S55 vs. S65

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by RMB

The S65 sounded great and was a great engine to rev and it felt exotic to me. I do miss my old E92 M3, however, even though the throttle response was great, it just felt weak below 5000 rpm. If only the S65 had another 50 pounds of low end torque it would be great.

I know it is not an equal comparison price wise, etc., but when I got out of an R8 V10 plus (another NA engine), it made my M3 feel a lot less special. That NA engine, pushed me in the back of my seat from idle to redline. I really want more grunt with the new FI engine and I do feel that it will deliver. I don't want to spend 180K for this R8, but I am fine with 90K for my M4. This is why I sold my M3 to make room for my Silverstone M4 and I can't wait.

to this day i never understood why so many people care about the low end power. i daily drive my M3, ya it has less low end power than my old camaro. but it doesn't really bother me.

it has plenty of low end power for daily driving and getting around town. but the fun factor i agree may lack on the low end. but my god when it gets going in the high RPM range to me its all worth the "wait".

funny story today. i saw a friend getting gas, it was 2AM no one was around. i got the car going 1-2 gears. my friend said when he heard my car and the DCT shifting. he thought at first it was a exotic car.

i guess the S65 is just not for everyone

[Savory]

Originally Posted by I am Earl

But they are doing this for cost cutting as the primary reason. The old car had 20% of its parts common with a standard series, the new one has more than 50%. What does that tell you? The old one's engine was designed by ///M and was never built in the standard production line. It was built where all other racing engines were built. The new is being built right next to the N55. Again, what does that tell you. There is "cost cutting" stamped all over the place in BMW's new agenda.

Lighter my *** now, the car isn't doing 0-60 in 3.9s because it's 80kg lighter, it's doing that because of the 18 psi twin turbo 425hp/405 lb/ft engine. Its better handling can also be attributed to better software programming of EDC and wider tires.

You take the same tires and same software tuning and put it in the old car. In fact, take everything that doesn't require actual hardware modification (like transmission or chasis, etc) and apply it to the old car, I guarantee you the difference is going to close fairly quickly. A lot of the improvements in the new car can easily be applied to the old car. You can get brembo brakes, you can get 275 tires, you can tune your EDC, you can tune your differential (at the software level).

I am really not buying this weight advantage propaganda. I drove a convertible M3 and my car back to back, they are 450 lbs apart, now that I could tell easily. I highly doubt I can tell 176 lbs. Let's put it this way, when I have my wife in the passenger seat, I don't see any difference AT ALL with my car's performance.

The below analogy to me resembles this upgrade :

E46 -> E9X M3 : iphone 3 -> iphone 5.
E9X -> F80 M3/4 : iphone 5 -> iphone 5s.

Please provide factual support/real life driving impressions of M4 to back up the bolded statements. Sarcasm aside, there is too much hatred going on principal, or what the car ought to be. We have NO idea how the damn thing drives, what its skidpad numbers are or how it feels. So anything you say is rendered meaningless at this point in time. The only "agenda" going on is your anti F8x propaganda that is based on unsubstantiated vilification of the car. I've come to terms with the fact that the new M4 doesn't strictly follow M tradition, but tradition is the illusion of permanence. Who says different will be worse? But I forgot, my opinion doesn't count because I don't own an E90 M3.

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I could come up with more sources for you, but I just don't care enough to.

Believe what you want, somehow your sources are valued more......


Same old BimmerPost.

Cheers,
e46e92

BMW source their transmissions from Getrag or ZF.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by solstice

E90 M3:
s65:
F80:
S55:

I like this rating system. It reflects pretty much my feeling also

[RMB]

Originally Posted by Ezio

to this day i never understood why so many people care about the low end power. i daily drive my M3, ya it has less low end power than my old camaro. but it doesn't really bother me.

it has plenty of low end power for daily driving and getting around town. but the fun factor i agree may lack on the low end. but my god when it gets going in the high RPM range to me its all worth the "wait".

funny story today. i saw a friend getting gas, it was 2AM no one was around. i got the car going 1-2 gears. my friend said when he heard my car and the DCT shifting. he thought at first it was a exotic car.

i guess the S65 is just not for everyone

The S65 definitely sounds like an exotic engine. I can't think of many engines that sound as unique as it. I do miss my M3 and it will be interesting to report back how the new car sounds and feels. The E92 M3 is a fast car IMHO and revving it is a blast. I even enjoyed sitting in it in traffic as it still put a smile on my face even at idle. I am definitely a fan of the M division and their products.

[435iaffair]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Is this fairly contradictory or am I missing something, especially the bold parts?

Is it the chassis or engine which wasn't visceral enough? I've never heard the S65 being described as anything but frenetic and visceral.

We've also beat the "not enough torque" think to death in about 100 threads. The car has more torque at the wheels than a 400 ft lb Z06 Vette at most rpms in most gears. Torque at the crank is largely a meaningless. It is torque with the gear/FD multiplication which gives wheel torque which is then something directly related to instantaneous acceleration.

The E92 is a much more refined ride, thus less visceral. It's still massive fun to drive! If I were made of money I'd have a 6MT E92 M3 added to my garage but for now the Z4M/C6 combo will do.

I've also read way too many of the torque debates before so I don't want to get into that again. The E9x M just doesn't feel as lively outside of its powerband as the M156 C63 or even a LS3 Camaro. That's not the same as saying the E9x M3 is not as quick, just how its power is delivered.

[435iaffair]

Originally Posted by RMB

The S65 definitely sounds like an exotic engine.

+8000

My vette's v8 sounds like a truck compared to the much more exotic soundtrack of the S65.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by 435iaffair

+8000

My vette's v8 sounds like a truck compared to the much more exotic soundtrack of the S65.

I wonder how it sounds compared to the C7 vette.


Cheers.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by ersin

I wonder how it sounds compared to the C7 vette.


Cheers.

the C7 is pretty much a updated LS3 engine. GM V8 cars are kind of boring if you ask me. slow revving motors, with a 6200RPM redline. sure the power is there though. if thats all you care about.

[fuddman]

Simple.
You got 6. I got 8. I win!

[BigNorm4Life]

Originally Posted by Ezio

the C7 is pretty much a updated LS3 engine. GM V8 cars are kind of boring if you ask me. slow revving motors, with a 6200RPM redline. sure the power is there though. if thats all you care about.

Umm... The new DI LT1 runs rings around the S65, the LS7 as well

But who wants to get in to the whole OHC vs OHV debate... lets just leave as "there both good engines"

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by BigNorm4Life

Umm... The new DI LT1 runs rings around the S65, the LS7 as well

But who wants to get in to the whole OHC vs OHV debate... lets just leave as "there both good engines"

where did i say the engine was a bad engine.

where did i say anything about a S65?

with that said. i have owned GM LS engines and i think they are very very good engines for what they are made for. making good power, cheap to fix and last a long time. not to mention that V8 growl.

i just prefer high strung engines that have little more character to them.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by I am Earl

Corvette is an american car.... Do you need more reason?

What does that have to do with anything?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

I like how you left out the decimation that occured between with the S54 when the S65 came out. (see link in my sig)

So the 0-150 mph arrived 8.4 seconds sooner with the E9x than the E46 M3, care to make a prediction on the 0-150 decimation that will occur between the E9x and F8x M3's? Another 8sec lopped off perhaps? Or will the 'decimation' you speak of be more modest.....then we can bookmark this decimation prediction. Thanks.
d

The F8x does 0-1000m in 21,9 seconds
The e9x does 0-1000m in 24,4 seconds (also seen 23,5s)
The E46 does 0-1000m in 24,7 seconds (also seen 23,7s)

So a fairly big advantage for the F8x over both the E46 and E90.


http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=926744

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The F8x does 0-1000m in 21,9 seconds
The e9x does 0-1000m in 24,4 seconds (also seen 23,5s)
The E46 does 0-1000m in 24,7 seconds (also seen 23,7s)

So a fairly big advantage for the F8x over both the E46 and E90.

So you're using F10 M5 1-1000m data and assuming the F82 M3 will be the same? Also, that E46 time doesn't seem right. Since OP was full of "decimation" predictions I merely asked him maybe share his thoughts on the 0-150mph comparison. Again.....

E46 M3 0-150mph: 34.5sec
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...e-conflict.pdf

E92 M3 0-150mph: 24.6sec
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...10-comparo.pdf

F82 M3 0-150mph: ???

The leap in performance from E30-E36-E46-E92 was significant each generation. My point is this 0-150mpg metric is probably not going to be as significant with the F82. Certainly not the 8-11sec improvement we saw between the E46 and E92.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

So you're using F10 M5 1-1000m data and assuming the F82 M3 will be the same? Also, that E46 time doesn't seem right. Since OP was full of "decimation" predictions I merely asked him maybe share his thoughts on the 0-150mph comparison. Again.....

E46 M3 0-150mph: 34.5sec
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...e-conflict.pdf

E92 M3 0-150mph: 24.6sec
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...10-comparo.pdf

F82 M3 0-150mph: ???

The leap in performance from E30-E36-E46-E92 was significant each generation. My point is this 0-150mpg metric is probably not going to be as significant with the F82. Certainly not the 8-11sec improvement we saw between the E46 and E92.

Where did you get the F10 M5 data from????

In my link there was a thread with the official BMW spec for the F8x that said 21,9sec

Since that wasn't my info I can't vouch for the time stated, but anyway it's not me using a F10 M5 time...

[solstice]

Looking at the power curves,weight and updated tech. I don't question that the S55 and the new car is significantly faster in pretty much all measures. This include track times in the hands of professional drivers, personally though I'm less sure that it will be much faster on a track when driven by amateurs. With DSC off the long, linear, responsive and predictable power band of the S65 makes for a car that is very easy to drive fast on a track, I suspect the S55 will be more of a challenge at 10/10s as RWD turbo cars often are but we'll see, BMW say they worked magic with responsiveness and lag elimination.

[pkimM3r]

Im thinking in f8x on the track maybe sport+ will be less intrusive than euro mdm?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

So you're using F10 M5 1-1000m data and assuming the F82 M3 will be the same? Also, that E46 time doesn't seem right. Since OP was full of "decimation" predictions I merely asked him maybe share his thoughts on the 0-150mph comparison. Again.....

E46 M3 0-150mph: 34.5sec
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...e-conflict.pdf

E92 M3 0-150mph: 24.6sec
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...10-comparo.pdf

F82 M3 0-150mph: ???

The leap in performance from E30-E36-E46-E92 was significant each generation. My point is this 0-150mpg metric is probably not going to be as significant with the F82. Certainly not the 8-11sec improvement we saw between the E46 and E92.

Car & Driver has a significantly quicker 0-150MPH E46 M3 time posted here:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take-road-test

With the "auto" option the 0-150MPH is done in 27,8s, just 3,2 seconds slower than the E9x M3...

One more data sheet for the E46 M3 from C&D:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2001-bmw-m3.pdf

Compare the 0-100MPH time with the E9x (also from C&D) here:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...tory-final.pdf

E46 M3: 0-100MPH 11,2 sec, 1/4-mile: 13,1 sec
E9x M3: 0-100MPH 10,4 sec, 1/4-mile: 12,9 sec



And in this data sheet from C&D the E9x M3 has a 0-150MPH time of 26,1 seconds.... A mere 1,7 seconds quicker than the E46 M3...

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...final-test.pdf

So it seems your article compares C&D's best E90 time with their worst E46 time...



In reality there is (according to C&D test data):

Only 0,2 sec in the 1/4-mile
Only 0,8 sec in the 0-100MPH time
Only 1,7s to 3,2s gap in the 0-150MPH time


Will be interesting to see how much the F8x is able to improve on the E9x times Let's wait and see if the "decimation" will be on the same level as between E46 and E9x, or perhaps even more noticeable than between those two generations



BTW, the 991 Carrera S has the exact same power to weight ratio of 279hp/tonne as the M4. Performance should be comparable and here is a "teaser" of the Porsche's numbers:


0 - 40 kph 1.2 s

0 - 50 kph 1.5 s

0 - 80 kph 2.8 s

0 - 100 kph 3.8 s

0 - 180 kph 10.6 s

0 - 200 kph 13.2 s

0 - 60 mph 3.5 s

0 - 100 mph 8.4 s

0 - 150 mph 21.7 s

1000 m 21.7 s @ 242 kph

1/4 mile 11.8 s @ 119 mph


http://fastestlaps.com/cars/porsche_991_carrera_s.html

[swamp2]

The E92 M3 pretty clearly decimates the E46 M3. I don't trust any results showing otherwise for any contest as "apples to apples". Have a look at these CarTest sims. As you can see most results are right on the money with known/accepted best times (or within a couple of tenths or mph here or there). 0-150 has the E92 ahead by 20 car lengths (not shown below but calculated by CarTest) and nearly 8 seconds. And no the margin between the F82 and E92 will certainly not be as large as the margin between the E46 and E92. It just takes "exponentially" more power to squeak out the same sized performance gains. Thus the M4 will still in my proper view of the word decimate the E92 M3, but certainly by less than that between the prior generation.

[Boss330]

My point was to use C&D test data (which he used to substantiate his view) to show that you can also paint a different picture using the same real world test data source.

And even though this is a CSL, it's pretty close in this race:

A pretty close 1/4-mile run:

And the 2nd race here between a E92 M3 DCT and a E46 M3 SMG doesn't indicate a huge difference in acceleration.

[gf2015m4]

Definitely going to miss the S65. Just sold my E92 M3 to make room for the M4!