and fuel) does the turbine side of the turbo see the extra exhaust created by your throttle input some milliseconds ago
-The turbine is spun faster by the increased volume and speed of the exhaust, this means the compressor side also spins faster
-The compressor side can now start to compress and pump more air into the intercooler and further downstream to the intake manifold
-By the time the extra supercharged air reaches the inlet valves and into the combustion chamber, there might be a time lapse of 0,5-3 seconds from your throttle pedal input...

This is why it's harder to modulate a traditional turbo engine than a NA engine. A NA engine doesn't have to wait on the turbo to spool up and charge the air before it delivers the power you asked for!

Not sure how the "air in, air out" statement is relevant, apart from stating the obvious fact that a combustion engine is a air pump. And that to pump more air you either need to:

a) increase the frequency (RPM)
b) supercharge the air going in to the pump
c) increase the volume of the pump (larger displacement)

Or, all of the above.

BTW. I own both a NA BMW 3l I6 and a Ford with a 2l Cosworth Turbo engine. But one is WAY easier and more predictable to modulate power on... One is a widow maker with wild oversteer tendencies when power all of a sudden comes in a big rush... They both have a redline only 500rpm apart and have allmost exactly the same power (around 270-300hp).

Guess which one is easier to modulate.

Would you like a book, or the short answer?
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.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by w3rkn

Would you like a book, or the short answer?
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.

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...

[w3rkn]

Originally Posted by Boss330

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...

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.

[Sedan_Clan]

What's considered 'high revving'?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by w3rkn

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.

Which is why your 1M vs M3 example was odd...

Originally Posted by w3rkn

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.

Because YOU brought it up with your 1M vs M3 example...

The Ferrari F40 had a redline at 7750rpm, the McLaren MP4-12C is redlined at 8500rpm and the S55 at 7600rpm.

Originally Posted by w3rkn

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.)

Your so called "facts" above doesn't take into account the ratio between throttle pedal and opening of throttle valve. You assume that every car has the same length throttle pedal movement and that 1mm pedal movement allways equals the same degree of throttle valve opening...

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...

[w3rkn]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Which is why your 1M vs M3 example was odd...




Because YOU brought it up with your 1M vs M3 example...

The Ferrari F40 had a redline at 7750rpm, the McLaren MP4-12C is redlined at 8500rpm and the S55 at 7600rpm.




Your so called "facts" above doesn't take into account the ratio between throttle pedal and opening of throttle valve. You assume that every car has the same length throttle pedal movement and that 1mm pedal movement allways equals the same degree of throttle valve opening...

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...

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.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by w3rkn

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? Take both of your cars out then and hold 3,000rpms @ 2nd gear... ..then instantly as possible, lock and maintain 3,780 rpms. You will find that you will overshoot the mark, & not track those rpms as easily as you do with Your screamer.

Do eet!

First bold point:
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.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

First bold point:
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 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).


But to stay on topic, the S55 has a 7600rpm redline so it's "only" 900rpm down on the S65.

A simpler analogy is to think about mass air flow. Assuming similar volumetric efficiency, a 2L engine will suck in the same amount of air at 5000RPM as a 4L engine at 2500RPM. Increasing the throttle opening by the same amount for both engines will increase the mass air flow by the same amount, hence increase the power by the same amount.

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.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

A simpler analogy is to think about mass air flow. Assuming similar volumetric efficiency, a 2L engine will suck in the same amount of air at 5000RPM as a 4L engine at 2500RPM. Increasing the throttle opening by the same amount for both engines will increase the mass air flow by the same amount, hence increase the power by the same amount.

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.

Good points, as allways

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.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by Boss330

But to stay on topic, the S55 has a 7600rpm redline so it's "only" 900rpm down on the S65.

although it seems that revving past 8k seems to be the magic red line. As most performance engines do not hit that. 8-9k redline is mostly a thing of exotics. to me that new GT3 hitting 9k RPM is something of true engine beauty. thats really my dream engine right now.

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

[ixse]

lol all these PhD in youtube n google writing an essay in car forum.. cracks me up.. guess why M3 owners have no friends (quoted from top gear)

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by Ezio

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

Small turbo engine?

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

[Maddict3]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

Nobody cares that you own an ///M3 dude. Stop with that shit! We've gone over this with you and Earl. Geez! Your superiority complex is off the charts. You are merely an ///M n00b that is completely overcome with 'Fanboyic Romanticism'. Yes, I made that term up just for you. How old are you? Some of us were probably in ///M cars before you were even driving. You just bought your ///M3 in March of this year; I had already owned 5 ///M cars before you even began researching ///M's and GT500's in the late part of 2012. Get off of your high horse; your car is nothing special (..when in the company of other people who have owned the car already).




Then PLEASE leave refrain from commenting if the new car doesn't live up to your standards. You've made that painfully obvious.




See the comment above.

Very well said.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Ezio

As most performance engines do not hit that. 8-9k redline is mostly a thing of exotics.

Hmmm....

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.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

Small turbo engine?

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

its always fun to compare a street engines to race engines. always a fun and FAIR comparison.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

Hmmm....

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.

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.

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by Ezio

its always fun to compare a street engines to race engines. always a fun and FAIR comparison.

It is isn't it? Just like comparing Ferrari engines to the S65 and more or less degrading the N54/S55 any time of the day for the last few weeks.

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

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Ezio

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.

The bs huh?

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.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

It is isn't it? Just like comparing Ferrari engines to the S65 and more or less degrading the N54/S55 any time of the day for the last few weeks.

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

i never said small turbo engines are not fun. or did i say anything about them not making enough power or "working fine" to do the job at hand. i was talking about red line. i think half the time you read what i write and just wanna say something about past debates that were found earlier in the thread.

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.....

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

The bs huh?

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.

i said limited right you people are unreal..... you would never last in court. a lawyer would eat you up. because of using words that were never said.

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.

[Jockey]

A 3.0L I6 is not a small turbo engine. In the grand scheme of turbocharged engines, that's not small.