|
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
09-26-2013, 08:09 AM | #23 | |
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
Quote:
But that does nothing to explain away the fact that we'd still be either looking at only 1.4mm between bores (which is roughly 1/4 of what the GT500 engine has, for example), or we have a brand new BMW engine architecture for the first time in decades. Either would be a huge, shocking surprise as far as I am concerned. One more thing: in the latter case is true, this engine is not an N55 derivative so why was BMW compelled to call it S55? I can't make any of this add up in my head. I remain very curious to know the detailed dimensions of this engine block. I'd sure like to turn off my skepticism and get down to celebrating this newly designed engine. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 08:09 AM | #24 | |
Major General
3425
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
Regarding the S55 code, and whether it relates to the N55. It is feasible that the intention WAS to use a mildly modified N55, but the M works engineers steered it away during the project??? This is great as it means they did a lot of R&D to effectively produce a 'NEW' engine. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 08:23 AM | #25 | ||
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
Quote:
More torque? Ok, let's prove it. Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 08:33 AM | #26 | |
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
Quote:
There is another possibility here, as well, besides the new engine architecture. That is, it could be errant data. I.e. it could just be a plain old mistake. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 08:39 AM | #27 |
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
By the way, if this is an all new engine my guess would be a 98mm bore, meaning half an N74 V12. It could then be built using the same tooling as that engine.
That would also mean 3.8L is possible, or even more. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 08:40 AM | #28 | |
Major General
3425
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
BTW, the torque output from changing bore/stroke combo's can be simulated. There are specialist engine simulation software available, which computes loads/vibrations/torque, etc. But rule of thumb is a longer stroke always gives more torque than same displacement short stroke engine. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 08:54 AM | #29 |
Major General
3425
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Comparing the two pics in the previous page, and crudely measuring the various components, it is certain that the bore size is bigger than N55. The strange thing is that block height is also bigger on S55. Block height is typically linked to stroke length (yes block height can be stretched to obtain a long rod to stroke ratio, but unless the ratio was way out on the comparable engine, a smaller stroke would alter this any way).
My money is on this being a bigger displacement than 3litres. |
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:03 AM | #30 | ||
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
The elephant in the room here is that we are suggesting that BMW chose a very long 90mm stroke design for the S54 - far from optimal for a high revving design - all in the name of engine torque which we all know can be adjusted at the wheels with gearing. I call shenanigans. The long stroke is there only to get to 3.2L with a 91mm bore center, I say, which they needed to hit power goals. If they had been given a starting platform with a 98mn bore center (for example), then I would bet my life we'd have seen a short stroke engine more like an S65. And furthermore, I doubt peak torque would be appreciably less for such an engine. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:10 AM | #31 | |
Major General
1742
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
S54 was NA so it needed all the help it could to create some decent torque. To increase torque you can go FI or longer stroke... Since the S54 is not FI they had to go longer stroke. Makes perfect sense on a NA engine that also has to combine HP with a minimum of torque in a "heavy" car. The S55 uses FI to overcome the torque deficit a short stroke has and can reap the rewards a short stroke and large bore gives you without suffering less torque. A oversquare design has so many benefits for high performance (see my previous post) that it is commonly accepted as the best design for high rpm and high HP. The N55 has allmost the same CC but has a 89,6 stroke and 84mm bore. So, the S55 has 9,6mm less stroke and "only" 5,4mm more bore than the N55. The N55 has a 12% larger/longer stroke than the S55, but "only" 6% less bore. I'm pretty sure that difference would be noticeable and measurable in a comparison of the two engines (in a similar state of tune, like in NA conditions). |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:14 AM | #32 | ||||
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:14 AM | #33 |
Major General
1742
Rep 5,110
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:19 AM | #34 |
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
As far as I know it is 91mm more center. I believe it has the exact same 84x89.6 bore as the N55 (plus all modern BMW I6 engines) and the N20. It, and the rest of the coming B* lineup, evolve the BMW inline family but do not completely reengineer it.
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:20 AM | #35 | |
Major General
1742
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
Wonder if this cc has just been calculated from bore/stroke or was provided to the media at the workshop? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:21 AM | #36 | |
Major General
3425
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
This gives us piston area of 63.053 for the S55 and 55.417 for the N55. Which makes the N55 12.1% smaller in 'effective bore' vs 10.7% larger in stroke. The weird thing is.....long strokes are FI friendly, as there is more density of Fuel/Air in the cylinder, it takes longer to burn. Also, smaller bores make detonation easier to control. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:23 AM | #37 | |
Major General
1742
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=744332 Last edited by Boss330; 09-26-2013 at 09:36 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:24 AM | #38 | |
Major General
1742
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:37 AM | #39 | |
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
We are going in circles.
I still don't believe the S54's design was chosen for performance reasons (engine torque), but instead for cost reasons (using the existing architecture to get to 333hp). Hence, I am skeptical that they've gone the route of developing a new architecture for what is by all appearances a less compelling case for it with the S55. Alpina shows us the feasibility of a production 410hp twin turbo BMW I6 with an 84mm stroke and 89.6mm bore. Surely 430hp or more is also possible. S55 revs higher, yes, sure. But not 8000 RPM like the 91mm stroke S54 does. Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:51 AM | #40 | |
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
My mistake, then, I apologize.
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:54 AM | #41 |
Major General
1742
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Well, what is "completely new" anyway I'm sure there are design elements from previous BMW engines in it
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:58 AM | #42 |
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 09:59 AM | #43 |
Moderator
7545
Rep 19,366
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-26-2013, 10:33 AM | #44 |
Major General
8450
Rep 7,501
Posts |
I love this discussion and can't wait until more concrete details come out.
Nontheless it should be fascinating to see how this engine performs in the real world. I predict tuners will have total nightmares with it too. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|