The BMW Gives Us the Skinny On The New V8 Power Unit for The M3

The BMW Gives Us the Skinny On The New V8 Power Unit for The M3
• First eight-cylinder for the BMW M3 sports car.

• Maximum torque of 400 Newton-metres (295 lb-ft) at 3, 900 rpm, 85 per cent of maximum torque over a speed range of 6,500 rpm.

• Consistent lightweight construction of engine and ancillary units, new V8 power unit one of the lightest eight-cylinders in the world, lighter than the straight-six power unit in the former model.

Its name alone spells out the epitome of ultimate driving pleasure: the BMW M3. And now the new version of BMW M GmbH’s most successful high-performance sports car bears out this claim once again, at the same time providing a thrilling answer to the question asked by so many sports car fans around the world whether a further improvement is still possible at all.

And the answer is yes – for the new BMW M3 offers more in every respect.

This applies not only – but particularly – to the power unit: After 15 years and two model generations, the trendsetting six-cylinder has now found its successor. The new BMW M3 is entering the market with an eight-cylinder power unit – more cylinders, larger capacity, more power, higher engine speed. And it is fair to say from the start that this will also mean an even more thrilling experience on the road.

The benchmark the new power unit was required to exceed could hardly have been greater: BMW’s 3.2-litre straight-six has gained fame and admiration the world over, receiving a long list of awards and prizes. Acknowledged several times as the “Engine of the Year” and developing a supreme 252 kW/343 hp in its last version, this power unit made the BMW M3 not only the ultimate performer in the segment of high-performance sports cars, but also a genuine best seller.

The fact still remains, however, that everything has its time. And now the time has come for the six-cylinder to bow out and leave the stage. The time has come for the advent of the new V8 in the new BMW M3.

The specifications of this new high-performance power unit alone clearly confirm the enormous progress this engine has to offer. Engine displacement is 3,999 cc, maximum output is 309 kW/420 hp. Peak torque of 400 Newton-metres or 295 lb-ft is just as impressive as the top engine speed of 8,300 rpm. So clearly, the new BMW M3 is striking out for the top right from the start through its thrilling performance.

Ideal dimensions for performance at its best. Displacing 500 cc per cylinder, the new V8 power unit meets the ideal concept of the most demanding engine designers right from the start through its engine dimensions alone. And the other design criteria – all the way from the engine’s dimensions and filling capacities through the number of components to the weight of the engine – likewise represent the very best achievable today.

Over and above these qualities, the new eight-cylinder offers all the typical M-tuned features of BMW’s regular production cars such as double-VANOS, individual throttle butterflies, and high-performance engine electronics. At the same time the number of cylinders, the M high-speed engine concept, and the low weight of the engine clearly prove that the responsible engineers, in creating this power unit, were inspired and guided by the eight-cylinder featured in the BMW Sauber F1.

For the new engine has many features in common with the latest power unit highlighted by BMW in Formula 1, with various technological concepts and principles, production processes and materials carried over from the Formula 1 engine to the drivetrain of the new BMW M3.

In terms of specific output, the new V8 significantly exceeds the benchmark of 100 hp per litre acknowledged as a convincing sign of sporting power and performance. But even so, power is not everything. Rather, the dynamic driving experience provided by a car depends to a great extent on its acceleration and handling, resulting, not least, from the weight of the car and the actual thrust of the engine. The thrust or traction acting on the drive wheels, in turn, results from engine torque and the overall transmission ratio.

The M high-speed engine concept allows optimum transmission and final drive ratios further enhancing the impressive thrust and power of the engine. Indeed, BMW M’s engineers have found a new dimension in developing the engine of the new BMW M3, with the eight-cylinder achieving maximum engine speed of 8,300 rpm.

The second factor crucial to thrust and performance on the road, engine torque, amounts to a mighty 400 Newton-metres or 295 lb-ft at 3, 900 rpm on the new V8 power unit. And about 85 per cent of the engine’s maximum torque is available throughout the enormous engine speed range of 6,500 rpm, with 340 Newton-metres or 251 lb-ft available from just 2,000 rpm.

High engine speed, low weight. Mass (which, ultimately, means weight) is bad for acceleration – it makes any physical body seeking to accelerate slower and more sluggish. Precisely this is why BMW’s new V8, weighing a mere 202 kg or 445 lb, is a genuine lightweight, saving some 15 kg or 33 lb versus the six-cylinder power unit in the previous model. In other words, the new engine easily sets off the weight of two extra cylinders. And a further point is that the high-speed engine concept allows a light drivetrain and very short transmission ratios.

Even so, the limits to physics inevitably approach step-by-step with increasing engine power: At 8,300 rpm, each of the eight pistons is moving at a speed of 20 metres or almost 66 feet per second, obviously exposing all materials to enormous loads. Precisely this is why BMW M’s designers and engineers have focused on the minimisation of masses on the new eight-cylinder.

Engine block straight from BMW’s Formula 1 foundry. The engine block of the new eight-cylinder comes straight from BMW’s light-alloy foundry in Landshut near Munich, where BMW also builds the engine blocks for the Company’s Formula 1 racing cars. The cylinder crankcase, in turn, is made of a special aluminium silicon alloy, conventional cylinder liners being replaced by hard silicon crystals. The iron-coated pistons, finally, run directly in the uncoated, honed cylinder bore.

High engine speeds, compression forces and temperatures cause extreme loads acting on the crankcase. Hence, the crankcase is compact in its dimensions and comes in torsionally resistant bedplate design ensuring very precise crankshaft bearing and running conditions. The relatively short, forged crankshaft is likewise very stiff in terms of its flexural and torsional qualities, but weighs only 20 kg or 44 lb.

Double-VANOS with low-pressure operation.
With its extremely short control times, variable double-VANOS camshaft management perfects the cylinder charge cycle, reducing charge losses and improving engine output torque and response, as well as fuel economy and emission management.

Developed especially for the new eight-cylinder, the M double-VANOS now featured on the new engine requires no more than normal engine oil pressure in order to operate at maximum speed. As a function of load and engine speed, this sophisticated unit consistently sets the optimum valve angle synchronised to the ignition timing and injection volume.

Consistent and reliable oil supply even under extremely dynamic driving conditions.
Two volume-flow controlled pendulum slide cell pumps supply the eight-cylinder efficiently with lubricant, consistently delivering exactly the right amount for the engine. Wet sump lubrication optimised for engine dynamics, in turn, ensures appropriate lubrication also in extreme braking manoeuvres.

The entire system features two oil sumps – a small one in front of the front axle subframe and a larger sump further back. A separate reflow pump, in turn, extracts oil from the front oil sump and pumps it to the sump at the rear.

Eight individual throttle butterflies with electronic control.
Individual throttle butterflies for each cylinder, a technology commonly used in motorsport, are the ideal solution to give the engine an immediate, direct response at all times. The new power unit in the BMW M3 therefore comes with eight individual throttle butterflies, four on each row of cylinders operated by separate actuators. This high-tech throttle butterfly management is fully electronic and extremely fast, giving the engine a smooth and sensitive response at low engine speeds and an immediate reaction to the driver’s commands whenever he wishes to use the full power of the engine.

Flow-optimised air intake.
To ensure an immediate response and superior dynamics of the engine at all times, the throttle butterflies in the intake manifolds are positioned very close to the intake valves. The specific length and diameter of the intake funnels also benefit the oscillating pipe charge principle. To minimise weight, finally, both the intake funnels and air collector are made of a light composite material with a 30 per cent share of glass-fibre.

Innovative exhaust system.
Through its design and configuration, the exhaust system for the new V8 power unit optimises the cylinder charge cycle, ensuring an optimum surge of power and torque at all times. And again, this component has been designed and built from the start for consistent lightweight qualities.

The exhaust manifolds are made in an internal high-pressure remoulding process, the desired contours of the stainless-steel pipes being shaped from inside under pressure of up to 800 bar. The result is extremely thin walls measuring just 0.65–1.00 millimetres (0.0256–0.0394´´ ) in thickness, optimising flow conditions with minimum resistance, light weight, and optimum response of the catalytic converters.

Exhaust emissions are cleaned by no less than four catalysts and the engine naturally complies both with the European EU4 standard and the US LEV 2 requirements.

Even better performance than before: the engine control unit. The engine control unit featured on the V8 has also been upgraded to an even higher standard than before, ensuring optimum coordination of all engine functions. Taking more than 50 input signals, for example, the control unit determines the optimum ignition timing individually for each cylinder and operating stroke, the ideal flow conditions, exactly the right amount of fuel injection, and the optimum injection timing. At the same time the system calculates and sets exactly the right camshaft angles (angle spread), as well as the respective position of the eight individual throttle butterflies.

And last but not least, the control unit enhances and masterminds specific BMW M functions such as the clutch, transmission, steering, and brakes. Yet a further function of the engine control unit is to perform a wide range of on-board diagnostic functions with various diagnostic routines for servicing at the workshop as well as other functions and the efficient management of peripheral units and systems.

An outstanding highlight in engine management: ion flow technology.
A particular highlight in engine management is ion flow technology detecting any knocking in the engine as well as the risk of misfiring or miscombustion. Contrary to conventional processes and technologies, this function is now performed directly where it counts, that is right there in the combustion chamber itself. To provide this highly efficient control, each cylinder is monitored and controlled via the spark plug to determine any knocking tendency.

At the same time the system checks the ignition for smooth and correct operation, and recognises any misfiring. The spark plug therefore serves as an actuator for the ignition and as a sensor observing the combustion process, distinguishing in this way between miscombustion and misfiring. And through this double function performed by the spark plug, diagnostic requirements in maintaining and servicing the engine are also facilitated.

Greater efficiency and dynamics provided by Brake Energy Regeneration. To further enhance the efficiency of the new V8 power unit, Brake Energy Regeneration ensures intelligent engine current management concentrating the generation of electric power for the on-board network on the overrun phases and the application of the brakes. This serves to charge the car’s battery without tapping on engine power and, accordingly on the energy contained in the fuel burnt. As long as the engine is running under power, on the other hand, accelerating and pulling the car, the alternator generally remains disconnected. Apart from particularly efficient generation of electric current, this also helps to provide more drive power when accelerating, making the car even more dynamic and agile on the road.

smshnicksmshnick - 3/22/2007 10:55:23 AM
+2 Boost
Death knoll?... FYI it's the same power output and with less torque than the RS4.


njshiftnjshift - 3/22/2007 11:31:28 AM
-1 Boost
You kidding? AMG's V8 puts out over 500bhp.


weaponXweaponX - 3/22/2007 12:01:49 PM
+4 Boost
RS4 weighs 350-400 lbs more. No twin-clutch transmission too.

AMG has the horsepower, but not all roads are straight. And that 6.3L engine looks like it belongs in a tractor.



weaponXweaponX - 3/22/2007 10:25:36 AM
+3 Boost
As usual the M-division produces a spectacular engine.

Hopefully, a 7-spd twin-clutch transmission is available at the outset. It would go nicely with this incredible powerplant.

It still amazes me that this V8 weighs less than the I6 of the current M3.

The only bad news in all of this is that we’d have to wait until spring 2008 before the new car arrives in North America.



thecarthecar - 3/22/2007 10:44:28 AM
-1 Boost
no info on MPG yet ... slim chance it will improve over E46 ?


LuxuriousLuxurious - 3/22/2007 11:13:04 AM
+2 Boost
MPG: it's 8% less than the E46


RupertRupert - 3/22/2007 10:47:04 AM
+3 Boost
It has brake energy regeneration! Does that make it the worlds fastest hybrid?
I expect the engine will be awesome, but I wonder what it will sound like? Throaty american style or high revving screamer?


kpaxxkpaxx - 3/22/2007 10:49:20 AM
+3 Boost
Beautiful engineering!


530N52530N52 - 3/22/2007 10:58:51 AM
+3 Boost
BMW's commitment to performance is remarkable.


cs4444cs4444 - 3/22/2007 11:57:46 AM
+8 Boost
you do that ricemaster.


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 11:21:02 AM
0 Boost
295lb-ft and 8300rpm redline?? The first is kinda weak, but the second impressive. It's gonna need all 7 speeds of the SMG. A six speed will be a bit short for a powerband so high and torque so low. The weight is good though. Except the weight claim for a V8 seems a bit bogus unless that is with all the computer stuff, wires, hoses, and everything. But even then that is about the same weight as GM's LS1,2,6,7 engines. The 2,6,and7 are all about the same power also, but ALL have WAY more torque.


JRobUSCJRobUSC - 3/22/2007 11:56:42 AM
+4 Boost
BMW M's have never been torque monsters, they're about high RPM F1-style power. The E46 M3 did just fine with 333hp and 262lb-ft of torque, I'm sure 420 and 295 will be plenty, especially since the torque curve will be so flat. This V8 makes almost the same torque at 2000 RPM that the E46 M3 motor made at its peak.


7msynthetic7msynthetic - 3/22/2007 11:24:40 AM
-3 Boost
295 lbs of torque is alot lower than I expected, but then again the V10 is not a torque monster. All in all a pretty sophisticated engine - and extremely light to boot!

It will be interesting when the reviews come out. (Sorry had to start yet another L vs A vs B vs M thread) Driveability will be interesting for all four with each having their own virtues. To be honest I think the IS-F will be a surprise (BMW will win the handling dept though) an 8-speed with more than 350lbs of torque. I think Lexus is playing the BMW conservative card - it will come in way below 4.8s. As for handling, as mentioned BMW and Audi will win but the Lexus will surprise. Remember fans the guy (can't remember his name) who is responsible for the development of the IS-F was also responsible for the last gen Supra - one of the best handling cars of its time. Can't wait till fall gear heads.


EL34EL34 - 3/22/2007 11:26:37 AM
+5 Boost
That motor is totally rad!!!


golfer38golfer38 - 3/22/2007 11:41:20 AM
-2 Boost
Wait a second, isn't the 335i's torque 300lb-ft?


cs4444cs4444 - 3/22/2007 12:03:13 PM
+3 Boost
yes you are correct 335 has 300lb-ft.... good observation,its also twin turbo. But the 550 has almost the same torque as the m5, and the m5 is much faster so im not sure where you are going with that golfer38


golfer38golfer38 - 3/22/2007 6:54:18 PM
+1 Boost
I'm surprised that BMW didn't develope a V8 motor with more torque. I think its widely accepted that BMW probably underestimated the true power of the twin turbo motor. The power difference is 140 hp between the 550i and the M5 which more than makes up for the torque difference not to mention the higher reving ability. However, the 335i and the M3 will be only 60-90 hp difference with the torque in the 335i coming on quicker than the M3. My point is that I expected the power to be a little higher. I can only guess that they're worried about launch and accessive wheel spin.


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 11:41:50 AM
0 Boost
Talk about long winded.

Sounds like an amazing engine, but cmon quit the nonsense describe what makes the engine great and move on.
Josh


dumpstydumpsty - 3/22/2007 12:00:01 PM
-2 Boost
Hopefully, a 420hp V8 puts out more than 300 lb-ft torque. Since the 335i has at least 300 lb-ft, the V8 should have at least 350lb-ft torque. But then look at the IS-F...what are those engine numbers?


dumpstydumpsty - 3/22/2007 3:43:19 PM
+1 Boost
This V8 will have 295 lb-ft while the I6 had 262 lb-ft torque. It's quite engaging to see almost a 100hp increase while torque is only increased by 30-35. A 5L V8 getting less than 325 lb-ft of torque --- even for a DOHC unit --- is a bit weak.

It doesn't make sense given BMW already has a 4.8L V8 with 360hp and 360-lb-ft torque (@ 3400 rpm). Heck, their 6.0L V12 has 438 hp with 444 lb-ft torque. Aren't those two engines DOHC units?

Maybe the release meant to read "395 lb-ft"....


HeyhuubHeyhuub - 3/22/2007 4:55:48 PM
+1 Boost
The M3 engine is a 4 litre, the other ones are 4.8 and 6.0 litres. that's where the extra torque comes from.
Not allot of cars have more then 105nm per litre.


dumpstydumpsty - 3/23/2007 7:09:13 AM
+1 Boost
I'll correct myself.

After reading up on the BMW V-10, I've become a believer of the new 5.0L V-8 (420hp, 295lb-ft). If only the "more experienced BMW fan" would have responded by saying that 295lb-ft of torque is more than enough because of gearing and the high-revving capability of this new engine.

It was explained to me like cyclists going up-and-down steep hills. On the ascent, the cyclists will drop to a lower gear and immediately start pedalling faster. This is similar to a car dropping to a lower gear and increasing revs to keep moving upwards...as this doesn't require additional power to keep moving or to speed up.

This is something I do frequently in my wife's Mazda6. On the highway, I'd be going 65-70 mph, and somebody might approach and try to pass. With the manumatic gear shifter, I can drop from 5th to 4th gear and accelerate to 80-85 mph quite fast. The engine requires no more power than what's already being put out, but the drop in gear and high revs made the difference.


dumpstydumpsty - 3/23/2007 7:10:27 AM
+1 Boost
I'll correct myself.

After reading up on the BMW V-10, I've become a believer of the new 5.0L V-8 (420hp, 295lb-ft). If only the "more experienced BMW fan" would have responded by saying that 295lb-ft of torque is more than enough because of gearing and the high-revving capability of this new engine.

It was explained to me like cyclists going up-and-down steep hills. On the ascent, the cyclists will drop to a lower gear and immediately start pedalling faster. This is similar to a car dropping to a lower gear and increasing revs to keep moving upwards...as this doesn't require additional power to keep moving or to speed up.

This is something I do frequently in my wife's Mazda6. On the highway, I'd be going 65-70 mph, and somebody might approach and try to pass. With the manumatic gear shifter, I can drop from 5th to 4th gear and accelerate to 80-85 mph quite fast. The engine requires no more power than what's already being put out, but the drop in gear and high revs made the difference.


JRobUSCJRobUSC - 3/23/2007 10:22:38 AM
+1 Boost
it's a 4.0L V8, not 5.0L


CynicalCynical - 3/23/2007 5:10:44 PM
+1 Boost
the engineering marvel is that it weighs less than the previous I-6


AMGC55AMGC55 - 3/22/2007 12:01:49 PM
-2 Boost
funny that is has less torque then the 335... but still very cool... it will out rev that is-f any day


izfuneyizfuney - 3/22/2007 1:02:36 PM
+2 Boost
Hahaha .. sometimes all your German car fans fall flat on your own face. After talking about Torque/Torque n the face of lets say .... 10+ odd years of Honda/Toyota 4 bangers that used Vtech /VVT-i to make top end power, its hilarious to see all of you jump on the Bandwagon..
To all the Honda fans who are smirking at these responses - "Integra"

As for the ISF - .. I think Toyota will have as amazing an engine as the M.


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 12:02:42 PM
-1 Boost
For those unsure about torque.

"• Maximum torque of 400 Newton-metres (295 lb-ft) at 3, 900 rpm, 85 per cent of maximum torque over a speed range of 6,500 rpm. "




SupraNeverBackSupraNeverBack - 3/22/2007 12:53:47 PM
-1 Boost
LEV II emission, Gas guzzler tax.

Be prepared to shocked by the price and good luck with the duality of the engine.




SupraNeverBackSupraNeverBack - 3/22/2007 12:58:58 PM
-5 Boost
sorry, typo, I meant durability


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 2:22:59 PM
+3 Boost
Where should I start....

Nah I will just leave this alone.


BM3WBM3W - 3/22/2007 1:12:04 PM
+1 Boost
BMW's aluminum V-8's were first used in their Formula One racecars. Now, V-8 technology propels the M3 coupe and sedan. You don't have to be an engineer to love this engine, but if you are, get ready for a heart throb!


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 2:37:26 PM
+1 Boost
No they were first used in the 507.... :)


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 1:23:41 PM
+1 Boost
I am not really into low torque/high revving engines was my point. Unless that is the torque is still north of about 300 lb-ft for something in the weight and performance class of the M3. I don't like having to always be changing gears to make sure the lack of torque isn't screwing me over. That and the fact that I have to look like a foolish wacko to feel the potential of the car by revving it up to a fever pitch and turning every head in a 1000 yard radius as they hear the screaming engine. A high torque engine has way more ability to move you out fast without making much of a scene.


SupraNeverBackSupraNeverBack - 3/22/2007 2:24:49 PM
-2 Boost
IS-F will satisfy ULEV II compared to LEV II of the M3.


henbmwhenbmw - 3/22/2007 6:15:35 PM
+4 Boost
"Hondas ... offer driving dynamics BMW can't hope to match."
hahahahahaha


supermotosupermoto - 3/22/2007 2:24:32 PM
+1 Boost
Amazing engine but torque seems low when the stock 335i is running 298lbft on a dyno which means at least 330at the crank. Chip the 335i with the Vishnu PROceed and RWHP goes to 320 and torque 370. At the crank that's over 350hp/400tq.


1970toyotamarc1970toyotamarc - 3/22/2007 2:32:20 PM
-1 Boost
I'll echo some of the other comments just to have a little fun.

Those high hp/low torque numbers are what German fans have criticized about Japanese engines for years. Now someone actually had the balls to defend the numbers by asking if we know what a DOHC engine is like???

You cant have it both ways. BMW is following the Japanese example of small, high revving, high hp, low torque engines, and y'all should be furious. If this were the IS-F engine, there would be 100 posts whining about its low torque, saying that hp doesnt matter. But I am sure it will have soul.


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 2:34:46 PM
+3 Boost
BMW engines have been all over the range but they have always been higher revving, smooth engines. Only a few models were torque monsters.

Josh


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 2:33:30 PM
+4 Boost
"• Maximum torque of 400 Newton-metres (295 lb-ft) at 3, 900 rpm, 85 per cent of maximum torque over a speed range of 6,500 rpm. "

I will qoute this again. For everyone claiming the car has 295lb-ft of torque read the above. Do the math. I will not do this for you.

For the people who claim that this sounds like a japanese engine. If by japanese you mean high revving then yes maybe, but BMW has always had higher revving engines known for being silky smooth. I am sure this engine is no different. As for the torque talk, we should wait and see what the performance figures end up being. Chances are the torque will end up being perfectly matched with the chassis, like most of there other cars.

Why is everyone so diehard one thing or another. You should all have some level of appreciation for the M3. It created a category which might not otherwise exist, and has raised the bar for everyone at one time or another.

As for the weight whiners. Keep dreaming of your lotus weight sports cars, and go buy an e30. As much as I love light weight cars, I also realize that safety standards are going up, people care about 'ring' times, and chassis are getting 'BETTER'.

Fact of the matter is the older lighter cars were not faster in general. The e30 m3 was not that fast. The 70's 930 was not that fast. These cars were light, and quick but not blistering. Don't you think BMW is trying there hardest to get light, by still staying afloat as a company. They are not porsche they don't have the luxury of having such a focus as sports cars... ohh and suv's.

Be reasonable people. I love your cynicism and critical mindset, but your ability to see beyond that critical view and look at things reasonably is really lacking.

Josh





d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 2:40:45 PM
-1 Boost
295 at 3900rpm
347 at 6500rpm

Ok I will do the math.


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 3:17:17 PM
+2 Boost
Problem is that you DID the math RETARDEDLY. 295 is stated as MAXIMUM torque or the highest you can get and that peak or MAX is at 3900RPM. You get 85% of that across as 6500rpm band or no less than 295 X .85 which equals 250.75. So you basically have between 250 and 295 in the 1800 to redline range. Pretty flat and all, but still not much torque for such a car. The gear ratios are gonna have to be really tight and you will be rapping a good bit of rpm at highway speeds in the top gear when everything is tuned for good acceleration. That will hurt fuel economy on highway trips. To top it all off, if you like doing the gear changing yourself, you are gonna be a lot busier just getting to a good gear than peeps in high torque cars. Not to mention the engines life will probably be shortened a good bit by the fact you will have to stay in the upper end of the rev range to have much power. This is why the Aston Martins had such a hard time with the Vettes in the ALMS the last several years. The Vette engines were bullet proof cause they had gobs of power and torque eleviating any need to keep them revved really high all the time, except when you hit a straight. The Aston Martins had power and could keep up once they added weight and restrictor plates to the Vettes, but still had more reliability issues here and there than the Vettes. Simply put, the OHV engine was killing their DOHC, HAND DOWN!!


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 3:22:24 PM
+2 Boost
I misread the quote, which then made my math way off. I apologize.

Josh

p.s. Although I agree with what you said about the torque I do not think it is going to play out as being a low torque car. I imagine its going to drive fine, you don't race a M3 on paper, you race it on a track.




jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 3:32:18 PM
+2 Boost
My point is that if you want to choose the gear you are in at any particular point on the track with the SMG or Manual you are going to be doing a lot more paddling than what will be required to get the most out of a torquier car. To top it off reliability of the engine when raced will be questionable because of the high loading the extreme revves cause. This is obvious when the engine is based on the M5 V10 which won't even put out more than 400hp until you tell the computer. That is so that peeps don't blow their engines all the time partially. That and because the engine probably make the car less livable day to day in the 500hp mode. These sorts of issues are not present on higher displacement lower revving higher torque engines. I am just saying all the engineering and tweaking that go on with in BMW to make these sorts of engines work is kinda wasted effort when a lot more simple aproach will get you what is basically equal and better in many ways results. Of course you actually have to goto OHV to get BETTER overall performance and that is a SIN in most parts of the world outside the USA. When really the only big disadvantage an OHV has is hp/l output and NVH. The HP/L is a stupid figure to worry about when the higher displacement engine is actually quite a bit smaller than the equivalent powered DOHC and the fuel consumption of the two are similar at similar power output levels. The NVH can be addressed with added isolation when mounting the engine. That adds some weight that might not be there in a DOHC mount, nothing significant.


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 3:32:20 PM
+1 Boost
My point is that if you want to choose the gear you are in at any particular point on the track with the SMG or Manual you are going to be doing a lot more paddling than what will be required to get the most out of a torquier car. To top it off reliability of the engine when raced will be questionable because of the high loading the extreme revves cause. This is obvious when the engine is based on the M5 V10 which won't even put out more than 400hp until you tell the computer. That is so that peeps don't blow their engines all the time partially. That and because the engine probably make the car less livable day to day in the 500hp mode. These sorts of issues are not present on higher displacement lower revving higher torque engines. I am just saying all the engineering and tweaking that go on with in BMW to make these sorts of engines work is kinda wasted effort when a lot more simple aproach will get you what is basically equal and better in many ways results. Of course you actually have to goto OHV to get BETTER overall performance and that is a SIN in most parts of the world outside the USA. When really the only big disadvantage an OHV has is hp/l output and NVH. The HP/L is a stupid figure to worry about when the higher displacement engine is actually quite a bit smaller than the equivalent powered DOHC and the fuel consumption of the two are similar at similar power output levels. The NVH can be addressed with added isolation when mounting the engine. That adds some weight that might not be there in a DOHC mount, nothing significant.


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 3:39:31 PM
+2 Boost
The real issue is that the torque is so low in comparison to other similarly powered engines. Most of those are quite a bit heavier, but the GM LS range of engines are not really any significant amount heavier or larger. Some might be lighter than that and have similar power and more torque in the same part of that rev range. The LS7 actually never does dips below 300 lb-ft even at idle. And in the 5-6k range is at 490hp. That engine is very similar in size and weight to this engine and goes in a car costing about the same price. The Vette isn't as useful, but thinking you could probably put that engine in an M3 drop the price a good bit and make huge gains in performance.


HeyhuubHeyhuub - 3/22/2007 5:01:04 PM
+1 Boost
The torque per litre of the corvette is also pretty pathetic if you look at european engines.

So there!


JRobUSCJRobUSC - 3/23/2007 10:57:16 AM
+1 Boost
dude, how are you comparing a Z06 engine to the M3? The Z06 engine is a 7.0L and makes 505hp and 470lb-ft. That's 72hp/L and 67lb-ft/L. The standard Corvette engine is 6.0L and produces 400hp and 400lb-ft. That's 67hp/L and 67lb-ft/L. The M3 is 4.0L and produces 420hp and 295lb-ft. That's 105hp/L and 74lb-ft/L. The RS4 is 4.2L and produces 420hp and 317lb-ft. That's 100hp/L and 75lb-ft/L. Even the AMG 6.2L produces 507hp and 465lb-ft, which is 82hp/L and 75lb-ft/L, and that's the most "normal" engine in the bunch. Simply put, from an engineering standpoint it's not even close, the German engines are far superior. And one day if need be Audi and BMW can build a larger engine. A 6.0L V12 based on the M3/M5 specs, for example, would produce in the range of 630hp and 450lb-ft. It's not like BMW and Audi couldn't do it -- BMW already made a 6.1L V12 with 627hp and 479lb-ft. SIXTEEN YEARS AGO in 1991. For arguably the most legendary sports car of all time, the McLaren F1. I'm sure they could do something pretty amazing today if they needed to.


07mcs07mcs - 3/22/2007 3:30:52 PM
+1 Boost
What would be interesting to know is how much % of the Maximum torque is availabel below 3900rpm. If it still pretty high, then we have an engine with a prettly flat torque curve, so it will ok, even though maximum torque is only 295@3,900rpm. Also if they are using it with a 7 speed, the more gears will make good use of the engine's output in getting the most performance out of that engine. That is why the M5 7 speed SMG is better than the 6 speed manual in the M5


SupraNeverBackSupraNeverBack - 3/22/2007 3:51:16 PM
-1 Boost
Doesn't matter how much % over what RPMs as long as its absolute numbers are small.

About M5 acceleration, no one can drive a manual faster than today's extreme fast shift auto.




jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 3:59:42 PM
+2 Boost
That, and I have read here that the 6 speed manual makes the M5 seem like a piece of crap since the car is tuned in a way that the SMG's computer control of how the clutch is engaged is the only way to get a decent launch with the car. Apparently is make you think things are going to self destruct if you try a hard launch with the manual. The more I read about the new M5 the more I think it is mechanically very similar to my CTS-V except for the high revving nature of it's DOHC engine. The computer controlling the tranny and other stuff that isn't designed an extremely refined sorta way is really all it has to make it seem like a more expensive and refined car than the CTS-V. That and it's interior looks ok where mind kinda looks a bit more like somthing you might see in the starwars section of a toys are us.


Need4SpeedNeed4Speed - 3/23/2007 1:28:39 AM
+1 Boost
The article does mention that 85% of the M3 engine's torque is available from 2000 to 8300 RPM...therefore the torque curve should start at 251 @2000 rpm, peak at 259@3,900 rpm, and continue to 251 @8,300 rpm. That’s a nice flat curve but the RS4 by comparison is flatter whereby 90% of the max torque is available from 2,250 rpm to 7,600 rpm. That would mean 285 lb-ft @2,250 rpm, peak 317 @ 6,500 rpm, back to 285 @7000 rpm. Torque and HP are not the only variables in this and they do not tell the whole story. Useful power should be measured at the rear wheels as this takes into account internal friction and drive train losses. Also you have to factor in the weight of the vehicle and its aerodynamic drag coefficient among other things.


SupraNeverBackSupraNeverBack - 3/22/2007 3:37:50 PM
0 Boost
There is no magic, high rev just like many others. The numbers are just as expected from a 4.0L v8.

One good is its light weight. I will give it another good if it will last.

I think M3 will match the acceleration (0-60, 1/4m times) of RS4 due to the huge weight advantage although RS4 has AWD and more torque.

But it will slower than IS-F for sure because it is really hard to overcome 100lb.ft deficit even though IS-F may weight 100~200lbs more and IS-F has one more gear and very possible more hp too.




d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 4:45:32 PM
+2 Boost
I am not going to speculate how good this engine is. I am not going to speculate as to how it compares to the ls engines, Audi engines, or any lower or higher revving engines. I will wait until I drive the car, and feel its tractability. I have driven 2 cars with the s54 engine and can say that they are riveting machines. If the engine follows similar suit but is more high strung I think they might have a reason for it. I really appreciate the F1 nature of the latest BMW M power plants. High strung, high revving, and uniquely powerful.

After reading your suggestion regarding the LS engine in the M3 I get a better idea of what you see as 'good'. Sometimes the speed isn't what is exciting. Sometimes, the grip isn't what is exciting. Sometimes the package and the feeling is exciting. There will always be a faster car, there will always more grip, and there will always be more potential. One thing that you can't guarantee is how a car makes you feel. I am not talking in the ego driven poser way. I am talking in the overall feel of the car to an enthusiast. When I am in a car I never think about tq numbers, I just know weather I am being rocketed out of a turn from the apex or not. I don't think about weight, I just know what the car feels like. Does it feel light, does it grip, does it turn in, does it pull out, and does it SLIDE.

These are all things that can't be written down and that have always been apart of BMW, and many other marques. These are feelings which make hairdressers cars like the Miata amazing cars regardless.

I am saying this isn't a paper battle, its a road one. Its an objective one, and if you want an LS in an M3 then maybe its not a battle your interested in, but I am, and I can't wait to see if it satisfies, if and when it does, the numbers will mean nothing.

My 2 Cents.




jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 5:22:34 PM
+2 Boost
Good post. I know what you mean. We differ in what we like from a powerplant though I think. Cars like the new M5 and many Honda VTEC's(S2000) can make good power for the size of the vehicle, but you really need to choose gears wisely or leave the SMG in automatic mode maybe in the M5's case and let the accelerator pedal decide which gear you are shooting for. You kinda have to do the same thing with a car like my CTS-V, but the penalty for picking the wrong gear is not nearly as drastic when you have the torque of my car. The thing I like the most though is when you aren't on the track, but on a street with people around as you turn onto a faster moving street or highway you can pick a higher gear on purpose and limit the screaming engine sound that makes you seem like a show off and still accelerate at a very good and FUN pace. Basically you can have more fun without seeming like you are trying to show off. Pick a lower gear though and you can still show off, point is you will still be having a lot of fun even in gears that would make these low torque high revving cars seem like dogs. Most of all it is done without much show and only a small burble that jets you off.


SupraNeverBackSupraNeverBack - 3/22/2007 5:22:51 PM
0 Boost
Why did you add another 100kg to IS?

IS350 3,527lb(1,600kg). IS-F at most weights 3600lbs if not less. You think M3 will weight 3200lbs only?





ZackaryZackary - 3/22/2007 4:43:18 PM
+1 Boost
I for one am glad the new M3 got a V8. Regardless of its torque, there shouldn't be any doubt in anyone's mind that this wont be yet another smooth-revving, even smoother-shifting killer engine from M Motorsport. Besides, how many M models have been torque monsters anyway? They still outshine the rest of the pack in many more aspects, especially the transmission and suspension/handling areas.


minimalistminimalist - 3/22/2007 5:03:21 PM
+1 Boost
um, the e39 m5 is a torque monster and its a 5.0 v8.


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 5:14:49 PM
+2 Boost
This was the main torque monster of an engine that BMW has had.

Josh


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 5:26:26 PM
+1 Boost
And that is the engine this M3 SHOULD have had! That thing with some tweaking could have out powered and torqued this engine. Weight would been up there though. Of course the money saved on engine development could have gone into developing a few more aluminum body panels to offset the weight penalty.


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 5:30:30 PM
+2 Boost
See this is where we disagree. I have a hard time believing BMW said hmm here is a perfectly good engine lets scrap it and build something new for giggles. I think they had an intention and the mystery will be laid to rest when it is finally driven.

Josh


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 5:41:01 PM
+1 Boost
Well, I will say that on a track these higher revving engines might get ones juices flowing more, but that is just because of the insanely complex and extreme nature of how they are accomplishing a relatively simple task of creating 425hp. I am not sure though that the old E39 M5 engine would have fit well in the new 3 series anyhow. That might have been a lot of the problem. That, and I think they basically quit building that engine when the new M5 came out. I am pretty sure BMW is going this extreme rev/low torque route mostly to connect the engines with their F1 engines and prove they can make such a beast somewhat reliable. I do think though it is as much a marketing move as it is a move to maximize performance. Shoot the refusal to ever even look at a modern OHV engine design by the Japanese and European car builders is a lot a marketing move. The C5R's and C6R's have proven pretty handily just how capable an OHV engine can be at making DOHC race cars look slow. These race cars were being continually handicapped from day one in an effort to slow them down enough for the DOHC's to keep up. Same holds true in the SCCA Speed GT series where the CTS-VR's were killing the competition for a good part of the first season until the handicaps finally slowed them down enough.


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 5:51:05 PM
+2 Boost
I don't normally blur the lines between road cars and race cars like that. The c5r and c6r are hugely competitive for many reasons, and one of them is the engine, but I would argue that does not make it somehow a better car, better engine, or better driving experience for the buyer of the related street car.

The cobalt has been shown to be hugely fast on road coarses. Faster than lats say a Skyline(2005 Time Attack challenge).

I think one thing is common. Better preperation, more money, better drivers, better strategy, and overall a better polished team. GM is fighting to capture the hearts and minds of the next consumer, and winning road races is part of the strategy. They took a competent road car(s) and made them hugely competitive in racing. I don't see how this effects what I end up buying.
I like most up and coming 'sports car' buyers are looking for more than numbers, more than wins, and more than torque. I am looking for a complete package which hits home for me. For some people thats a vette, for others thats the RS4, and for yet others a Mini Van.

I have yet to decide what that means for me. Right now its my STi, but maybe soon something else. I hope the M3 can be that car. On paper it is, but when I turn the key, take a turn, and hear the engine my mind could change.

Josh

p.s. It's not like I didn't give those other cars a chance. I have driven a C5(z06), it was fantastic, but just didn't stick with me.


SupraNeverBackSupraNeverBack - 3/22/2007 6:33:24 PM
0 Boost
I have no idea and don't care how much European IS250 weights. Here in US, IS350 has curb weight of 3,527lb(1,600kg).




JRobUSCJRobUSC - 3/23/2007 11:50:37 AM
+1 Boost
and at 368lb-ft out of 5.0L that torque monster actually made slightly less torque per liter than the new M3 or M5 engine, and less torque overall than the new M5.


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 6:13:44 PM
+1 Boost
Well if you have an STi, I am not sure this car would be much of an improvement. Unless you like the SMG idea or maybe RWD?? The STI has more torque and I think might be lighter. This engine would probably be more hyper than the STi engine also. I used to really love BMW M's, but that was when they were really refined yet somewhat basic cars in how they accomplished the perfomance they had. From everything I read about the new M5 and what I am not reading about the M3, I almost feel as though they are downgrades from the cars they replace. They're a bit faster, and handle a bit better, but all this is at the cost of what before was a somewhat pure mechanical design. It would be exciting to have a car with an engine that revs to 8000+ rpm, but the excitement that creates is partialy because you are somewhat amazed the engine doesn't just blow apart with the sorta noise it makes. All performance cars such as these are somewhat prone to breaking if you push them toward the limits of their perfomance, but these latest M cars seemed tweaked and designed in such a way the possibility of that actually happening is greater than the cars they replace. Shoot, the old M3 engine wasn't what I would call bulletproof. The new M5 though is detuned somewhat until you tell the computer to give you everything. That is just kinda scary to me, unless I were a lot wealthier than I am. Really though, I am just someone that doesn't get a chance to drive my car on race tracks or non-public roads all that often and for that reason want a car that can perform extremely well without making much of a ruckous. To make that happen, you need low end grunt so you don't have to wind things way up to get a good sampling of the full effect of the car is. I like to be in 4th, 5th, or 6th gear and be able to feel something real significant at 30-50mph speeds when I bump the throttle. That won't happen with such a hyper engine. Really I think I would rather have the new 335i and have some mod done to tweak the turbo tune upto where this V8 is. It would probably be just as reliable or more so and have way better low end grunt for those higher gears. And with the money saved you could probably even still upgrade the suspension tune to a similar point and still have money left over.


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/22/2007 7:35:45 PM
+2 Boost
Interesting. I think we both need to wait to either drive, or hear a driver review with a bias towards our individual needs. I will listen to the hamster with a touch of clarkson to get my opinion. Or go to the dealership and plead. TAKE MY STI AND HOLD IT WHILE I BEAT THE PISS OUT OF THIS M3 :)

Josh


jasaerojasaero - 3/22/2007 6:30:04 PM
+1 Boost
Here is what I am referring to with the 335i.

http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=119485/pageNumber=1



LexapealLexapeal - 3/22/2007 7:30:43 PM
-2 Boost
IS-F IS-F IS-F IS-F


chewychewy - 3/22/2007 7:31:05 PM
+2 Boost
I see nothing in this engine that the Audi RS4 V8 deosn't have already. Actually there is less torque here. Qutie a bit less.


cs4444cs4444 - 3/22/2007 7:51:47 PM
0 Boost
well the audi is a 4.2 and the m3 is a 4.0 thats why the torque is diff, but the fact the m3 makes the same hp from a smaller engine is quite impressive. anyway the M3 will have a better power to weight ratio than the audi, and without a doubt be quicker. you will prolly say the audi has more torque and it will be close or somthing, but the audis power has to be broken up and distrubuted to x amount of wheels at x amounts of power. With the M3 the engine is powering the rear wheels and thats all.With the new Brake Energy Regeneration which will help power steering, electronics,and other stuff. More of the m3s power will make it to the road making the car feel more powerful.unlike the rs4 where the engine powers every thing and has to be fed through an awd system, and move more wight.bummer.


S4cabriofoxoneS4cabriofoxone - 3/22/2007 9:12:05 PM
+1 Boost
"well the audi is a 4.2 and the m3 is a 4.0 thats why the torque is diff, but the fact the m3 makes the same hp from a smaller engine is quite impressive."

It's only 0.2 liters smaller. That's barely anything.

The Audi 4.2L V8 in the A8 makes only 10hp less than the 360hp BMW 4.8L. THAT's a 0.6L difference, which is more substantial. What's the point of the 4.8L, anyway, if they have this new 4.0?


S4cabriofoxoneS4cabriofoxone - 3/22/2007 9:12:39 PM
-1 Boost
I'll take one!

What color? Hmm...


gsh23gsh23 - 3/22/2007 9:56:13 PM
+1 Boost
usually im not a fan of bmws except for the M cars. but knowing the specs on this engine all we need now is the weight of the M3. man, this competition is getting HOT. there still might be a glimmer of chance that the RS4 will match the new M3. theres still the wild card IS-F and new CTS-V (anyone care? lol).

and btw, honda has been making better handling high rev, no torque cars than bmw for decades. maybe this M3 will change that...now if honda would hurry up with the new nsx =)


Need4SpeedNeed4Speed - 3/23/2007 1:32:20 AM
+1 Boost
Just wanted to reiterate...Torque and HP are not the only variables in this and they do not tell the whole story. Useful power should be measured at the rear wheels as this takes into account internal friction and drive train losses. Also you have to factor in the weight of the vehicle and its aerodynamic drag coefficient, among other things, when speculating its performance.



germeezy2germeezy2 - 3/23/2007 1:34:24 AM
+1 Boost
Interesting enough my LS1 weighs only about 20 lbs more than the M3 engine and I have at least 500 hp and have a way faster car. And my powerband starts from right off idle right up to the 6800 rpm redline.


d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/23/2007 1:19:52 PM
+1 Boost
Your argumentative rebutle to ricemasters post seems a bit defensive. You have posted the truth; the 1500hp 1.5l turbo engine BMW campaigned... forever ago was a fantastic engine, but it does not really dismiss Toyota's accomplishments in any way shape or form.

Toyota has been racing for a long time, they have been dumping money in racing a long time, and deserve to be looked at with that respect. There current product lineup aside, they are a quality company producing cars which compete with BMW(Lexus), and also in other markets with Scion, and Toyota.

Why be on the defense so much? Why not let people have there opinions, even though they may be fd up at times.

BMW still rocks with this new M3 and I can't wait to drive one. The people who consider the m3, would probably never consider the slush box in the IS-F. Ironically the debate that is ongoing is only argued by the people who are not buying either. It is funny if you think about it. We don't own either of these cars, nor have we driven them so what is our defense. Brand loyalty is clouding everyones judgment.

Josh



kdawgkdawg - 3/23/2007 12:41:32 PM
+1 Boost
That thing needs more torque plain and simple. Hell, the current base 911 has 295lb from a six cyl. BMW can't give more torque from a V8?? Give me a 7000 RPM red-line and bump up the torque please.




d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/23/2007 4:35:20 PM
+2 Boost
"During the 1981 season, Brabham signed a deal with BMW to supply turbo engines for 1982. A BT49 was used as a testbed for the new engine, and Piquet was ecstatic about the massive power of the unit. In qualifying trim the BMW turbo produced up to 1500 horsepower."






d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/23/2007 4:52:03 PM
0 Boost
wow

"The CSL got lucky on the Nurburgrind. "
"Notice how NSX destroyed all other exotics "in it's class" when it came out 17yrs ago?"
" Cuz all the Videos I've seen shows NSX-R leaving CSL and 911 fighting for dead last."

I could go and quote the BMW fanatics but that stuff is far to high up in this thread, but they are just as fanatical and ludicrous in there opinions.

Josh

p.s. I have owned Honda's, and BMW's... I LIKED THEM BOTH. You can appreciate more than one company. Honda and BMW did not give birth to you. It sounds like they did though.




indoctrin8edindoctrin8ed - 3/23/2007 6:55:03 PM
+1 Boost
Torque Vs. Horsepower. In the end horsepower wins, but only if:

* You actually can make enough of it, like 300 minimum just to be competitive in this segment.
* Your power band is wide and FAT. If the usable peak power is only a narrow gap of RPMs then it doest matter what you peak numbers are.
* You keep your weight down
* You keep your costs down

Adding a turbo, will add weight, heat, and even more importantly costs to the car (maintenance) UNLESS you lower stress levels to give it longevity. Audi is taking big risks by turbocharging their less refined V8s. Let's see how these engines hold up at 100k miles. Remember, BMW replaces EVERYTHING that breaks on the car up to 50k miles, and even longer if it's preowned, the best warantee in the business.

The 335 has more peak torque, but the power band (or for you calculus geeks, the area under the curve) is much less, therefor less enegery can be developed as you rev up and down through gears. This also makes it less fun to drive because you have to shift all the time to make things light up.

I still amazed at how stupid, even the so-called "enthusiasts" dont gasp these concepts.



d1sinfod1sinfo - 3/23/2007 10:37:44 PM
+1 Boost
Ohh sweet facts where have you been this entire thread. Thank you for your straight forward explanation. I am afraid that even the brightest on Autospies will still conjur up some argument to your post of simple factual information.

Good Luck.

And I give you a true hearty thanks from an engineer :)

Josh


minimalistminimalist - 3/24/2007 12:20:15 AM
+2 Boost
audi is taking big risks by turbocharging its less refined engines? what about bmw/

the new v8 in the m3 also has a very small powerband putting out greater hp higher in the band, thus also requiring it to be in higher rpm to run at its peak potential and requiring more shifting. think of it like a motocycle.

the new yamaha r6 is similar in fashion pushing high hp but only at a greater rpm needing a lot more attention to shifting. this is the downfall to pushing high performance products tailored for the track to the street.


truecarlovertruecarlover - 3/25/2007 4:37:32 PM
+1 Boost
To my knowledge Audi doesn't have any turbocharded V8's at this time (unless you count diesel). Why do you consider them having high rpm vehicles a risk. While this new engine is great - what makes it more awe-inspiring than the engine in the RS4 (which has been out for two years)? To me it seems that BMW used the exact same philosophy as Audi. Likewise they did with the 3.0L turbo in the 335 - it's the same concept as Audi's 4-cylinder 2.0 TFSI (small displacement/bi-turbos/direct injection). As someone previously said the M3 is lighter than the RS4 and has less drivetrain friction because it only sends power to two wheels - so it should outperform. My thing is I don't see why this is an "engineering marvel" when the engineering doesn't outperform the engineering in the RS4's engine? As a sidebar - while I don't fancy AMG cars - the 6.3L V8 AMG is using is more of "engineering masterpiece" that both of these.


truecarlovertruecarlover - 3/25/2007 7:32:59 PM
+1 Boost
The M cars did always use that high-rev concept - but not to that speed. The RS4 engine goes to 8250 rpm.
The M3 has always had great engines - but my point was that this isn't some revolution. And I never said BMW "copied" Audi. My point was that they used the same concept but didn't really do anything dynamically superior.
The V-10 in the M5 is nice - but according to any publications it actually hasn't compared favorably to the S6 or E63.
If you don't think the AMG engine is a beast - they you really don't cars (and again I don't fancy AMG cars). I drove the E55 so I can imagine what the E63 engine is like. The handling wasn't great compared to BMW - but that engine and straight line stability were amazing.



truecarlovertruecarlover - 3/25/2007 11:46:09 PM
+1 Boost
I see that you just like to have the opposite opinion - so ok. I won't say anything other than I've driven an M3 in addition to the E55. I've also driven a Porsche Boxster and that thought was the best handling car I've ever driven. I didn't like the Benz steering at all - but the engine was one of the best of any vehicle I've ever been in (and I don't like Mercedes except for the SL and CLS).

Back to the subject of this article and our argument on engineering prowess. Please read this excerpt from an article from AudiWorld (I can send the link if you would like):

"In order to stay competitive in the ongoing European horsepower wars with the current engine platforms, Audi will have to bring back the almighty turbo. Audi has reached the peak performance potential of their current V-8 and V-10 platforms. The V-10’s in the S8/S6 cars and the V-8’s in the S4/RS4 cars all share the same stroke of 92.8 millimeters. The engine stroke dimension (how far the piston moves up and down) coupled with the RPM dictate the average speed of the piston. The B7 RS4’s engine at 8250 RPM has an average piston speed of 25.52 meters per second. This is faster than ANY current production automobile engine out there and on par with Formula 1 race engines. Current technology does not allow a reliable piston speed faster than this."


germeezy2germeezy2 - 3/27/2007 3:22:22 AM
0 Boost
The B16A is a masterpiece of engineering but guess what it makes a whopping 160 hp. I would like to know what you specific output idiots drive?? Lets not forget the LS7 weighs only 20 lbs more and has the same output as the heavier BMW V-10 and almost 100 more lb ft. Plus with slight modifications it can easily pick up another 100 hp. Try doing that with your BMW V8 or V10


germeezy2germeezy2 - 3/27/2007 3:24:30 AM
0 Boost
I will enjoy passing like standing still all manners of supposed engineering masterpieces with my supposed old fashioned technology.


germeezy2germeezy2 - 3/27/2007 3:26:45 AM
0 Boost
Only ricers talk about hp per liter. Race car engineers are far more concerned with power to weight and size. How can they squeeze the best #'s out of the most compact lightweight powerplant. I guess its no wonder why the CTS-VR's and C5 and C6R's dominate most of the competition!


multiplexgurumultiplexguru - 3/30/2007 4:09:41 AM
+1 Boost
The IS-F is a 5.0 V8 making 400HP and 350 lb-ft of torque and should be out in 2008 right? Hmm that sounds a lot like a 4.9 liter V8 with 400HP and 368 lb-ft of torque released in 1998. The engine in the E39 BMW M5. Well I am sure it will be fast, but quite frankly it sounds like what BMW did 10 years ago.


Copyright 2026 AutoSpies.com, LLC