|
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
09-28-2013, 06:56 AM | #89 |
Moderator
![]() 7543
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Thanks for posting NISFAN. I'm sure very valid points are being made from both sides.
Here's a little brain teaser to pass the time: What ~4.5L engine (naturally aspirated) on the market today makes the most torque? Pickup truck perhaps? (Hint: that was an anti-hint) The answer is more of a non-point than a point. Obviously, there are many variables at play. But how much more torque, really, could the above engine make by shrinking the bore and increasing the stroke. Can we somehow calculate, that? |
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 07:11 AM | #90 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 3494
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
![]() Regarding more torque, the important thing to me, it is becoming clear that BMW didn't go the easy option of 'fettling' an N55 which is what so many people were against. We had a ton of threads saying BMW 'cheaped out' with the S55 (before knowing the true engine facts), and that it was no S65 replacement. I stand up and applaud the M engineers for taking the S55 to the heights it has. To me the spec revelation tells me that this is going to be the best M engine ever. ![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 07:50 AM | #91 | |
Moderator
![]() 7543
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Did I make it too easy?
![]() So how bout the other question in my post? Can we increase torque to even higher peak by adjusting the bore dimensions? By the way, I think the point about looking at the entire torque curve vs. just the peak value is a very good one. Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 07:58 AM | #92 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 3494
Rep 9,708
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 10:08 AM | #93 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
It has a N55 with long stroke/small bore and is equipped with two turbochargers and delivers 410hp and a maximum torque of 600Nm. The S55 has a short stroke/large bore twin turbo engine that delivers 430hp and "substantially more" than 500Nm (but likely not above 550Nm). N55 B3: 410HP/600Nm S55 M3: 430HP/500Nm (550Nm) N55 B3: 410hp (301kW) between 5500 and 6250rpm N55 B3: 550Nm between 2200 and 5200rpm (600Nm max at 3000rpm) S55 M3: 430HP between 5700-7200rpm S55 M3: 500+Nm between 1800-5700rpm These two engines I suspect will feel quite different in their power delivery and willingness to rev. The S55 should be more agile, perhaps especially when not "on boost", due to it's short stroke that means less rotating mass and hence less inertia. That aids response when not on boost and makes it easier (I would imagine) to get a engine that responds better and looses some of the lagginess of the N55. Especially considering larger valves possible with larger bore, which means better flow. Better flow means more air and fuel. Which again leads to more exhaust volume and better spool up of turbo's, and less lag... Also interesting, and in line with what I believe is generally true of oversquare vs undersquare engines, is that the N55 Alpina B3 produces substantially more torque but less HP than the S55 that has more HP but less torque. (We don't know boost pressure of the B3, and the S55 has a function where maximum boost is only applied under high temperatures/altitude etc. So hard to get a realistic comparison on boost levels anyway. But state of tune seems quite close, so the B3 N55 and S55 should still make a valid point re long vs short stroke). Certainly going to be interesting to read comparisons of these two engines ![]() - Last edited by Boss330; 09-28-2013 at 11:49 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 01:02 PM | #94 | |
Moderator
![]() 7543
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Quote:
![]() Regarding, the S55, probably it could never be pushed to 443 ft-lb, right? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 02:44 PM | #95 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
If you are looking for a engine that could be compared with the 458 engine I suspect it won't be easy to find anything comparable with a long stroke... It revs to 9000rpm. With a long stroke engine the piston speeds would be astronomical... A long stroke 4.5l V8 would have to be dramatically different as regards to rev range, cam timing. Parametres that make it very hard to establish whether the difference in torque is down to stroke difference or rpm/state of tune... Possibly a example of this would be a Ducati 848 engine vs a HD 883: Ducati 848: Bore x Stroke: 94 mm × 61.2 mm 134 hp (100 kW) @ 10,000 rpm 96.0 Nm @ 8,250 rpm HD 883: Bore x Stroke: 76.2 mm x 96.8 mm 53 hp (38.6 kW) @ 6000 rpm 67 Nm @ 4100 rpm As can be seen here, both engines have comparable volume (848cc vs 883cc), however since the Ducati can rev far higher than the HD it's also possible to make more power and torque. Same issue will be if we should compare a standard 4.5l with the 458. We cannot compare a 60hp/liter engine with a 158hp/liter engine... The Honda CBX and Kawasaki Z1300 both featured straigh six engines, one oversquare and the other undersquare. Kawasaki Z1300 Undersquare: Bore x Stroke: 62 x 71 mm 120 hp @ 8000 rpm 116 Nm @ 6500 rpm Honda CBX Oversquare: Bore x Stroke: 64.5 x 53.4 mm 105 hp @ 9000 rpm 71Nm @ 6500 rpm Adjusted for volume (1300cc vs 1000cc) the Kawasaki would be at: 92 hp @ 8000rpm 89 Nm @ 6500rpm At 1000cc the undersquare engine in this example has 13hp less than the oversquare but make 18Nm more than the oversquare engine... Which again falls in line with the N55 B3 vs S55 M3 etc. There might be other examples that proves the above or makes my point rendered null and void ![]() Last edited by Boss330; 09-28-2013 at 03:07 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 03:00 PM | #96 | |
Moderator
![]() 7543
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Quote:
Edit: Retracted one statement because I thought it over and felt it was a low blow. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 03:03 PM | #97 |
Major General
![]() ![]() 5494
Rep 7,060
Posts |
Can we dream of a limited edition M3 with a NA GT3 like version of this over square engine at 9000 rpm dumping all the weight of turbo plumbing as an added bonus? If so I want to know now, I'll pay $100k for it if they do.
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 03:08 PM | #98 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 3494
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
For example there must be hundreds of engine designs out there where the bore stroke, rod ratio dictates peak torque of X is possible at Y revs. However the cams or head design favour a different rev range, which ultimately limit the amount of torque achieved (but may allow increased torque elsewhere in the rev range). The thing about the 458 engine, is it is highly tuned and fettled, which helps almost every performance characteristic. I would put money on the 458 engine achieving over 100% VE at specific revs, which outside of F1 engines, is remarkable. ![]() Regarding maximum torque achievable for the S55, yes, no question it could reach 443ft.lbs, it would require increased boost pressure, which I would imagine a road tuned car would allow due to a safety margin. Increasing boost pressure is not as simple as most seem to think. But as long as you keep intake charge temps under control (inter cooler capacity), perhaps go extra rich under boost (sort of fuel excess charge cooling), all to steer clear of detonation, it can be done. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 03:18 PM | #99 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
Wasn't the "original hypothesis" about two comparable engines? If not, the discussion would be meaningless, as we could have said the same about boost pressure as you just did about rpm (undersquare generally tolerates higher boost easier). Just using displacement would make a unusable comparison. CR, RPM, cam timing, ign timing, fuelling, exhaust and intake systems make a HUGE impact. Not just displacement... You are not seriously suggesting it is fair to compare, say, a 60hp/l engine with a 120hp/l engine? There are many other different factors beside bore/stroke ratio between two such engines ![]() We are talking of a 7500+rpm engine, one which would also be possible with a long stroke (like S54). If you are looking for a 9000rpm NA engine, oversquare is the preferable way to go. BECAUSE of that ability to rev to 9000rpm the engine makes more power and torque than a engine that revs to 6000rpm. But look at the dyno chart and you would see which one would be stronger low down... I have thought that we discussed apples to apples, ie a engine that could be either over- or undersquare and what advantages either design has. On the grounds you claimed, I cannot agree that the hypothesis is invalid. The only thing you have established is that a engine that revs to 9000rpm makes more power than a engine that revs to 6000rpm. And that if you want to rev to 9000rpm, you generally want a oversquare engine. Displacement is just ONE factor. If you really want to know whether over- or undersquare makes more torque, you need to compare two similar engines. Similar as in more than just similar displacement... Last edited by Boss330; 09-28-2013 at 04:43 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 03:58 PM | #100 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 04:18 PM | #102 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 3494
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Interesting, a limited edition turbo less M3/4 that would struggle to keep up with a 335i? Surely an S65 transplant would be more desirable?
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 04:41 PM | #104 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
![]() But, this is purely a hypothetical engine config... Doubt BMW will go down that route. But if they do, SOLSTICE was the first to suggest it here ![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 04:55 PM | #105 | |
Lieutenant General
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 625
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Although the 458 has a remarkable engine and certainly s VE over 100%, it is not uncommon for a moderate to highly tuned production engine to also do so. I don't have the data handy, but am highly confident the current M3 does. It is a remarkable breather. One fellow posted here about his own lightly customized B MW (Z4 IIRC) intake and airbox mods that got him up to around and I think over 110% VE. He even built his own simple but accurate test system. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 05:07 PM | #106 |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 3494
Rep 9,708
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 05:10 PM | #107 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 05:14 PM | #108 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 3494
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
Would it be worth it? Much cheaper to slot in an S65 engine and DSG unit. ![]() |
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 05:34 PM | #109 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 3494
Rep 9,708
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
09-28-2013, 06:23 PM | #110 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() 5494
Rep 7,060
Posts |
Quote:
The E92 M3 GTS is 300 lbs lighter than a E92 M3. Give this hypothetical NA F80 limited edition the same savings and we are at 3000 lbs ( with driver which close to an E30... ). Then increase bore as far as cylinder walls safely allows it and you will have quite a machine that will have little problems smoking a 335i and the sound of an NA I6 at 9000 rpm will be worth it alone. Last edited by solstice; 09-28-2013 at 06:32 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|