inline 6 vs V6

Originally Posted by jsc

Well, the cheaper (than a GT3) M3 CSL is close in specific output at 109.4bhp /litre @ 7,900 RPM, but produces 84.1 lb-ft /litre @ 4,900 RPM compared with 82.8 lb-ft /litre for the GT3 at a much loftier 5,500 RPM, so the M3 CSL S54 engine has a beefier torque curve than the GT3 engine for it's capacity, allowing more power to be extracted at a lower RPM (for it's capacity), so requiring it to be revved less.

What octane fuel?
Is it certified for US?
Is it on sale now?

Btw, one way to estimate engine efficiency is ~ (peak hp) / (peak rpm * liters).

Originally Posted by chemgeek

Those are very decieving actually.

Post the better ones. And careful with large quotes, please.

Originally Posted by void.crusader

What octane fuel?

Post the better ones. And careful with large quotes, please.

Never said I had better ones. Are there ones similar to those that have a top view? I think both angles need to be taken into account. Looks like the Infiniti (I have never looked under the hood of one) has a huge cooling system quite a ways in front of the engine block. Anyone have any idea how much liquid that holds out in front? I know very little about Infiniti.

Those are pretty good cross-section drawings.

Infiniti G35 is still a bit more nose-heavy when you look at the numbers on a scale. Infiniti tosses in an aluminum hood to help keep the weight down in the front end (at least they used to). However, I still feel the G37 has more oversteer (rear weight bias feel) than the 335i on the track. I've said before, the G37 - in stock configuration - is a track star.

Hey void.crusader, what Nissan do you drive?

- Mike

Originally Posted by Emission

Those are pretty good cross-section drawings.

Infiniti G35 is still a bit more nose-heavy when you look at the numbers on a scale. Infiniti tosses in an aluminum hood to help keep the weight down in the front end (at least they used to). However, I still feel the G37 has more oversteer (rear weight bias feel) than the 335i on the track. I've said before, the G37 - in stock configuration - is a track star.

Hey void.crusader, what Nissan do you drive?

- Mike

Drawings from R&T magazine anyway.

2003 Altima 3.5 SE, 116K without a hitch. Love VQ.

Originally Posted by void.crusader

What octane fuel?
Is it certified for US?
Is it on sale now?

Btw, one way to estimate engine efficiency is ~ (peak hp) / (peak rpm * liters).
.

Both on RON 98 (Euro equivalent to (MON+RON)/2 AKI 94). As you quoted the spec for the Euro GT3, the comparison was with a Euro M3 CSL. M3 CSL is not on sale at the moment as it is an E46 model, but it was a 911 competitor (basically a model that is just out of production with a stronger engine for it's capacity than the current Porsche). Really just an illustration that specific output for BMW engines is just as good as for Porsche.

BTW, another way (of many ways) to estimate engine output efficiency (or perhaps capability is a better word here) is (torque under curve) / litres. Or better expressed as (average torque * RPM range) / litres. This measurement will take into account any non-linearity of the power curve that peak measurements don't take into account.

Originally Posted by void.crusader

I mean S54. Sierra-Five-Four at E46 M3. Engine of Damocles. The one you mention in your post with "M3 3.2L at 333HP".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...re&btnG=Search



Awards is good and all, but Porsche certainly know something others aren't.

911 GT3:
3600cc, 409hp @ 7600, 298 lb-ft @ 5500
They didn't rev it that much, didn't force-fed it, didn't even put DI. Still, somehow they got 113.6 HP per liter. Impressive engineering should be involved to get this.

Okay, may be GT3 is a bit over the top, but even lowly Caymans are putting very good HPs per liter without over-revving.

I have a few questions for you. Do you own a BMW? ('03 Altima 3.5 SE)

If not are you a TROLL?

If you are a TROLL why are you here?

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...38&postcount=1

Root Cause, BMW fixed all, and extended the warantee. All good in the end.

"BMW has been investigating cases of damage to the connecting rod bearings resulting in engine failure. After intensive analysis, we can inform you that we found the root cause and have also tested and confirmed our countermeasures.

The problem has been identified as contamination of the engine lubricating system during assembly in combination with unfavorable tolerances in the engine oil pump for the M3 coupe/convertible produced from October 2001 through February 2002. These cars will require replacement of the engine oil pump and as a precautionary measure, replacement of the connecting rod bearings."

Red

Originally Posted by void.crusader

Drawings from R&T magazine anyway.

2003 Altima 3.5 SE, 116K without a hitch. Love VQ.

My VQ ran 35,962 miles flawlessly (never skipped a beat) before the lease was up. Just 7,500-mile synthetic oil changes (the dip stick was a major PITA). It is a great powerplant, but about 15% thirstier than my twin-turbo.

Originally Posted by redadair

I have a few questions for you. Do you own a BMW? ('03 Altima 3.5 SE)

If not are you a TROLL?

If you are a TROLL why are you here?

Red

i don't view this guy as a troll and you don't need to own a bmw to hang out at 'fest.

Originally Posted by Emission

My VQ ran 35,962 miles flawlessly (never skipped a beat) before the lease was up. Just 7,500-mile synthetic oil changes (the dip stick was a major PITA). It is a great powerplant, but about 15% thirstier than my twin-turbo.

+1 Mine in my G35 was the same. Great engine, thirsty on fuel, rough at high RPM's

An overall good car, but not in the BMW league.

Red

Originally Posted by HW

i don't view this guy as a troll and you don't need to own a bmw to hang out at 'fest.

Thanks for pointing that out to me. However someone who comes to another Auto maker's forums and spends a great deal of time telling everyone the bad sides of their cars makes them sound to me like a Troll.

What is your definition of a Troll? Hopefully more than a doll.

Red

I don't think we should get hung up on specific output (that GT3 comparison) as ANY measure of goodness. The original 2L I4 Honda S2000 motor made 120 HP/L, naturally aspirated. BFD, because 240 HP was on the weak side. I got BETTER highway mileage from a 5.7 V8 (C5 Z06). Specific output is a masturbatory bragging right, not much more.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I don't think we should get hung up on specific output (that GT3 comparison) as ANY measure of goodness. The original 2L I4 Honda S2000 motor made 120 HP/L, naturally aspirated. BFD, because 240 HP was on the weak side. I got BETTER highway mileage from a 5.7 V8 (C5 Z06). Specific output is a masturbatory bragging right, not much more.

+1 that original Honda 2000 was the HP/L king. But had such bad low end toqure Honda increased the CC's of the engine.

Originally Posted by jsc

Both on RON 98 (Euro equivalent to (MON+RON)/2 AKI 94). As you quoted the spec for the Euro GT3, the comparison was with a Euro M3 CSL. M3 CSL is not on sale at the moment as it is an E46 model, but it was a 911 competitor (basically a model that is just out of production with a stronger engine for it's capacity than the current Porsche). Really just an illustration that specific output for BMW engines is just as good as for Porsche.

I think I quoted US-spec GT3 with hp (SAE) rating. In euro horses: 415 bhp @ 7600 rpm, 299 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ew+page-2.html

"Owing to the small production run and the complications of clearing DOT and EPA standards for the North American market, BMW never exported the CSL to the United States, although some parts from it were later made available on the regular M3 as part of an optional Competition Package."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M3

Looks like E46 CSL was never cleared for the states? Anyway

3246cc, 360 bhp @ 7900, 274 lb-ft @ 4900

CSL hp/rpm*l = 360/(7900*3.246) = 0.01404

GT3 hp/rpm*l = 415/(7600*3.600) = 0.01517

http://www.rsportscars.com/bmw/2003-bmw-m3-csl/

Not sure specs for CSL are correct on this website, but can't find anything better.

BTW, another way (of many ways) to estimate engine output efficiency (or perhaps capability is a better word here) is (torque under curve) / litres. Or better expressed as (average torque * RPM range) / litres. This measurement will take into account any non-linearity of the power curve that peak measurements don't take into account.

It's good, I agree, the only problem is we need curves for this.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I don't think we should get hung up on specific output (that GT3 comparison) as ANY measure of goodness. The original 2L I4 Honda S2000 motor made 120 HP/L, naturally aspirated. BFD, because 240 HP was on the weak side.

S2K (F20C) hp/rpm*l = 240/(8300*1.997) = 0.01448

Originally Posted by HW

i don't view this guy as a troll and you don't need to own a bmw to hang out at 'fest.

+1

As a mod, I will agree. A non-BMW owner is a flag, but not an issue in general.

Welcome to the Fest!

- Mike

Originally Posted by Emission

+1

As a mod, I will agree. A non-BMW owner is a flag, but not an issue in general.

Welcome to the Fest!

- Mike

I agree with you Mike. Watch and see!

He has been here awhile and I am not the only one who he has rubbed the wrong way. Check this post out. I think you know that I don't use Stereo on this Forum before I hear it.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=265915

Originally Posted by redadair

I agree with you Mike. Watch and see!

He has been here awhile and I am not the only one who he has rubbed the wrong way. Check this post out. I think you know that I don't use Stereo on this Forum before I hear it.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=265915

Interesting.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think people shopped the STi/Evo vs. 335i. Two completely different vehicles.

Originally Posted by Emission

Interesting.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think people shopped the STi/Evo vs. 335i. Two completely different vehicles.

My view also. Thanks

Originally Posted by Emission

Interesting.

I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think people shopped the STi/Evo vs. 335i. Two completely different vehicles.

back in '99, i shopped between the honda civic coupe and the bmw 323ci. result, i chose the german civic

Originally Posted by brashman

Iversonm, when you say "straight v8's" are you referring to the 180 degree cranks that folks like Ferrari use? Just curious.

Yep. I don't remember the proper name. "Not cross-plane" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Originally Posted by brett8210

Also to consider is the European tax on displacement over 3.0 L. I doubt BMW will go over this displacement.

Good observation. I hadn't considered that. Taxation is also the reason that Japanese 4-pots tend to be 2 liters.

Originally Posted by iversonm

Good observation. I hadn't considered that. Taxation is also the reason that Japanese 4-pots tend to be 2 liters.

i believe japan tax on # of cylinders. reason why there aren't too many V8 from japan.

Originally Posted by WhoozYaDaddy

yeah, that is the reason, V-8 allows a more balanced piston firing order than a V-6. The advantage of a straight 6 over a V-6 is the balanced piston firing order that is mentioned in an earlier post. The straight 8 doesn't carry a significant advantage over a v-8 due to 4 pistons per cylinder bank. The V-8 is so much better balanced and compact over a straight 8 that the straight 8 is antiquated. Straight 8s and 10s ad 12s were used on old receprecating aircraft engines.

I remember my Grandfather talking about a straight 8 engine he had in a Packard. Must have been quite a car.

Originally Posted by iversonm

Yep. I don't remember the proper name. "Not cross-plane" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

Flat plane.

The reason why their V8's produce that high rpm F1 scream.

Toyota Supras also had inline 6s; my 1983 Supra had 2.8 liters. Power and torque are not that exciting by today's standards, but it was as smooth as silk and may be better than my 335. That was a nice car in its day.

Originally Posted by void.crusader

CSL hp/rpm*l = 360/(7900*3.246) = 0.01404

GT3 hp/rpm*l = 415/(7600*3.600) = 0.01517

We also know the following:
CSL bhp at torque peak (273lb/ft @ 4900) = 273*(4900/5252) = 254.7bhp
therefore hp/rpm*l = 254.7/(4900*3.246) = 0.01601

GT3 bhp at torque peak (298lb/ft @ 5500) = 298*(5500/5252) = 312.1bhp
therefore hp/rpm*l = 312.1/(5500*3.600) = 0.01576

So the BMW engine is more efficient at the torque peak and should have a specific power curve that rises above the Porsche curve except at the highest RPMs, hence it is likely to have a better specific torque distribution under the curve than the Porsche.