Bimmerfest - BMW Forums

Bimmerfest - BMW Forums (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/index.php)
-   E90/E91/E92/E93 (2006 - 2013) (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=99)
-   -   Automotive Engineering magazine on R6. (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85896)

Mr Paddle.Shift 01-28-2005 07:28 PM

Automotive Engineering magazine on R6.
 
2 Attachment(s)
Click on PDF below.


Technic 01-29-2005 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Paddle.Shift
Click on PDF below.


Quote:

Peak output of the R6 surpasses its
predecessor by 20 kW (27 bhp) with 190
kW (258 bhp)
at 6650 rpm. Maximum
torque of 300 Nm (221 lbft) is available
between 2500 and 4000 rpm. The company
says the basic unit has the highest
specific power output per liter and the
highest power/mass ratio in its class at 63
kW/L (84 hp/L)
and 1.18 kW/kg (0.717
hp/lb), respectively.
That "highest specific power output per liter in its class" of only 84hp/L got me thinking of the Nissan G35's 298hp/3.498L V6 - 85.19hp/L- and the Acura TL's 270hp/3.210L V6 -84.11 hp/L- , but then I realized that the R6 numbers in this article are kind of "screwed up" by having some strange mix of DIN and SAE ratings: 190kW = 254.69hp (190/.746kW/1bhp) and 190kW/2.997L = 63.4kW/L = 84.98hp/L... and still came up short. :confused:

Nice article overall, though...

Mr. The Edge 01-29-2005 06:53 AM

is output per liter a meaningful number in any way?

:eek:

Technic 01-29-2005 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atyclb
is output per liter a meaningful number in any way?

:eek:

At least for me if the article is stating something like this... :rolleyes:

magbarn 01-29-2005 09:13 AM

SWEET ENGINE! I'm just hoping these electric pumps are reliable. Considering all these different alloys in this engine, I'm sure it's going to be very sensitive to overheating.

I wish BMW would put this engine in the E46 coupe's last year of production. :)

Centurion 01-29-2005 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atyclb
is output per liter a meaningful number in any way?

:eek:

I think in the real world it does nothing for us consumers. Afterall, if we wanted more horspower or torque we can get it with other means.
But I think the horsepower/L is more of an engineering achievement and is more meaningful to the automotive industry from a technical standpoint.

I think it's absolutely amazing that you can squeeze-out over 300 horses from a normally aspirated 3.2L engine and still remain within the very strict CA emission codes.

But then again, I've been told it doesn't take much to get me excited. :p

andy_thomas 01-29-2005 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atyclb
is output per liter a meaningful number in any way?

:eek:

Sure it is - no-one in the engineering fraternity is that impressed by e.g. 382 bhp from a 5.7l engine. It's just more of the same. But e.g. 321 bulletproof bhp from a 3.2l engine implies considerable engineering talent. (343 bhp from the same capacity appears to be the limit of that talent, though :)).

andy_thomas 01-29-2005 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technic
That "highest specific power output per liter in its class" of only 84hp/L got me thinking of the Nissan G35's 298hp/3.498L V6 - 85.19hp/L- and the Acura TL's 270hp/3.210L V6 -84.11 hp/L- , but then I realized that the R6 numbers in this article are kind of "screwed up" by having some strange mix of DIN and SAE ratings: 190kW = 254.69hp (190/.746kW/1bhp) and 190kW/2.997L = 63.4kW/L = 84.98hp/L... and still came up short. :confused:

I don't know anything about the Nissan engine, since it is only appears to be made for the US market (possibly Canada too?). The BMW's engine is available anywhere, which is a consideration :dunno:. For that, I get 86.42 bhp (DIN)/litre. The Nissan V6 in the 350Z over here makes 287 bhp from 3.5 litres, not 298 hp (SAE) - but this is also nothing to be sniffed at. However that engine has a reputation for being large (read thirsty) and a bit coarse - which I suppose offsets the greater straight-line performance you get for the money.[/QUOTE]

Mr. The Edge 01-29-2005 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_thomas
Sure it is - no-one in the engineering fraternity is that impressed by e.g. 382 bhp from a 5.7l engine. It's just more of the same. But e.g. 321 bulletproof bhp from a 3.2l engine implies considerable engineering talent. (343 bhp from the same capacity appears to be the limit of that talent, though :)).

okay, I meant a meaningful number from a consumer/driver's standpoint

Centurion 01-29-2005 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_thomas
(343 bhp from the same capacity appears to be the limit of that talent, though :)).

Even more than that if you don't care about our O-zone layer. ;)

Technic 01-29-2005 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy_thomas
I don't know anything about the Nissan engine, [b]since it is only appears to be made for the US market (possibly Canada too?).[b] The BMW's engine is available anywhere, which is a consideration :dunno:. For that, I get 86.42 bhp (DIN)/litre. The Nissan V6 in the 350Z over here makes 287 bhp from 3.5 litres, not 298 hp (SAE) - but this is also nothing to be sniffed at. However that engine has a reputation for being large (read thirsty) and a bit coarse - which I suppose offsets the greater straight-line performance you get for the money.

Well, the article does not differentiate nor specifies which country this "class" is so that's the reason it just caught my attention, after all it is an engineering article talking about engine ratings. And also it seems that the mix of SAE ratings (255hp) and DIN (258hp) got everything out of control with the ratings. Of course, I still believe that this R6 is a great engine and I would like to see real performance numbers on the road for the 330i with it.

For the 05 model year the 350Z pumps out 300hp in the Aniversary edition over here, and the manual transmission Infiniti G35 (Coupe and Sedan) is 298hp (280hp if automatic).

SONET 01-29-2005 12:23 PM

Good article, thanks for posting it. :thumbup:

I miss having access to AE; awesome magazine.

--SONET

Fifty_Cent 01-29-2005 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atyclb
okay, I meant a meaningful number from a consumer/driver's standpoint

well, i is again a meaningful number isnt it? I mean, you want a normal aspirated car, and say, you want a "true roadster" convertible.

You have(new and used)

Z3 1.9is, 140 hp, 73.68bhp per l
Z4 2.2i, 170 hp, 77.27 bhp per l
S2000(Honda), 240 hp, 120bhp per l


Now tell me, which is the most technologically advanced engine????

Of course it has a point, to all the fanatics.

Mr Paddle.Shift 01-30-2005 12:46 AM

Paul, I didn't know you subsribed to AE. :p

Yup, they have some pretty interesting article.

Old news really...but the Garrett (Honeywell) turbocharger is used in the 120d. There is an article in the nov2004 issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SONET
Good article, thanks for posting it. :thumbup:

I miss having access to AE; awesome magazine.

--SONET


Mr Paddle.Shift 01-30-2005 12:55 AM

Kevin Jost should be consistent with the standards.

190kw is 258.328 hp (metric). The equivalent 64kw should be 85.656 hp (metric) or 84.484 hp (international). He used the latter standards for the per litre comparison.

Usually Stuart Birch covers everything BMW related.

I just like the AE better since it covers more technical related news.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Technic
That "highest specific power output per liter in its class" of only 84hp/L got me thinking of the Nissan G35's 298hp/3.498L V6 - 85.19hp/L- and the Acura TL's 270hp/3.210L V6 -84.11 hp/L- , but then I realized that the R6 numbers in this article are kind of "screwed up" by having some strange mix of DIN and SAE ratings: 190kW = 254.69hp (190/.746kW/1bhp) and 190kW/2.997L = 63.4kW/L = 84.98hp/L... and still came up short. :confused:

Nice article overall, though...


andy_thomas 01-30-2005 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atyclb
okay, I meant a meaningful number from a consumer/driver's standpoint

It *should* translate into a sales-winning differentiator of some sort ("if we can do this with the engine, think what we can do with the rest of the car!"), since this kind of engineering doesn't come cheap - and therefore cannot compete on cost. 100 bhp/litre was a winning formula for the old E36 M3, and various Hondas in recent years. Unfortuntely it doesn't always translate accurately, and stuff blows up now and again :(.

andy_thomas 01-30-2005 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifty_Cent
well, i is again a meaningful number isnt it? I mean, you want a normal aspirated car, and say, you want a "true roadster" convertible.

You have(new and used)

Z3 1.9is, 140 hp, 73.68bhp per l
Z4 2.2i, 170 hp, 77.27 bhp per l
S2000(Honda), 240 hp, 120bhp per l

Now tell me, which is the most technologically advanced engine????

Of course it has a point, to all the fanatics.

In 1992 BMW was making the 1.8 litre engine with 140 bhp, producing 78 bhp/litre and 72 bhp/torque. For an engine revving to only 6,500 rpm, this was very respectable. It was also 13 years ago. I have no doubt that in 13 years' time we will be looking at the S2000's 120 bhp/litre and thinking "ha, those old-fashioned turn-of-the-millennium types. I bet they thought they were something really special". :D

iateyourcheese 01-31-2005 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifty_Cent

Z3 1.9is, 140 hp, 73.68bhp per l
Z4 2.2i, 170 hp, 77.27 bhp per l
S2000(Honda), 240 hp, 120bhp per l


Now tell me, which is the most technologically advanced engine????

This goes with the "does horsepower per liter matter" discussion above. I guess it does from a marketing perspective, but a better car it doesn't necessarily make.

Both the Z4 2.2i and the S2000 have roughly the same size engine (2171 cc vs. 2157 cc respectively) so let's compare the two.

BMW seems to optimize their engines differently than Honda. BMW likes to make engines that develop their torque early and deliver it consistently while trying to be reasonable on the fuel. Honda makes engines that are higher in HP but develop their torque later. This leads naturally to high MPG.

At 3500 rpm the BMW engine makes 155 lb-ft of torque whereas the S2000 makes 140. This is also the peak for the BMW, but looking at a dyno you'll see that it's pretty flat across the whole range. The Honda has a peak torque of 162 lb-ft (only 4% more than the Bimmer) at 6500 rpm (you'll see the torque and horsepower jumps when you get above 6000 rpm, I assume they change the intake somehow there).

So who makes the more technologically advanced engine? Umm... I'd say they make two very different engines. BMW provides its torque early and its horsepower linearly, while the S2000 acts like two different engines. Below 6000 RPM it's nothing special (150 hp @ 6000 rpm), but above 6000 it starts cranking out all of the power. This seems to be their way of getting good gas mileage while still being able to claim 240 hp.

I hope you don't see this as a fanatics reply. Until we get the super transmission from the future, torque is still very important.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2011 performanceIX, Inc. All Rights Reserved .: guidelines .:. privacy .:. terms