S55 vs. S65

[M3guy3]

Originally Posted by Jockey

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!

[jeremicium]

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.

[M4TW]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

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/

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.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by M4TW

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 .

[FogCityM3]

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.

Originally Posted by M4TW

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.

[M4TW]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

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.

[tooch]

S55

[M3guy3]

Originally Posted by M4TW

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.

[BMW M3 CRT]

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.

[Thurman Murch]

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

[JRV]

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.

[Soliris]

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.

[CSanto]

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.

[Kurt_OH]

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.

[Sir Loin]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

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?

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

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.

[M4GTS]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

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!

[G80indy]

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.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

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 .

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by gthal

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?

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

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.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Yep, a truck motor-powered car is faster than your E90 M3. U MAD BRO?

Actually yes I am.

I'm mad because I loved my Euro Deliveries, love the idea of getting another generation of M car, and loved the amazing, soulful, bespoke engines BMW M was offering. I'm mad all that is gone.

I'm not a fan of turbo lag, tuned non-M engines being passed off as "M-Power", pedestrian sounds augmented with the stereo (LOL) or short shifting at 5500 RPM, all of which are realities of the new Ms.

Mad it's faster? Heck no. I'm embarrassed and surprised it's not faster than it is. Like I said, the diesel Audi was dominating LeMans. Didn't make me want a diesel "performance" car either.

I WANTED to want the new M3/M4.