S55 vs. S65

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by Jockey

It's been reviewed to death. Owners have taken delivery. Hell, owners have already taken it to the track.

Apparently YOU know all you need to know. I say a couple years of customer experience will fill out our knowledge nicely.

Keep using N55 and S55 interchangeably, it continues to demonstrate your ignorance.

If that were true, you should have no problem rebutting my assertions without resorting to ad hominem.

Besides, that's your thought, not my statement. It would be crazy to say two 3L turbo motors from the same manufacturer, where one is admittedly based on the other, with the exact same displacement, available in the same car series, are similar.

They're not interchangeable; the N55 would need at least a tune and a larger radiator.

The F8X and S55 aren't for you? Fine. No one has a gun to your head.

I never suggested anyone did (though it did happen to me a few decades ago, it was a robbery, not a car discussion! ).

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

I'll start with the literal: you get "the S65 experience" from "the S65", not a 4cyl.

Yup. Cool car it is

No thanks. You lose me when you go there.

Well at least you're funny, but we apparently value things differently. The M3 delivers a lot more than the Honda. Is that what you have? You could even get a new mustang gt, sc it and be easy ahead of the new M cars in price and performance. Sounds like that may be the way you'd prefer to go.

Probably true, though so far just brake pads and fuel ...

That's true and I do like BMWs. But I'm not looking for a track only car right now, nor an "only fun or interesting when I'm beating on it" car like the new M4. That's just another awesome thing about the S65 and S85. You know they're special every second they're running.

Nah, I have a car that is mounds faster than yours and equal to the current m3... but i digress it's not the M experience lol.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Apparently YOU know all you need to know. I say a couple years of customer experience will fill out our knowledge nicely.

Well, if that's what you need, how about you STOP declaring the S55 inferior. If we don't have enough data points to declare the S55 "special" (whatever that really means), you also don't have enough facts to back up that it is inferior to the S65.

And until that day comes (in a few years from now), you can continue with your ignorant posts and ignore all the reviews and otherwise that rebuke your stance.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by Jockey

Well, if that's what you need, how about you STOP declaring the S55 inferior. If we don't have enough data points to declare the S55 "special" (whatever that really means), you also don't have enough facts to back up that it is inferior to the S65.

And until that day comes (in a few years from now), you can continue with your ignorant posts and ignore all the reviews and otherwise that rebuke your stance.

Call me a skeptic instead of a believer. I'm gonna need some proof to declare this thing the "fifth coming".

[Epoustouflant]

Originally Posted by ASAP

You know you can get that the S65 experience for a third of the price in an S2000. That car is more trackworthy than an m3 will almost ever be.

In the S65's defense, it is much easier to get a 4 cyl to rev than a V8.

Turbocharged 4 cyls easily rev to 8,000 RPM, doesn't make then anymore special IMHO.

[Kurt_OH]

Whatever. I really like the S2000 also. Cool car.

I need a bigger garage and bigger toy budget!

[Ritz42]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

A truck engine running at speeds every Honda achieves is never going to sound special. Good enough? Ok, fine, it'll sound as good as such a pedestrian design can support.

But, NO there is no universal appreciation of this low speed engine's muffled sound, and no legit track test has liked the throttle response.

Please let me know of any BMW engine that left the factory with a 8900 rpm redline, that doesn't hit fuel cut until 9300 rpms. As that's what the f20c in an AP1 s2000 rev's to.

Who was the first company to put titanium con rods in a road going, mass produced car? Honda. Who was the first company to use carbon fiber to as cylinder wall sleeves, again in a road going mass producation car? Honda.


Comparing a BMW motor to those of Honda is a compliment to BMW, not the other way around.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Ritz42

Please let me know of any BMW engine that left the factory with a 8900 rpm redline, that doesn't hit fuel cut until 9300 rpms. As that's what the f20c in an AP1 s2000 rev's to.

Who was the first company to put titanium con rods in a road going, mass produced car? Honda. Who was the first company to use carbon fiber to as cylinder wall sleeves, again in a road going mass producation car? Honda.


Comparing a BMW motor to those of Honda is a compliment to BMW, not the other way around.

It gets better...

who built Ayrton Senna's F1 motors?

who co developed a car with an F1 driver? (NSX)

who has not built a single turbod production motor yet minus 1 that they got rid of but instead has preferred high revving NA motors?

And this guy is over here fanboying his S65 to the death.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by Ritz42

Please let me know of any BMW engine that left the factory with a 8900 rpm redline, that doesn't hit fuel cut until 9300 rpms. As that's what the f20c in an AP1 s2000 rev's to.

Who was the first company to put titanium con rods in a road going, mass produced car? Honda. Who was the first company to use carbon fiber to as cylinder wall sleeves, again in a road going mass producation car? Honda.


Comparing a BMW motor to those of Honda is a compliment to BMW, not the other way around.

1. I said I liked the S2000, but it's not the thread topic, and I didn't bring it into the discussion.

2. Try re-reading my comment, and rather than ignore that I clearly meant cars they produce today (note the word ACHIEVES, as in NOW), include that part of my meaning in your calculus and come back with all the road going V8s they produce that pull it off. Now put that number in the numerator, and all the other engines they produce in the denominator and post the fraction.

GOOSE EGG

Can we stop with the Honda crap now?

[rngrjag]

ASAP and Ritz 24: Great points about Honda. Too bad the AP1 had a whopping 153 lb ft of torque. Hence the AP2, which itself was no torque monster at 163 lb ft, I believe. If the greatest S65 criticism is low torque, surely the same applies to Honda N/A motors too.

[Leonardo629]

will a S55 need future valve adjustment like the S54? One thing I love about my S65 is that it doesn't need valve adjustment as mileages get accumulated.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Leonardo629

will a S55 need future valve adjustment like the S54? One thing I love about my S65 is that it doesn't need valve adjustment mileages get accumulated.

I wouldn't think so. There's no documentation that I have seen that states the S55 will need this.

[G80indy]

Actually the S55 has roller bearings throughout the valvetrain/valvetronic mechanism which should be low friction, and it uses hydraulic lifters for valve clearance - auto adjustment. Keep your oil clean. That part is fairly low maintenance; much needed since the rest of the engine will require a close eye. Highly pressurized turbo motors that also run hot are inherently more "trouble" as the miles rack up. Go in with yours eyes open.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by rngrjag

ASAP and Ritz 24: Great points about Honda. Too bad the AP1 had a whopping 153 lb ft of torque. Hence the AP2, which itself was no torque monster at 163 lb ft, I believe. If the greatest S65 criticism is low torque, surely the same applies to Honda N/A motors too.

An S2000 has nearly no weight... so all things considered, I don't think that lightweight chassis needs a single bit more of TQ before it becomes unstable. An M3 in comparison is a heavy stable pig that could use way more.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by ASAP

An S2000 has nearly no weight... so all things considered, I don't think that lightweight chassis needs a single bit more of TQ before it becomes unstable. An M3 in comparison is a heavy stable pig that could use way more.

We love our oinkers eh?

[BMW M3 CRT]

According to this thread:
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1015603
... the old S65 4.0ltr.V8 is indeed al little bit lighter than the new S55 3.0ltr.I6TT - 202kg vs. 205kg !!!

Curious that BMW quotes an wrong weight for the S65 to bring the new engine below the weight of the old engine ... 202kg is for years now the official (BMW) weight of the S65 !?

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by BMW M3 CRT

According to this thread:
http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1015603
... the old S65 4.0ltr.V8 is indeed al little bit lighter than the new S55 3.0ltr.I6TT - 202kg vs. 205kg !!!

Curious that BMW quotes an wrong weight for the S65 to bring the new engine below the weight of the old engine ... 202kg is for years now the official (BMW) weight of the S65 !?

Hey, it's just like all the other claims about weight, like the new car is 200lbs less than the prior one!

[/// M sa]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Call me a skeptic instead of a believer. I'm gonna need some proof to declare this thing the "fifth coming".

Well the e92 was never the first, second, third or 4th coming in any sense and I dreaded driving that hog for a DD. No thanks you enjoy that e92 however Kurt while I enjoy my lighting quick s55 m3 that is inferior to the all might king e92m

[/// M sa]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

Hey, it's just like all the other claims about weight, like the new car is 200lbs less than the prior one!

Yep it's heavier funny how an e92 got walled the other day but it sure sounded good on the toll road (Sunday morning 630 am not a soul in sight) and we were headed to a cars and coffee.