BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Forum > M3/M4 versus...

View Poll Results: S65 option or S55 standart ?
YES ... I would choose the S65 if an option at this price would be availiable 93 46.04%
NO ... I would choose the standart S55 engine 109 53.96%
Voters: 202. You may not vote on this poll

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-01-2014, 08:05 PM   #573
eMvy
First Lieutenant
eMvy's Avatar
United_States
131
Rep
371
Posts

Drives: Bimmers
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 37°14'5.62"N 115°48'38.95"W

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
Two reasons.

1. Horsepower
2. Torque
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 08:27 PM   #574
eMvy
First Lieutenant
eMvy's Avatar
United_States
131
Rep
371
Posts

Drives: Bimmers
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: 37°14'5.62"N 115°48'38.95"W

iTrader: (0)

Ok, but again, unless you raise the base price of the car, in what other category could you have cut costs while improving performance? And without departing from the M luxo sports car formula?
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 08:42 PM   #575
Karmic Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Karmic Man's Avatar
Australia
1996
Rep
1,759
Posts

Drives: M2C
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: World

iTrader: (0)

It's of course cost + emission that drives a manufacturer to choose specific engine design for their car.

Horse power & Torque are just one of the many objectives to meet.

Porsche 997 GT3 RS 4.0 developed 500 PS/493 hp at 8250 rpm and 460N·m/ 339 lbf·ft of torque at 5750 rpm. I personally would rather to have this type of racing heritage engine from BMW M. It makes the car more special.

A high power/torque engine can be fitted onto any cars. When a high power, high revving engine with lightning response you know it's made for specific purposes.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 09:15 PM   #576
M3guy3
Captain
131
Rep
690
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Michigan

iTrader: (0)

They downsized because of a overall goal to decrease emissions and fuel.

They could have made a reworked S65 V8. that was little bigger, and had more modern tec. Power could have been 450HP EASY. with a MPG bump. although torque still wouldn't be like the S55.

Look at the C63 AMG. the next gen is going to make just about the same power as the 507 edition. Yet they are going to use a 4.0L Trubo V8. the trubo rotue isnt really bring more power to the table. more so keep the power around the same while getting better fuel economy/emission.

anyone who think BMW went trubo solely on the reason to get better performance. is fanboy at there best.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 09:40 PM   #577
CanAutM3
General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
21105
Rep
20,741
Posts

Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by solstice View Post
Two reasons.

1. Cost savings
2. Emissions ( not really mpg, turbo engines aren't all that frugal that many seem to think. )
^This

An S65B44 with DI could have comfortably made 460~480ps. The engine would have likely weighed slightly less than the S55. This would have made fantastic F8X M3s and M4s that would have outperformed the cars with the S55 (better acceleration, better throttle response and better sound). DI would have improved emissions slightly but not sufficiently enough to meet European legislation corporate targets. The cost of the engine would have also likely been prohibitive. As stated, IMO, BMW went with the S55 for two reasons: cost and emissions.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 09:49 PM   #578
IEDEI
Banned
United_States
1129
Rep
4,686
Posts

Drives: L'Orange
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Brooklyn, NYC

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2011 BMW 1M  [8.40]
Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
Two reasons.

1. Horsepower
2. Torque
lol. thank you. the end.

so sick of reading self-boosting propaganda about the S65.......the new M3 and M4 are already out and LOADS of people want it....enough with the whiny crap about it not being a V8! get over it.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 09:54 PM   #579
aus
Major General
United_States
888
Rep
9,031
Posts

Drives: Odysse
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seal Beach, CA

iTrader: (10)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
^This

An S65B44 with DI could have comfortably made 460~480ps. The engine would have likely weighed slightly less than the S55. This would have made fantastic F8X M3s and M4s that would have outperformed the cars with the S55 (better acceleration, better throttle response and better sound). DI would have improved emissions slightly but not sufficiently enough to meet European legislation corporate targets. The cost of the engine would have also likely been prohibitive. As stated, IMO, BMW went with the S55 for two reasons: cost and emissions.
Agreed, maybe bump the redline up to 8,800 RPM.
Isn't the S55 lighter than the S65 by a few pounds?

I'm sure the S55 was HUGE in allowing BMW to essentially keep the price the same as the E9x M3.

.
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 10:00 PM   #580
CanAutM3
General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
21105
Rep
20,741
Posts

Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by aus View Post
Isn't the S55 lighter than the S65 by a few pounds?
It is advertised to be 10kg lighter, but it is not clear what is included in that weight.

I was also speculating that further development could have shed a few kg on the S65.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 10:23 PM   #581
M4TW
///M Uber Alles
M4TW's Avatar
Canada
329
Rep
1,601
Posts

Drives: '15 MW M4
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: GSA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
^This

An S65B44 with DI could have comfortably made 460~480ps. The engine would have likely weighed slightly less than the S55. This would have made fantastic F8X M3s and M4s that would have outperformed the cars with the S55 (better acceleration, better throttle response and better sound). DI would have improved emissions slightly but not sufficiently enough to meet European legislation corporate targets. The cost of the engine would have also likely been prohibitive. As stated, IMO, BMW went with the S55 for two reasons: cost and emissions.
I bet there are a lot of engineers in the ///M Division wringing their hands and crying "wow ... a few twists of the screwdriver and presto, we could of had an engine with 460-480 horses that would nearly be as efficient and much quicker... damn... why didn't we think of that?!?!"
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 10:25 PM   #582
CanAutM3
General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
21105
Rep
20,741
Posts

Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (1)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
DI would have improved emissions slightly (over the existing S65) but not sufficiently enough to meet European legislation corporate targets.
I bet there are a lot of engineers in the ///M Division wringing their hands and crying "wow ... a few twists of the screwdriver and presto, we could of had an engine with 460-480 horses that would nearly be as efficient and much quicker... damn... why didn't we think of that?!?!"


That is not what I said. I stated that a development of the S65 would have not met corporate emissions targets.

IMO, from a pure performance point of view, a development of the S65 would have made a better engine. But it could not meet two very important targets: cost and emissions.

Last edited by CanAutM3; 06-01-2014 at 10:32 PM..
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 10:55 PM   #583
M4TW
///M Uber Alles
M4TW's Avatar
Canada
329
Rep
1,601
Posts

Drives: '15 MW M4
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: GSA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post


That is not what I said. I stated that a development of the S65 would have not met corporate emissions targets.

IMO, from a pure performance point of view, a development of the S65 would have made a better engine. But it could not meet two very important targets: cost and emissions.
I know exactly what you are saying, you're saying if it wasn't for stoopid costs and emissions and gov-ern-ment regulation ...

Name:  image.jpg
Views: 556
Size:  32.2 KB

I'm saying ... I don't think it's as simple as that. The likely result of going the direction you suggest would have been a thirstier engine that would not perform as well - unless they could sell them way above their current price point.

Another factor you are not considering is that there would be a big risk for BMW to hitch its wagon to a big V8 for the next seven years when they might not be able to sell enough of them because even enthusiasts are turning away from the "ain't no replacement for displacement" mentality.
__________________
die Welt ist meine Auster
2015 M4, MW, Black Full Merino, DCT, CCB, Adaptive M Suspension, Premium, Executive. Technology, ConnectedDrive, CF Trim, Convenience Telephony, European Delivery
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2014, 11:34 PM   #584
M3guy3
Captain
131
Rep
690
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Michigan

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
I bet there are a lot of engineers in the ///M Division wringing their hands and crying "wow ... a few twists of the screwdriver and presto, we could of had an engine with 460-480 horses that would nearly be as efficient and much quicker... damn... why didn't we think of that?!?!"
I feel without fuel concern, government regulations, emissions , cost to make another bespoke N/A engine etc. BMW would have went with another high revving N/A V8. One that made more power.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 12:38 AM   #585
FogCityM3
Colonel
FogCityM3's Avatar
497
Rep
2,400
Posts

Drives: M3 (E90) & Porsche GT3 RS
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: San Francisco

iTrader: (0)

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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
I know exactly what you are saying, you're saying if it wasn't for stoopid costs and emissions and gov-ern-ment regulation ...

Attachment 1037433

I'm saying ... I don't think it's as simple as that. The likely result of going the direction you suggest would have been a thirstier engine that would not perform as well - unless they could sell them way above their current price point.

Another factor you are not considering is that there would be a big risk for BMW to hitch its wagon to a big V8 for the next seven years when they might not be able to sell enough of them because even enthusiasts are turning away from the "ain't no replacement for displacement" mentality.

Last edited by FogCityM3; 06-02-2014 at 12:44 AM..
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 01:49 AM   #586
aus
Major General
United_States
888
Rep
9,031
Posts

Drives: Odysse
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seal Beach, CA

iTrader: (10)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FogCityM3 View Post
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.


On the flip side, BMW know's MAYBE 2% of the F8x will go on a track more than 1-2 times, if that, and all the torque and pushi n the back down low is what the average //M buyer wants now. because it "feels fast."

.
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 02:28 AM   #587
M3guy3
Captain
131
Rep
690
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Michigan

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FogCityM3 View Post

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.
Even Ferrari and Lamborghini with there high revving V8-V12 engines are not torque monsters. People miss that all the time.

Radical gearing, high revving N/A engine is epic on the tracks. i guess these days are over. unless you wanna drop 300k on a Lamborghini.

dont worry once everything single car is a small turbo engine. once they all sound like rice and all make the same noise. People will look back at these days.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 03:30 AM   #588
BMW M3 CRT
Lieutenant
BMW M3 CRT's Avatar
177
Rep
464
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FogCityM3 View Post
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.
THIS !!!

Whow ... it could not be explained better

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
^This

An S65B44 with DI could have comfortably made 460~480ps. The engine would have likely weighed slightly less than the S55. This would have made fantastic F8X M3s and M4s that would have outperformed the cars with the S55 (better acceleration, better throttle response and better sound). DI would have improved emissions slightly but not sufficiently enough to meet European legislation corporate targets. The cost of the engine would have also likely been prohibitive. As stated, IMO, BMW went with the S55 for two reasons: cost and emissions.
Totally agree

What really counts for the BMW AG are mainly costs ... and here not development cost but production cost ... the one-of-a-kind unique S65 has to be produce in the munich "Sondermotorenbau" because it fit in no BMW engine production plant.
Emmission is only another problem, but if there would be any minimum will to go the traditional NA way it would be solved.


And to my informations an S65B44 was not the choise if they would go NA further ... but an S65B40 with all the internals of the GTS engine - better internal cylinder materials with less friction would be the way they would go with the V8 and also I don´t think DI wouldn´t be an real option they had. And lightly modified S65B40 would easily produce the needed 440-460hp.

Also there are other (better than the N55) turbo concepts which will bring an power delivery in the traditional BMW M way ... like for example an 3.0(?)ltr.V6 BiTurbo based on an shorted S63Tü which were developed but also ruled out because of production cost reasons.
I beleave many would be pissed off if BMW brings this engine in the all new BMW/Toyota sportwagen(?) ... because they see how capable and M worthy this concept is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eMvy View Post
Stuffing a S65B44 like engine into a F30/32 chassis would have left you with a car that performed no better than the E92. Just an upgrade in tech gadgets and sheet metal with the same performance would have buried this car. The R&D and materials that went into weight reduction cost money, and it had to come from some category. Unless you raise the base price of the car, in what other category could you have cut costs while improving performance? And without departing from the M luxo sports car formula?
THAT not the case ... the same F8x M3/M4 only with an minimal zo not modified S65 (440hp) would bring minimum the same performance numbers ... simply because for performance only hp counts and not the torque -> torque only changes the characteristic of an car, but not bthe overall performance.

According the my informations the weight numbers S65 vs. S55 are 202kg to 205kg - the stated 10kg minus are only for the basic engine without cooling and other parts. And because the old M-DCT is also some kg lighter than the new one ... an M3/M4 with an S65 and the best availiable gearbox would also some few kg lighter (not really important for performance, but indeed the case!)
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 03:57 AM   #589
Sedan_Clan
Law Enforcer
Sedan_Clan's Avatar
Brazil
24817
Rep
22,223
Posts

Drives: '22 Chalk Gray Porsche C2S
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ..in your rearview!!!

iTrader: (26)

You guys really do over-analyze everything like a bunch of women.
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 08:50 AM   #590
Lups
...
Lups's Avatar
11820
Rep
15,400
Posts

Drives: I don't own a car.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lost as usual

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan View Post
You guys really do over-analyze everything like a bunch of women.
Hey now! We are not that bad!

stfu Clan, or I'll analyze you.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joekerr View Post
You're still a little new here, so I'll let you in on a little secret. Whenever Lups types gibberish, this is an opportunity for you to imagine it to be whatever you'd like it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta0311 View Post
How would you know this? Did mommy catch you jerking off to some Big Foot porn ?
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 09:04 AM   #591
Sedan_Clan
Law Enforcer
Sedan_Clan's Avatar
Brazil
24817
Rep
22,223
Posts

Drives: '22 Chalk Gray Porsche C2S
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ..in your rearview!!!

iTrader: (26)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan View Post
You guys really do over-analyze everything like a bunch of women.
Hey now! We are not that bad!

stfu Clan, or I'll analyze you.
It's true! People are insanely bored.

P.S. Analyze this <insert image here>!
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 09:18 AM   #592
Lups
...
Lups's Avatar
11820
Rep
15,400
Posts

Drives: I don't own a car.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lost as usual

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan View Post
It's true! People are insanely bored.

P.S. Analyze this <insert image here>!
LOL, yes, we are. Not all of us are all fun and games, some of us needs coffee too.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joekerr View Post
You're still a little new here, so I'll let you in on a little secret. Whenever Lups types gibberish, this is an opportunity for you to imagine it to be whatever you'd like it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta0311 View Post
How would you know this? Did mommy catch you jerking off to some Big Foot porn ?
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 09:48 AM   #593
deletedelete
Major General
deletedelete's Avatar
United_States
360
Rep
5,873
Posts

Drives: m
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: usa

iTrader: (14)

Garage List
Quote:
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by M4TW View Post
I know exactly what you are saying, you're saying if it wasn't for stoopid costs and emissions and gov-ern-ment regulation ...

Attachment 1037433

I'm saying ... I don't think it's as simple as that. The likely result of going the direction you suggest would have been a thirstier engine that would not perform as well - unless they could sell them way above their current price point.

Another factor you are not considering is that there would be a big risk for BMW to hitch its wagon to a big V8 for the next seven years when they might not be able to sell enough of them because even enthusiasts are turning away from the "ain't no replacement for displacement" mentality.
Amen brother
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2014, 11:15 AM   #594
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
3435
Rep
4,978
Posts

Drives: 992 C4S
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

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.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
2014 bmw m3, 2014 bmw m3 horsepower, 2014 bmw m3 specs, 2014 bmw m4 horsepower, 2014 bmw m4 specs, 2014 m3, 2014 m3 engine, 2014 m3 forum, 2014 m3 horsepower, 2014 m3 hp, 2014 m3 specs, 2014 m3 weight, 2014 m4 engine, 2014 m4 horsepower, 2014 m4 hp, 2014 m4 specs, 2014 m4 weight, 2015 bmw m3, 2015 bmw m3 specs, 2015 bmw m4, 2015 bmw m4 specs, 2015 m3, 2015 m3 engine, 2015 m3 specs, 2015 m4, 2015 m4 engine, 2015 m4 hp, 2015 m4 specs, 2015 m4 weight, bmw f80, bmw f80 forum, bmw f80 forums, bmw f80 m3, bmw f80 m3 s55, bmw f80 m3 sedan, bmw f82, bmw f82 forum, bmw f82 forums, bmw f82 m3 coupe, bmw f82 m4, bmw f82 m4 coupe, bmw f82 m4 s55, bmw f82 m4 video, bmw f83, bmw f83 m3, bmw f83 m4, bmw m forum, bmw m forums, bmw m3 forum, bmw m3 forums, bmw m3 s55, bmw m3 s55 engine, bmw m4, bmw m4 coupe, bmw m4 coupe forum, bmw m4 forum, bmw m4 forums, bmw m4 horsepower, bmw m4 hp, bmw m4 redline, bmw m4 rev limit, bmw m4 rev limiter, bmw m4 weight, f80 m3, f82 m4

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST