S62 vs. S65... fail to see the improvement.

[sebdavid]

Please, help me see the progress.

The E39 M5's engine was a V8 producing 394hp @ 6,600rpm, and 369 ft-lbs @ 3,800 rpm. The current M3's V8 produces 414hp @ 8,300rpm, and 295 ft-lbs @ 3,900 rpm.

The S62B50 V8 engine from the E39 M5 weighs 158kgs.
The S65B40 V8 engine from the current E90/92/93 M3 weighs 202kgs.

Ten years on, the engine has gained 44kgs (!), lost 74 ft-lbs of torque, and only gained 14hp (ok, maybe a bit more considering the SAE change in measurements).

I honestly don't see the improvement. I know the specific output of the new engine is much more impressive given its smaller displacement. So technically it is an achievement. But in practical terms, it really looks to be a step back when you look at the numbers...

I'm sure a massaged S62 could put out a lot more power with a remap, maybe making it slightly more peaky in its delivery, but certainly not as much as the S65...

I hope someone can enlighten me. The only possibility I can think of is pollution regulations working against the engineers, but still.

[LagunaM3]

The S62 weighs 239 kg, not 158 kg (see http://www.europeancarweb.com/features/0501ec_e60_m5_engine/index.html). Thus, the S65 weighs 37 kg less, gives 20 more hp, probably better mileage, better reliability (the S62 was *notorious* for burning oil), and a higher redline (which is great for the track, although neither the E39 M5 nor E90 M3 are really track-worthy cars).

And all that while reducing displacement by 1L. The S62 has 25% more displacement but less horsepower. That is a huge improvement for the S65, not something to be trivialized.

Torque, on the other hand, tends to have a linear relation with displacement. If you take 2 normally-aspirated engines with similar levels of tuning (like these two M-engines), the one with the larger displacement will almost always have more torque.

[Gregster]

The LS7 Makes a ground pounding 505hp@6300RPM and an earth shattering 470ftlbs torque at 4800. Weight? 375lbs

[Silverblades181]

The LS7 Makes a ground pounding 505hp@6300RPM and an earth shattering 470ftlbs torque at 4800. Weight? 375lbs

Yeah, with a gazilion liters.... wow

Sometimes I forget this is a bmw forum...espacially recently.


S62 400hp 5.0L 7000rpm redline (I think)

S65 414hp 4.0L (more then 100hp/liter) 8250rpm redline

Believe me, you will not miss the torque with the S65. Really nothing to complain about. Also, give me an E90 M3 on the track any freacking day, that car is awesome to drive.

The S62 was also designed for an M5 and does not have the same purpose as an M3.
S85 505hp 5.0L 8250 rpm, also an awesome engine.

Oh and one last thing:
http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/winners_08/3_4.html

Every M engine bmw has made has won engine of the year. S85 has been winning for 3 years (4 liters and more category) and the S65 is new from this year and has won the 3-4 liters category.

But what do I know, buy a GM if you want.

[Gregster]

Yeah, with a gazilion liters.... wow

Sometimes I forget this is a bmw forum...espacially recently.


S62 400hp 5.0L 7000rpm redline (I think)

S65 414hp 4.0L (more then 100hp/liter) 8250rpm redline

Believe me, you will not miss the torque with the S65. Really nothing to complain about. Also, give me an E90 M3 on the track any freacking day, that car is awesome to drive.


It's not my fault that the Americans can make high HP motors for next to nothing.

[sebdavid]

My information re: weight of the S62 was from there: http://www.vrchlabi.cz/e30/ruzne/enginenumber/

Info might be wrong, I don't know. They have the right weight (240kgs) for the S85...

Re: mileage... who cares? Seriously! We're talking about M cars here, if you're worried about gas mileage then you're looking at the wrong cars, especially given their total weights. Buy an Elise instead.

Re: reliability; given the history with the high-revving S54 blowing up, I'm not sure I would trust a high-strung, 8,300rpm redline engine over the S62 engine. Of course that's just a feeling; the S65 might be way more reliable than the S62. My point is it's just speculation at this point.

Re: displacement and specific output; I mentioned this. However, to me, specific output (hp vs. displacement) is only interesting from a technical standpoint. A larger-displacement engine may be less economical, but as I said, when looking at this category of engine/car, it doesn't really enter into the equation.

To me, the following is what really matters when looking at this type of engine:

-Power
-Torque
-Weight
-Reliability
-Driveability
-How low and far back you can mount the engine
-Complexity

Re: higher redline; I don't see how, by itself, this is a desirable characteristic. To me, a higher redline is a means to an end, a way to get more power out of an engine without increasing displacement or adding forced induction. You're just moving the powerband higher, so it's not going to allow you to shift less...

Re: Engine of the Year award; this is based on technical achievement. The high-revving BMW engines, from an engineering point of view, are awesome, and the S65 more so than the S62. But I am talking about real-world performance, not geek factor! Otherwise we should be hailing the Honda S2000 engine as being far superior (247hp from 2.0 liters, more than 123hp/L as opposed to 103hp/L for the S65) to anything coming from BMW...

Re: american engines; the LS7 is a great engine. Not as impressive technologically as the M engines, but again, my query was regarding real-world performance, without regard for specific output or engineering merit. I was also trying to find what 10 years of technological development has brought us in practical terms. Put another way, I would rather have an LS7 in my car, than an S65. And I'm sure I would save a lot of money, too.

I don't think there's any doubt that we have seen huge practical improvements in tires, brakes, suspension, and transmission in the last ten years. My point is as far as pure performance, engine technology has only mostly improved in the field of forced induction. We still haven't seen much of an improvement on the specific output achieved by the Honda S2000 ten years ago, and although engine power levels have increased dramatically (by using larger, heavier engines in larger, heavier cars), I look at the particular case of the BMW V8 M engines and I wonder where the real improvement is.

IF the weight of the S65 is in fact 37kgs lower than the S62's, then I do see the improvement. 37kgs is quite a lot of weight. Otherwise, I'm still looking.

[bmwqc]

Torque, on the other hand, tends to have a linear relation with displacement. If you take 2 normally-aspirated engines with similar levels of tuning (like these two M-engines), the one with the larger displacement will almost always have more torque.


Does that mean that if you pop these 2 engines into identical chassises (i.e. same weight), the S65 would not necessarily win out in performance (due to lower torque)?

[sebdavid]

Does that mean that if you pop these 2 engines into identical chassises (i.e. same weight), the S65 would not necessarily win out in performance (due to lower torque)?

That's my point... the simple fact that we are wondering about this makes me say that the past ten years haven't brought us practical performance improvements in the engine department commensurate with the improvements we've seen in other areas.

SMG-type robotized manual gearboxes, double-clutch gearboxes...
Carbon-ceramic brake systems, improvement in brake pad materials...
Better and better tires (winter, all-season, ultra high-performance street tires have all improved a lot)...
More efficient suspension designs, differentials, active differentials, active yaw control, advanced AWD, advanced traction and stability control, etc...

We've all seen these appear on road cars (albeit high-end ones initially) in the past decade. They're all significant technological improvements that have brought practical benefits to the driver.

Same goes for forced induction: we have engines with a lot less turbo lag, sometimes even almost none (BMW 135/335 engine, Nissan GTR engine, etc.), which really wasn't mainstream 10 years ago.

But for N/A engines, my feeling right now is that we haven't seen the same progression. And it seems to me that sports car engines are revving ever higher, are more and more high-strung, and more and more complex...

I'm still thinking that the fight against emissions is what's holding back the pure increase in performance we should have seen. A 1999 M5 wasn't held to the same standards as a 2009 M3, I'm sure.

[LagunaM3]

Does that mean that if you pop these 2 engines into identical chassises (i.e. same weight), the S65 would not necessarily win out in performance (due to lower torque)?

Maybe, maybe not. It's not only engines that matter, but the transmission as well. With its much higher redline, the S65 can use shorter gearing and achieve the same speed. For example, most performance car manufacturers gear their cars so that the top speed in 2nd gear is about 65 mph (thus, only 1 gear change en route to 60 mph). This makes them look real good in the useless-but-prolific 0-60 benchmark in magazines. But if you have 1 engine that revs to 7K rpm and another to 8.3K rpm, you can obviously use shorter gearing in the latter and still get to the desired 65 mph in 2nd gear. And acceleration is going to be related to the torque at the wheels. And torque at the wheels is a product of torque at the crank and gearing. So, the answer to your question is, it depends.

[sebdavid]

Maybe, maybe not. It's not only engines that matter, but the transmission as well. With its much higher redline, the S65 can use shorter gearing and achieve the same speed. For example, most performance car manufacturers gear their cars so that the top speed in 2nd gear is about 65 mph (thus, only 1 gear change en route to 60 mph). This makes them look real good in the useless-but-prolific 0-60 benchmark in magazines. But if you have 1 engine that revs to 7K rpm and another to 8.3K rpm, you can obviously use shorter gearing in the latter and still get to the desired 65 mph in 2nd gear. And acceleration is going to be related to the torque at the wheels. And torque at the wheels is a product of torque at the crank and gearing. So, the answer to your question is, it depends.

Yeah, but you said it yourself: acceleration is a product of TORQUE at the crank and gearing. So a higher-torque engine, with longer gearing, will pull as much as a lower-torque engine with shorter gearing.

Anyways, we are comparing engines here. Let's say you use the same gearing because you don't give a crap about 0-60 times, and since you have 6 gears you can still get decent fuel economy on the highway and a high enough top speed. In that case I'm pretty sure the S62 would spank the S65.

But again, the simple fact that we are discussing this kinda reinforces my point... and doesn't contribute to making me see the progress.

[LagunaM3]

My information re: weight of the S62 was from there: http://www.vrchlabi.cz/e30/ruzne/enginenumber/

Info might be wrong, I don't know. They have the right weight (240kgs) for the S85...

That reference looks dubious. Some dude in the Czech Republic. I'd rather trust a popular magazine that gets its data from BMW.


Re: mileage... who cares? Seriously! We're talking about M cars here, if you're worried about gas mileage then you're looking at the wrong cars, especially given their total weights. Buy an Elise instead.

WTF are you talking about? I have two M3's and an SUV. Besides, all other things being equal, I'll take an engine that uses less gas. Maybe you have a $$-tree growing in your front yard. :D

Besides, even race cars care about gas mileage. You think getting better mileage than your competitors would not be an advantage in F1? Or MotoGP? Or LeMans? etc.


Re: reliability; given the history with the high-revving S54 blowing up, I'm not sure I would trust a high-strung, 8,300rpm redline engine over the S62 engine. Of course that's just a feeling; the S65 might be way more reliable than the S62. My point is it's just speculation at this point.

Do some research on the S54 issue before you cite it as an example. There was a very specific reason that caused the slew of failures. Engines produced between Oct and Dec of 2001 used a different type of bearing shells. Those new shells caused the oil film to become too thin at the crank. Result: catastrophic failures. Engines produced before that period and after that period had, if I recall correctly, something like a 100x lower failure rate (basically the same failure rate as any other high-perf engine). Having a '01 build M3 (fortunately a Sep build), I followed that issue on a daily basis for about 5 years. The S54 is a fine engine apart from those few with bad bearing shells.

The S62 burns oil at a ridiculous rate. Sure, it's speculation that it is hurting its longevity (there's no way that burning oil, possibly running low occasionally, could ever reduce an engine's life, right?).


Re: displacement and specific output; I mentioned this. However, to me, specific output (hp vs. displacement) is only interesting from a technical standpoint. A larger-displacement engine may be less economical, but as I said, when looking at this category of engine/car, it doesn't really enter into the equation.

I agree, but you asked what are the improvements, and I listed one.


To me, the following is what really matters when looking at this type of engine:

-Power
-Torque
-Weight
-Reliability
-Driveability
-How low and far back you can mount the engine
-Complexity


The S65 is better on items #1,3,4(arguably),6,7. I'd say that's a win.


Re: higher redline; I don't see how, by itself, this is a desirable characteristic. To me, a higher redline is a means to an end, a way to get more power out of an engine without increasing displacement or adding forced induction. You're just moving the powerband higher, so it's not going to allow you to shift less...

See what I wrote in another post above about gearing.

[LagunaM3]

Yeah, but you said it yourself: acceleration is a product of TORQUE at the crank and gearing. So a higher-torque engine, with longer gearing, will pull as much as a lower-torque engine with shorter gearing.

Exactly. So having a lower torque engine does not mean your car is slower, as long as you have the RPMs and gearing to make up for it.


Anyways, we are comparing engines here. Let's say you use the same gearing because you don't give a crap about 0-60 times, and since you have 6 gears you can still get decent fuel economy on the highway and a high enough top speed. In that case I'm pretty sure the S62 would spank the S65.

You don't design a car by designing its components in isolation. I bet you if I took an E60 M5, replaced its engine with an S62, and left everything else the same, it would be a worse performing car than one with the original S65. The S62-powered one certainly would have a lower top speed. Also with all the extra shifting would have to do due to the lower redline, it might even be slower accelerating.


But again, the simple fact that we are discussing this kinda reinforces my point... and doesn't contribute to making me see the progress.

Suit yourself. Maybe you should go buy an AMG Merc or a Vette is all you want is HP and Torque. :cool:

[Andrei]

Anyways, we are comparing engines here. Let's say you use the same gearing because you don't give a crap about 0-60 times, and since you have 6 gears you can still get decent fuel economy on the highway and a high enough top speed. In that case I'm pretty sure the S62 would spank the S65.


If you use an S62 and S65 with the same gearboxes and gear ratios you should be spanked not the engine.

The engine is part of the drivetrain. You think F1 teams build engines separately from their gearboxes? That is the most interconnected design job in racing. Add the differential to that, as well.

Torque is great if you don't feel like shifting gears. If you want to drive all day in 4th gear the S62 is better. That is the only thing it is better at. The S65 is better at everything else.

The amount of effort that went into the design of the S65 is not even close to the same for S62. The S62 is essentially a bored out 540 4.4l block ran at higher rpm. The S65 takes the great work of the S85 and does it with 8 cylinders.

BTW the Z06 engine did win the engine of the year award for it's size category and it is a great engine.

When looking up engine weights it's important to separate apples from oranges. You can get the weight with accessories (alternator, oil coolers, etc.) or without.

[blacksheep]

the idea of going to higher redlines is this : with the S65 you get the fuel economy and emissions of a 4.0L when driving normally (low revs), combined with the HP of the old 5.0L motor when you really push it (rev out to redline).

You can't really get the same effect from the old V-8 because an engine designed to be (relatively) slow-revving with high-torque generally has a proportionally longer stroke vs bore size. Conversely an engine designed for high-rpm power will have a shorter stroke and bigger bore to keep piston speeds reasonable and allow bigger valve area for good high-RPM breathing

And by the way ... if we assume proper gearing then acceleration is directly relative to HP vs weight (not torque vs weight)

The reason the performance of the M3 stays relatively constant with ever-increasing HP is that weight also increases with every generation. HP vs weight, remember? Put the 500hp motor in an E30 M3 chassis and it would be an absolute rocket

[sebdavid]

1) Power and torque: S65 wins by a little on power, loses by A LOT on torque. I say it's a draw for track use, and a win for the S62 for road performance. We are talking about road cars here

2) Weight: I concede the point. Couldn't find a more reliable reference so I went with what I had. The S65 most probably is quite a bit lighter. That's a good improvement.

3) Reliability: I don't know. The S65 is pretty high-strung. The S62 burns oil. Since we KNOW the S62 burns oil (or rather you know, I had no clue) and we don't know what the reliability of the S65 will be (but probably good, since it's a modern BMW engine after all), it's a win for the S65.

4) Driveability: a win for the S62 because of torque, although honestly not by a huge margin. The S65 doesn't seem to be so high-strung that it becomes a pain to drive in traffic, and the noise would make up for it anyways.

5) Compact dimensions: you seem to indicate the S65 is more compact, or at least that it is possible to mount it lower and more far back in the chassis. I'll have to trust you on that: win for the S65.

6) Complexity: I cannot believe the S65 is less complex than the S62. Andrei's remarks seem to go along with my feeling. The S65 is a more "advanced" design, and HAS to be more complex, more challenging to work with and work on. Win for the S62

So after a contested battle, the S65 wins out overall over... a ten-year old engine whose development cost a lot less.

A few more points:

-I know the transmission is an integral part of the drivetrain and cannot be separated from the engine in evaluating overall performance (arguable: many engines are available with 2 different types of transmissions). However, my goal was not to compare two drivetrains or cars here, but two engines, and extrapolate that to engine developments over the last decade. I think we can all make the mental leap of separating the engines from their transmissions just for the purpose of having fun on an Internet forum...

Henry is the one who suggested swapping the engines, or putting both in the same model car. I don't think he was suggesting ACTUALLY DOING IT, so no need to spank him Andrei. It's just a bit of theoretical fun.

-Gas mileage... come on. We're talking about ///M engines. Gas mileage, or political correctness, do not enter the equation, because all other things are NOT equal. I get the point about gas mileage being important in racing. Last time I checked, those were road car engines.


You don't design a car by designing its components in isolation. I bet you if I took an E60 M5, replaced its engine with an S62, and left everything else the same, it would be a worse performing car than one with the original S65. The S62-powered one certainly would have a lower top speed. Also with all the extra shifting would have to do due to the lower redline, it might even be slower accelerating.

I was comparing the S65 and the S62. Not the S85 (E60 M5 engine) with the S62. That would be like comparing apples and bananas! Besides, shifting with the E60 M5's SMG is so quick, I don't think more shifting would actually hurt acceleration much... especially since it's got 7 gears.

But S65 vs. S62: with 6 speed manual gearboxes tailored to each engine... which one would be better performing? I don't know, I'm genuinely asking.


Suit yourself. Maybe you should go buy an AMG Merc or a Vette is all you want is HP and Torque.

I actually care a lot more about handling. I'd rather have an Elise or something similar. But I'm talking purely about engines here. I would venture a guess that the AMG V8s and V12s are incredibly heavy, so no. The LS7, that's more tempting. A lot more tempting. In an E90 M3? Estate? Mmmmhhhhh...

Call me iconoclastic if you want. When it comes to a performance car engine, I have listed what was important to me. The badge on the engine cover (hate engine covers) is not among them, nor are bragging rights about specific output (unless I wanted to enter a racing series with a maximum displacement limit of course. then specific output would be all-important).


When looking up engine weights it's important to separate apples from oranges. You can get the weight with accessories (alternator, oil coolers, etc.) or without.

That's something I kept thinking about throughout. But we would need a common reliable source for engine weights to settle the matter. I can't believe this information about both S65 and S62 can't be found somewhere...

I would really like somebody to wow me with a demonstration that the S65 is SO much better than the S62 and that the last ten years have indeed brought us a long way forward. It'd be a lot cooler than having to conclude that the internal combustion naturally aspirated engine has dramatically slowed in development. I'm still waiting and hoping.

I was driving my mom's Mustang GT, and I may have found something, though; another characteristic that is important in an engine and that I haven't mentioned or thought about in this thread up to now: lazyness.

The Mustang's engine is sooooo lazy. Takes forever to rev up or down. NOT fun when you want to blip the throttle for a downshift, or when upshifting quickly through the gears. Matches the overall personality of the car, but it made me think aobut the two engines we're discussing here.

I'm assuming the S65 is a lot happier to rev up or down, closer to a motorcycle or race engine than a big ol' American lump, whereas I don't picture the S62 having the same character. I may be wrong, but maybe that's an important area where the S65 would be significantly better.

[sebdavid]

the idea of going to higher redlines is this : with the S65 you get the fuel economy and emissions of a 4.0L when driving normally (low revs), combined with the HP of the old 5.0L motor when you really push it (rev out to redline).

Fuel economy again? Dang, I wasn't expecting you guys to go all hippie on me! I mean, or favorite hobby is driving around and around a racetrack, burning fuel and tires for no good reason!


Put the 500hp motor in an E30 M3 chassis and it would be an absolute rocket

But it would also screw up its balance and handling. Hence the weight and compact dimensions considerations.

I do agree about weight, however. I really hate how modern performance cars get more and more overweight. But that's another subject.

[LagunaM3]

1) Power and torque: S65 wins by a little on power, loses by A LOT on torque. I say it's a draw for track use, and a win for the S62 for road performance. We are talking about road cars here

Who knows what's better for what. In the heavy E39 M5, I bet the S62 is better for both. In the lighter (like a rhino is lighter than an elephant) E90 M3, maybe the S65 is better for both.


4) Driveability: a win for the S62 because of torque, although honestly not by a huge margin. The S65 doesn't seem to be so high-strung that it becomes a pain to drive in traffic, and the noise would make up for it anyways.

Honestly, I doubt either engine or car is a pain to drive in traffic. People said the same thing about the "torque-less" S54 in the E46 M3. I've never had a car that's easier to drive on the street. It has "only" 262 lb-ft of torque. Problem is that everyone thinks that unless a car has 500 ft-lb or torque, it'll be a pain to drive. We've been spoiled these days. All these cars are fine to drive in everyday situations.



6) Complexity: I cannot believe the S65 is less complex than the S62. Andrei's remarks seem to go along with my feeling. The S65 is a more "advanced" design, and HAS to be more complex, more challenging to work with and work on. Win for the S62

Haha...I thought you were looking for more complexity, that's why I listed the S65 as the winner. It's obviously the way more complex engine.


I was comparing the S65 and the S62. Not the S85 (E60 M5 engine) with the S62. That would be like comparing apples and bananas! Besides, shifting with the E60 M5's SMG is so quick, I don't think more shifting would actually hurt acceleration much... especially since it's got 7 gears.

D'oh. I was too distracted by work (go figure). Yeah, what I meant was to put both engines in a E90 M3, not a E60 M5. Now reread that paragraph. :D


But S65 vs. S62: with 6 speed manual gearboxes tailored to each engine... which one would be better performing? I don't know, I'm genuinely asking.

Who knows. But notice that they are different engines for different types of cars. The S62 was designed for a 4000 lb sedan, the S65 for a 3600 lb coupe/sedan. One car might need more torque to be tolerable in street driving, the other could get away with less torque and benefit for more horsepower and a smaller engine.


The Mustang's engine is sooooo lazy. Takes forever to rev up or down. NOT fun when you want to blip the throttle for a downshift, or when upshifting quickly through the gears. Matches the overall personality of the car, but it made me think aobut the two engines we're discussing here.

I'm assuming the S65 is a lot happier to rev up or down, closer to a motorcycle or race engine than a big ol' American lump, whereas I don't picture the S62 having the same character. I may be wrong, but maybe that's an important area where the S65 would be significantly better.

I know the S54 is spine-tingling the way it revs and sounds. The S52 in comparison is pretty boring. The S65 vs S62 is probably the same type of thing. Personally, I never been a fan of American iron, V8s. The sound like crap to me. There's no denying the performance of the LS7, but it's not my style. I'd take the flat-plane V8 from a Scuderia, with less torque and hp, but with 100X the personality any day (unless I was racing, in which case performance is king).

[blacksheep]

Fuel economy again? Dang, I wasn't expecting you guys to go all hippie on me! I mean, or favorite hobby is driving around and around a racetrack, burning fuel and tires for no good reason!even if it doesn't matter financially to the driver (Ferrari, Bentley et al) it's important for the manufacturer because they'll have to meet increasingly strict emissions and fuel economy targets eventually. Lower fuel economy = more co2 emissions, there's no way around that.


But S65 vs. S62: with 6 speed manual gearboxes tailored to each engine... which one would be better performing? I don't know, I'm genuinely asking.again, if your definition of "performance" = acceleration, then it's 100% dependent on HP / weight. More torque only makes it easier to drive.

[Gregster]

I know the S54 is spine-tingling the way it revs and sounds. The S52 in comparison is pretty boring. The S65 vs S62 is probably the same type of thing. Personally, I never been a fan of American iron, V8s. The sound like crap to me. There's no denying the performance of the LS7, but it's not my style. I'd take the flat-plane V8 from a Scuderia, with less torque and hp, but with 100X the personality any day (unless I was racing, in which case performance is king).

boooourns! The sound from Ferrari's is synthetic, it's all tuned by the exhaust system :D



http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s119/turntwomotorsports/helloseriousbusiness3am.jpg

[Andrei]

Fuel economy under normal driving conditions is important. The whole point of M cars is that they are supposed to be a good mix of performance and everyday practicality.

Why should I stop every 3 hours when driving on the highway? That's annoying. It doesn't matter that on the track if I need to refuel frequently but tossing away gas when going on cruise control is just stupid.

This is what BMW spent time developing. An engine that will be the best of both worlds. Very powerful and responsive when pushed hard and reasonably frugal and quiet when getting groceries. That kind of stuff sells cars if marketed properly. Pure horsepower is great until you realize that there is not enough space for even a comb in that fancy no-compromise ultra-sports car.

[Silverblades181]

1)

So after a contested battle, the S65 wins out overall over... a ten-year old engine whose development cost a lot less.



Oh really? I'm sure your close knit with bmw design and research teams and finances and have numbers to back that up.


This argument is point less. We've shown you many advances in the development and technology but you've stated yourself you don't count that as progress.

Specs are better but they're not good enough for your standards so that doesn't count

According to you, GM and Honda make better engines then BMW has ever made? Of course the fact that BMW has been making engines for 100 years, has brought technical advances before everyone (try and see how a valvetronic works, how efficient dynamics works etc) That BMW designs and builds engine for such cars as the McLaren F1 but nah, they don't know what they're doing.

All they're doing is building HEAVY (such a loosely used word) cars with too many useless gadgets and underpowered engines.

Have you ever driven either of those cars? Numbers and specs are all nice and pretty. Besides, you really need more then 414hp on the street? Bugatti Veyron makes 1001hp, buy that.

[Gregster]

Honda does make some great engines..

Was a great car then and still is a great car. It will always be a classic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIRZKai6u68&feature=related

[Silverblades181]

Honda does make some great engines...

They do. GM does too. But they`re not the ones being bashed for no reason at the moment.

[Gregster]

They do. GM does too. But they`re not the ones being bashed for no reason at the moment.

Who cares! Don't get upset over stuff on the intarweb!

Don't make me post another lame picture!!


GM Domestically only makes good V8s, They haven't made 1 4cyl or 6cyl that is worthy of being good. Maybe the 3800 but thats about it. The Ecotec has european roots... A weekly job for me is changing intake gaskets on 3.4Ls or head gaskets on 2.2Ls

It's funny when GM designed the 3.4 it was called the almost "zero maintenance" engine. Sigh.. I guess changing intake gaskets every 50k is normal and having lifters go after 75k is great also. Let's not get started on Northstar V8s...

[sebdavid]

Woooo... let's not get too hot and bothered here. Nobody's saying BMW don't know what they're doing... I AM driving a BMW, and BMW is definitely my favorite mainstream car brand. I'm just trying to understand things a little better, let's not get all partisan and "XBox vs. Playstation" here. Phil, you know a lot more about car engines than I do, nobody's arguing that. Maybe I'm a little bit less partisan than you do, but I love M cars too, we're on the same forum here, so we share an interest!

My argument about the S65 being (arguably) not a humongous improvement over a ten year-old design that cost a lot less to design and make (seems logical to me, and I don't think anybody would argue that the S65 was less costly to develop than the S62) is the whole point of my thread.

I'm asking, IN PRACTICAL TERMS, considering these are performance car engines, is the S65 a huge improvement over the S62?

If you value fuel economy and reliability over other characteristics and like a high-revving engine and a technological achievement, then there is no argument, the S65 is a lot better.

If you like the high-torque shove, enjoy a rumbling engine, and value simplicity, then you could consider the S62 a better engine.

Look, to be honest, given the theoretical choice between the two engines, I think I would probably choose the S65, if it is indeed lighter. Because I'm a geek and I do appreciate a technological achievement; the specific output of the S65 is very impressive for a road car V8...

But I'm saying the improvements in actual benefits haven't been as large in the field of high-performance road engines than in other areas, at least from what I can see now.

By the way, I mentioned the Honda engine as an example of a technological achievement that is very impressive, for somebody who values that, but not as impressive for real-world on-road performance in mid-size coupes/sedans.

1- So if we look at specific output, we haven't done much better than Honda has done ten years ago with that engine.
2- If we look at total torque+hp output, which is relevant to real-world driving, we haven't done much better with the S65 than with the S62 (arguably, that's what I'm trying to find out). I'd like to find other valid comparisons, and I hope they go against this.
3- If we look at weight, compactness and simplicity, again, no big leaps forward (not so sure about that one, but it seems to me engines are getting more complex, and as a result heavier and bigger, as a general rule).
4- If we look at fuel consumption/emissions, we have had huge improvements.

I'm saying that for performance road cars, the first 3 aspects, esp. 2 and 3, are more important (to me) than the 4th one. That's my point, or rather my query.

I'm not bashing BMW or their engines here. I would have taken another manufacturer except I don't know their engines as well (or rather, I know M car engines less badly). I still think BMW is the best mainstream car manufacturer and engine builder in the world.

If somebody knows another manufacturer's engines well, then maybe it would be good to make another comparison. Speaking about BMW neutrally (not bashing!) seems to hit a bit too close to home here... ;-)

[blacksheep]

Honda is also well known for their engines (they're the world's largest producer of internal combustion engines) and they hit 100hp/L back in 1990 / 1991 with the B16A SiR motor - 160hp from 1.6L and it was just a mass-produced engine not some handbuilt special.

then the S2000's F20C gave 120hp / L in 2000 (240hp from a 2.0L)

there's a point where engineering and production techniques don't really allow higher hp / L anymore. And torque is really just a factor of displacement, with most modern engines producing about 1.20 to 1.33 foot-pounds per cubic inch

S65B40 = 4.0L = 4000cc / 16.38= 244.2 cubic inches x 1.33 = ~325 foot-pounds
... in reality it gives 295 foot-pounds (~1.21 foot-pounds per cubic inch)

S62B50 = 5.0L = 5000cc / 16.38 = 305.25cubic inches x 1.33 =~406 foot-pounds
... in reality it makes 369 foot-pounds (~1.21 foot-pounds per cubic inch)

so they both make the same specific torque and it's not super high

by comparison the S2000 engine makes 153 foot-lbs from 2.0L or 1.254 foot-pounds per cubic inch. So much for Hondas having no torque ;) well they don't have much absolute torque because of the small displacement but they have high specific torque :D

[LagunaM3]

Honda is also well known for their engines (they're the world's largest producer of internal combustion engines) and they hit 100hp/L back in 1990 / 1991 with the B16A SiR motor - 160hp from 1.6L and it was just a mass-produced engine not some handbuilt special.

then the S2000's F20C gave 120hp / L in 2000 (240hp from a 2.0L)

there's a point where engineering and production techniques don't really allow higher hp / L anymore. And torque is really just a factor of displacement, with most modern engines producing about 1.20 to 1.33 foot-pounds per cubic inch

S65B40 = 4.0L = 4000cc / 16.38= 244.2 cubic inches x 1.33 = ~325 foot-pounds
... in reality it gives 295 foot-pounds (~1.21 foot-pounds per cubic inch)

S62B50 = 5.0L = 5000cc / 16.38 = 305.25cubic inches x 1.33 =~406 foot-pounds
... in reality it makes 369 foot-pounds (~1.21 foot-pounds per cubic inch)

so they both make the same specific torque and it's not super high

by comparison the S2000 engine makes 153 foot-lbs from 2.0L or 1.254 foot-pounds per cubic inch. So much for Hondas having no torque ;) well they don't have much absolute torque because of the small displacement but they have high specific torque :D

Having driven plenty of Hondas (e.g., S2000, Integra GSR, Civic SI, etc.), I know what their lack of absolute torque feels like. I love how my GSR revs to 8K, but it has nothing like the flexibility of any M3. Same goes for the S2K. The S54 is 3200cc and has 269 lb-ft in euro trim (262 lb-ft in US). So in Euro trim, it gets 1.38 lb-ft per cubic inch. I remember once while driving my E46 M3, with a buddy who owns a WRX riding shotgun. I was stopped at a stop light, on a very slight incline, and I had left the car in 3rd gear. From a stop I smoothly pulled away. My friend was talking about that for days. No way an S2K, or WRX for that matter is going to do that. :D

[Andrei]

The S54 engine is unique because it is a stroker (stroke is longer than bore) that revs to 8,000 rpm. The piston speeds are ridiculous and faster than in the Honda engine. That's what gives is such a high specific torque.

With the S65 BMW already had enough displacement from sheer size so the bore is longer than stroke and higher rpm can be more reliably reached on a motor with more moving parts.

Hondas may very well have high specific torque but that doesn't make them very driveable at slow engine speeds unlike BMWs. At some point you still need some cubic inches to turn the crankshaft. Above 3 liters seems to be just right for a medium sized passenger car.

[bmwqc]

Driveability can be affected by the gear ratios. BMWs have a reputation for using a relatively short 1st gear ratio. This makes it harder to stall off the line.



The S54 engine is unique because it is a stroker (stroke is longer than bore) that revs to 8,000 rpm. The piston speeds are ridiculous and faster than in the Honda engine. That's what gives is such a high specific torque.

With the S65 BMW already had enough displacement from sheer size so the bore is longer than stroke and higher rpm can be more reliably reached on a motor with more moving parts.

Hondas may very well have high specific torque but that doesn't make them very driveable at slow engine speeds unlike BMWs. At some point you still need some cubic inches to turn the crankshaft. Above 3 liters seems to be just right for a medium sized passenger car.

[Andrei]

Driveability can be afftected by the gear ratios. BMWs have a reputation for using a relatively short 1st gear ratio. This makes it harder to stall off the line.

When I talk about driveability I mean acceleration from around 2k rpm. With the E46M3 you can always gently accelerate from 2k rpm and not be a traffic obstruction. And you can completely avoid 1st if you don't want to use it. In fact the SMG transmission always starts you in 2nd when in automatic mode.

I remember in my Subaru Legacy being at the same low rpm would bog down the engine so much that a downshift was always necessary.