People who seem to be happy with the new F80 M3 / F82 M4 engine direction

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Your obvious misunderstanding of lag continues, lag is a DYNAMIC concept which has very little to nothing to do with a dyno gathered torque curve and almost for sure can not be "observed" in your M6 video. In addition, I care about an engines peak hp much more than it's torque curve. Yes a broad flat torque curve is desirable but so is a high redline a lack of drastically falling torque approaching redline.

Me too, but that is not a turbo trait, you can have peak torque at redline on a turbo engine.

Originally Posted by swamp2

We do not yet know the new engines displacement, but if you call 3.0-3.3 liters large, OK. The latter idea sounds great, go with a design to assuredly have more lag, which BMW, like many F1 teams, are going to great lengths to reduce or eliminate.

Well 3 liters and turbo with a goal of 450hp is not pushing the boat out is it? I would be impressed if BMW went 2.2-2.4 4 pot for that power.

Heck Mitsubishi Ralliart produced the EVO FQ-400 (405hp, 407ft.lb) about a decade ago, no direct injection, no modern turbo system, from 1997cc. 150bhp/turbo charged litre is more than a little disappointing.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wait, I thought journalists know nothing about cars. OK, as long as they help promote your position they can be quoted and have a valid point, but when they have a contrasting opinion they then "know nothing".

Ugh.

[mrquick68]

My $.02

Here's the cars i've driven on regular basis over the last 4 years:

2003.5 E46 M3 - Spd
2004 B6 S4 - 6 Spd 4.2L V8
2007 335i tuned E90 6 spd
2009 335i tuned+bolt-ons E90 6 spd
2012 Camaro ZL1 - 580hp Supercharged 6 spd
and now 2013 S4 3.0T 6 Spd

Every car on the list has had suspension mods and HP added (except for the ZL1).

For track duty, supercharged and N/A motors are more consistent, but for daily work you can't beat the Turbo. Maybe M/// has figured out a way to make turbo's feel like NA w/ Turbo grunt down low!?

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

For the record, i went to go buy an 2011 E90 M3 and ended up going to new S4 instead - interior is a huge improvement over the E90 and It's my daily driver and i couldn't handle the weak bottom end power delivery of the S65 for daily use. Compared to my 335i's it was a huge step backwards in the engine department for usability (the S65). I loved the car though, just didn't love the engine. A highly built Factory TT N54+M motor is EXACTLY what i wanted. Dream come true for me. Wish it was out this year, i would've bought one. I don't hear people hating on 997 Turbo's, do you guys? Hmmmm.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

Well 3 liters and turbo with a goal of 450hp is not pushing the boat out is it? I would be impressed if BMW went 2.2-2.4 4 pot for that power.

Heck Mitsubishi Ralliart produced the EVO FQ-400 (405hp, 407ft.lb) about a decade ago, no direct injection, no modern turbo system, from 1997cc. 150bhp/turbo charged litre is more than a little disappointing.

Being a (recovering) engineer I have as much or more appreciation for specific output achievements (power or torque per displacement) in either NA or FI engines. High specific outputs are a mark of engineering sophistication and excellence (even more so in the NA realm for obvious reasons). High specific outputs aren't all that magical with really large turbos and the accompanying severe lag is the price to pay as there is no such thing as a free lunch...

Now that being said, in the real world, specific output doesn't makes a lick of difference. Mpg might be the only counter to that position (however much that may matter to most enthusiasts...) Look the the mpg that modern large displacement Corvettes can obtain. The only other benefit for specific output is tax reasons (in the EU and other places where tax is based on displacement) or in racing where there are displacement limitations or other requirements favoring FI. But again those aren't very "real world" for us as US consumer enthusiasts.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

Well the two points are this:

If I take an NA engine and turbo charge it. The throttle response will be EXACTLY the same as it was in NA form. In other words the torque curve will be identical.....until.....the turbo starts producing positive pressure. So where is the lag?

It is the second time you bring this argument and it is flawed. By adding a turbo to an engine you increase both the intake and exhaust plumbing thus decreasing the efficiency of the flows. So no, you will not have the same throttle response.

[BMW269]

I'd like to see a production turbocharged car with throttle response of a Lexus LFA, Ferrari 458 or Porsche 911 GT3.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

It is the second time you bring this argument and it is flawed. By adding a turbo to an engine you increase both the intake and exhaust plumbing thus decreasing the efficiency of the flows. So no, you will not have the same throttle response.

OK, lets look into this.....

At low engine speeds (where turbo lag is greatest, might even be below boost threshold) the air ducting is under very little strain as it is sized to flow far greater volumes. You are telling me that a charge cooler is going to offer a noticeable pressure drop in this operating range?
The Compressor is again sized to flow far greater volume than this too, and it will be rotating offering some assistance even if not compressing at this stage.
Exhaust side is the same thing, a turbo exhaust will be large enough to flow peak NA volumes plus the extra volume in boosted mode, so likely to be at least 50% greater flow capacity than an NA system, yet we are only flowing less than 30% of full NA volume in this scenario.

Due to these reasons I doubt you would feel any decay in throttle response. A stock NA engine has restrictions in the form of the Hot film Air mass sensor, and Cat boxes. These will still be the restrictions on a Turbo application.

Now I am not saying these restrictions make no difference, but I am saying that on a fly by wire throttled car which doesn't snap open like a cabled system, the drive by wire is more likely to be controlling throttle response than other factors.

Lets look at a more taxing engine operating parameter, perhaps going WOT in the upper 1/4 of the rev range?
Well in this range turbo lag will be in the order of 0.1 seconds in a properly sorted application. That is 0.1 seconds more than standard NA fuelling lag until you feel 'pushed into the back of your seat' boosted torque.

Not much of a penalty there.

Sure the turbo engine will have a CR of something like 10:1 instead of an NA 11.5:1, which drops response a tiny bit. You may also assume that the Turbo engine will have bigger injectors with lower resolution as a result of. But we are grasping at straws here.

You mentioned you work on aircraft. You will know a much greater (by large magnitudes) factor in response......PIO (Pilot induced oscillation), yes that thing that has crashed multi million dollar F22 prototypes.

This same factor afflicts even the best racing drivers. Do yourself a favour and look at the pedal cams on someone driving say an M3 round a track. If you can show me a progressive-on-full-off throttle pedal driving style I will concede and say 'Turbo engines are not for this guy'. Fact is you won't find this driving style, racing is all about 'feeling' how much power you can apply, how much steering angle you can get away with, how much brake pressure you can apply. All analogue inputs made by a human, and totally drown out a tiny lag here or there, after all most NA drivers will describe NA engines as 'instant response' yet we know it isn't instant, it is just too small for them to feel it.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by Levi

I'd like to see a production turbocharged car with throttle response of a Lexus LFA, Ferrari 458 or Porsche 911 GT3.

Yes because a Porsche GT3 is so much faster than a Porsche GT2

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

Yes because a Porsche GT3 is so much faster than a Porsche GT2

What does throttle response have to do with how fast a car is?


Then I'd like to hear a turbocharged engine that sounds better than a naturally aspirated engine.

[Boss330]

NISFAN: There is no point to continue this discussion. You can keep on denying what every auto engineer responsible for engine design agrees on. I would suggest you read the TopGear Supercar issue on sale now. Especially the stort about the Ferrari F12 and what the engine department guys sau about the difference between a NA engine and a Turbo engine when it comes to response! And the calculations mentioned there... Your view on this clearly differs from their view and facts... Not to mention Renault F1 engineers!

Use your own definitions and understanding by all means, I prefer to agree with actual engine designers and how everyone else understands this subject.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by Boss330

NISFAN: There is no point to continue this discussion. You can keep on denying what every auto engineer responsible for engine design agrees on. I would suggest you read the TopGear Supercar issue on sale now. Especially the stort about the Ferrari F12 and what the engine department guys sau about the difference between a NA engine and a Turbo engine when it comes to response! And the calculations mentioned there... Your view on this clearly differs from their view and facts... Not to mention Renault F1 engineers!

Use your own definitions and understanding by all means, I prefer to agree with actual engine designers and how everyone else understands this subject.

I have not disagreed with the concept, what I have disagreed with is the 'size of the issue'.

Regarding Ferrari, I would not take any notice of their stance of Turbo engines. They tried very hard to convince the FIA NOT TO GO TURBO, due to the sound of the engine. They got Bernie and Jean Todt to come and listen to 'one we made earlier'. They make money selling cars that sound good, and they are obliged to fit similar tech engines into their road cars. They fear what this will do to sales, not to mention the chance that they might be caught out again like their turbo engines were in the 80's.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by Levi

What does throttle response have to do with how fast a car is?


Then I'd like to hear a turbocharged engine that sounds better than a naturally aspirated engine.

With the level of CATs and emission controls demanded today, that is going to be difficult. But just like the sound of an e30 M3 sends a tingle down your spine, NA's of today can't replicate that either. e93 M3? Too quiet, too muffled.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

I have not disagreed with the concept, what I have disagreed with is the 'size of the issue'.

Regarding Ferrari, I would not take any notice of their stance of Turbo engines. They tried very hard to convince the FIA NOT TO GO TURBO, due to the sound of the engine. They got Bernie and Jean Todt to come and listen to 'one we made earlier'. They make money selling cars that sound good, and they are obliged to fit similar tech engines into their road cars. They fear what this will do to sales, not to mention the chance that they might be caught out again like their turbo engines were in the 80's.

They disagreed mainly on going 4 cyl. That's why we ended up with V6 instead. And one of Ferrari's most iconic cars is the F40, wonder what kind of engine that has...???

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

With the level of CATs and emission controls demanded today, that is going to be difficult. But just like the sound of an e30 M3 sends a tingle down your spine, NA's of today can't replicate that either. e93 M3? Too quiet, too muffled.

Never heard a 458 Italia, R8 etc then?

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by Boss330

They disagreed mainly on going 4 cyl. That's why we ended up with V6 instead. And one of Ferrari's most iconic cars is the F40, wonder what kind of engine that has...???

Yes the F40 is my favourite Ferrari. Fitted with a hairy chested turbo engine

...and the primary reason I protest with people who whine about turbo lag.

You see it goes like this, the whiners force companies like BMW to adopt a 'weak sauce' approach to turbo charging. This is the boost threshold at idle and seemless boost from very low revs. So what they make is a long stroked, low boost engine that has all the emphasis on torque at low engine revs. This means that top end the boost starts to drop off and you have a torque curve that dives down near redline. A useless way to turbo charge an engine.

The F40 is actually very laggy, but such an exciting machine to drive, once in the sweet spot it snorts..bangs....and hisses and generally hits the driver with a 'shock and awe' power delivery. That is what I want, not some NA replica smooth power delivery that runs out of breathe when you least want it. But I guess that is too hard core for most.

[Boss330]

Just like my Sierra RS Cosworth. It's laggy but so much fun to drive because it feels faster than it is. And it kicks you in the back when the turbo boosts at around 3000+ rpm! But, it's laggy and not easy to modulate when driving on a track...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

I have not disagreed with the concept, what I have disagreed with is the 'size of the issue'.

Absolutely not true, complete back pedal.

Originally Posted by NISFAN

Regarding Ferrari, I would not take any notice of their stance of Turbo engines. They tried very hard to convince the FIA NOT TO GO TURBO, due to the sound of the engine. They got Bernie and Jean Todt to come and listen to 'one we made earlier'. They make money selling cars that sound good, and they are obliged to fit similar tech engines into their road cars. They fear what this will do to sales, not to mention the chance that they might be caught out again like their turbo engines were in the 80's.

Good point, I don't know it to be true myself but sounds spot on. On the other hand Ferrari is caving to the pressure as well. They will bring F1 type lag reduction techniques and turbos to their production vehicles. They have announced this.

Originally Posted by NISFAN

e93 M3? Too quiet, too muffled.

Put any reasonable cat back system on the car and it is absolutely glorius. Some say it is even without a cat back.

Originally Posted by NISFAN

The F40 is actually very laggy, but such an exciting machine to drive, once in the sweet spot it snorts..bangs....and hisses and generally hits the driver with a 'shock and awe' power delivery. That is what I want, not some NA replica smooth power delivery that runs out of breathe when you least want it. But I guess that is too hard core for most.

And you've actually driven one? If not you sure make it sounds as if you have.

Cracking the throttle fast on any NA high hp exotic provides a similar level of excitement and response, just no turbo lag...

Happy 4th everyone!

[1cleanm6]

Use to have a 335 before my m3(which I just sold). Eventhough the m3 had a much better engine in my opinion. The 335s cheap mods made it a rocket and we need that in the M. It's way too expensive to make them go faster. I look forward to a chip down pipes and exhaust to get a 100hp+.

[duk]

Originally Posted by Levi

I'd like to see a production turbocharged car with throttle response of a Lexus LFA, Ferrari 458 or Porsche 911 GT3.

Haha same here but I highly doubt that is possible, too twitchy to build boost properly? Maybe on M Dynamic mode it's agreeable.

How about as good as the MP4-12C? Throttle response in that car is very very good I've read.

[forza1976]

Originally Posted by Ezio

I have noticed something while on this forum. while this is not the case for every person. It seems like a lot of people who are happy with the new I6 M3/M4 engine are non e9x M3 owners.

I feel the S65 engine is great in terms of having special characteristics. The S65 shares more characteristics with a engine found under the hood of a car with a "Dancing horse" badge on it, than it does to BMW engines in general.

While i know the new M3/M4 engine will most likely be better on Gas, and more powerful. Its going to be rather dull when coming from a S65. Of course i am making assumptions based off a car that i have never driven. but they are assumptions that only people driving e9x m3s are making.

This is a honest question, for the people who are sold on the new M direction. Have you ever driven a e9x M3 before and really got a feel for the car?

correction...

Cavallino Rampante ("Prancing Horse")

[Boss330]

Of course the S65 should be different to a regular BMW engine, it's a M engine after all...

But exactly which "dancing horse" (prancing) characteristics are you referring to?

Sound? Not close as one is a flat plane crank engine and the other isn't.

Power and torque characteristics? No, see above (but closer than on sound).

IMHO, it is more comparable to a Mustang with a tuned 4,6 - 5,0 - 5,4 DOHC engine. The new Boss 302 Laguna Seca is probably a close comparison.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Of course the S65 should be different to a regular BMW engine, it's a M engine after all...

But exactly which "dancing horse" (prancing) characteristics are you referring to?

Sound? Not close as one is a flat plane crank engine and the other isn't.

Power and torque characteristics? No, see above (but closer than on sound).

IMHO, it is more comparable to a Mustang with a tuned 4,6 - 5,0 - 5,4 DOHC engine. The new Boss 302 Laguna Seca is probably a close comparison.

Getting quite OT here but that's OK IMHO...

In short I disagree with the above.

Yes there are differences but I think an engines character is as much part of its core essence as its crankshaft geometry. The character comes in great part from its redline, torque curve shape and specific output.

Earlier aluminum block 4.6l Mustangs with DOHCs were typically around 300 hp and 7000 rpm redline - no comparison really. The Coyote is closer to the M3 but still only produces around 80 hp/l and redlines at 7000. The compression ratio on the Coyote is only 11:1. The Boss 302 LS is still getting closer with 89 hp/l, 7500 rpm redline, 11:1 compression. As you know the S65 is 104 hp/l, 8400 rpm redline and 12:1. Also neither the Coyote's nor the BLS's torque curve is nearly as flat nor broad and the M3. Thus the resulting power curve in the BLS starts tapering off even before 6000 rpm. It just can not breathe the way the S65 can especially at high rpm. That is part due to the S65 having individual throttle bodies (just like all modern V8 Ferrari's) as well as a much more highly engineered head. In all of these regards the M3 is more similar to the F430 engine. Of course neither the BLS nor M3 have a true dry sump lubrication system like the F430. All three cars have (loosely) similar fully variable valve timing systems.

Bedplate design: The S65 and F430 engines share a common engine case design using a bedplate, whereas the BLS has more old school one piece block with main bearings/caps. There are plenty of engineering reasons why both the Ferraria and BMW engines use this type of design.

Sound: Depending on which aftermarket exhaust system (cat back) one goes with you can get an M3 sounding a lot closer to a V8 Ferrari than the BLS. There is as much contribution to sound in the engine block configuration, redline and exhaust system as there is to crankshaft geometry.

Cost: The S65 engine lists at about $22k whereas one can get a 500 hp version of the BLS engine for about $8k. I'd hate to even guess what the F430 engine goes for... Of course price isn't everything but in general it will correlate fairly well with cost and cost comes from sophistication, precision, expensive materials, etc.

What is a bit unfair here is that the Boss 302 LS came out in 2012 vs. the M3 in 2009. Now the F430 has been out since 2004 so that too is not really a fair comparison either. But heck most want to defer and compare to the leader(s) of their time and when the M3 came out many viewed the F430 engine as the pinnacle of production sports car engines hence some comparisons are made.

Just to be clear, I think the BLS is a gem on an engine (and gem of a car as well) so let's not turn this into BMW fanboy vs. Ford fanboy, etc.

[Boss330]

Engine block config contributes to exhaust and intake sound how?

Crank design is THE deciding factor on a V8. A 180 deg crank engine has a timing order of two 4 cyl engines and creates a COMPLETELY different exhaust sound. A 180 deg V8 doesn't have that two adjacent cyl firing in a row uneven burble. NO exhaust system, apart from a cross bank/bundle of snakes system, can make a reg crank V8 sound remotely like a flat plane crank engine.

The S65's architecture is, by engineering and design criterias, more similar to a high output V8 with std crank design than it is a Ferrari flat plane V8. Those two V8 designs are two different animals. Comparing a S65 to a Ferrari might make it seem more exotic, but it's basic architecture is miles apart on the most important part that regards sound and ability to make power at high revs. After all there is a reason F1 V8 engines aren't std crank but 180 degree... And why a 430, 458 sounds more like a F1 than a Mustang (or M3)...