Z4M / E46 M3 - Are they just not that fast?
Discussion
GregorFuk said:
Hmm, not so fast. People often quote the same parts list dump from realOEM and sure, those are the part differences but since when would blueprinting show up on an electronic parts catalogue? What people consider to be 'blueprinted' can vary dramatically and I'd not compare the CSL engine to something like a Millington but I do believe the engines have seen some degree of hand finishing. Having had the head of a CSL engine on a bench you can see that the ports have had had extra work to open them out and match them to the inlet better, kind like what Honda did with their Type-R engines.
pics??? if this was the case the internet would be littered with pics of this.GregorFuk said:
Hmm, not so fast. People often quote the same parts list dump from realOEM and sure, those are the part differences but since when would blueprinting show up on an electronic parts catalogue? What people consider to be 'blueprinted' can vary dramatically and I'd not compare the CSL engine to something like a Millington but I do believe the engines have seen some degree of hand finishing. Having had the head of a CSL engine on a bench you can see that the ports have had had extra work to open them out and match them to the inlet better, kind like what Honda did with their Type-R engines.
And you seriously believe that BMW marketing department are just sitting around staring at walls whilst all these handcrafted heads are being built down on the shop floor and never a two shall meet?Personally, I would think that announcing these minor details relating to the low volume performance car with it's hand crafted performance components to your niche target market might help ever so slightly with the sales.
I also remember they had some difficulty shifting the CSL didn't they?
This is all imo, of course.
Anyway, back to the OP. They are fantastic engines and I would never consider one slow.
Although the OP was talking about how fast (or not) S54-equipped cars are compared to turbocharged hot hatches, what he was describing was how quickly both cars can accelerate.
At License-friendly speeds, the turbocharged hot hatch is likely to win that particular contest (traction aside).
Horsepower is potential top speed, while torque is how quickly you can get there.
Good effort on the Autobahn btw.
At License-friendly speeds, the turbocharged hot hatch is likely to win that particular contest (traction aside).
Horsepower is potential top speed, while torque is how quickly you can get there.
Good effort on the Autobahn btw.
http://www.zeperfs.com/en/ gives you performance information and allows you to compare several cars side-by-side.
For example CSL v Golf R DSG: http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match1113-5155.htm
Most cars have data for a variety of acceleration bands (40-140, 80-180 etc.) and also the time in different gears.
For example CSL v Golf R DSG: http://www.zeperfs.com/en/match1113-5155.htm
Most cars have data for a variety of acceleration bands (40-140, 80-180 etc.) and also the time in different gears.
Isn't a CSL over 10 seconds from 0-100 mph? How is that fast? Considering you can get mass produced cars that get from 0-100 in 6/7 seconds and 0-124 in less than 10.
The fast/fan argument has got heated in recent years when "lesser" cars i.e Golf R have undercut the market heroes like M3 with performance and the argument is always that they're not as fun. Can't most cars be fun when they're driven on suitable fun roads in an enthusiastic way?
I have owned 2 S54 cars and can't say they're anymore fun driven on a boring dual carriageway than a Golf R. However in a turbocharged car with a high torque figure you can certainly feel the g forces acting on your body even in a straight line more so than the perceived historically "fun" NA car.
The fast/fan argument has got heated in recent years when "lesser" cars i.e Golf R have undercut the market heroes like M3 with performance and the argument is always that they're not as fun. Can't most cars be fun when they're driven on suitable fun roads in an enthusiastic way?
I have owned 2 S54 cars and can't say they're anymore fun driven on a boring dual carriageway than a Golf R. However in a turbocharged car with a high torque figure you can certainly feel the g forces acting on your body even in a straight line more so than the perceived historically "fun" NA car.
Babw said:
Isn't a CSL over 10 seconds from 0-100 mph? How is that fast? Considering you can get mass produced cars that get from 0-100 in 6/7 seconds and 0-124 in less than 10.
Wow! I never realised you can get mass produced cars being that fast?I can't think of any mass produced car that comes even close to 0-124 in less than 10?! (Even most supercars will struggle to get close to that?)
I think the S54 is a great engine. Over 100bhp per litre from a normally aspirated engine from over a decade ago, You'll not find many mass produced cars achieving that!
Edited by zainster on Sunday 12th June 13:56
zainster said:
Wow! I never realised you can get mass produced cars being that fast?
I can't think of any mass produced car that comes even close to 0-124 in less than 10?! (Even most supercars will struggle to get close to that?)
Obviously it depends what your interpretation of a supercar/mass produced car is but a 911 Turbo and Nissan GTR are the things that come to find first. They're so much faster than a CSL and both turbocharged. I can't think of any mass produced car that comes even close to 0-124 in less than 10?! (Even most supercars will struggle to get close to that?)
Edited by zainster on Sunday 12th June 13:56
Fun is also open to interpretation and I don't think an NA engine in isolation makes a car more fun than a turbocharged car.
Babw said:
Obviously it depends what your interpretation of a supercar/mass produced car is but a 911 Turbo and Nissan GTR are the things that come to find first. They're so much faster than a CSL and both turbocharged.
Fun is also open to interpretation and I don't think an NA engine in isolation makes a car more fun than a turbocharged car.
I just looked up 0-124mph for the 991 Turbo S with PDK and it was 9.9! I think you've set the bar so incredibly high that 99% of cars using your criteria can't be considered that fast then? (Even the 570 PS GTR doesn't crack the 10 sec 0-124).Fun is also open to interpretation and I don't think an NA engine in isolation makes a car more fun than a turbocharged car.
High revving, normally aspirated engines (such as the s14, s54 etc) were never designed with motorway driving in mind. They have to be thoroughly spanked to get the best from them and there are plenty of drivers who simply don't get that fact. Even the humble m10 was designed to be able to run at high revs, for long periods, which I guess is what made it easy to develop in 16 valve guise?
It depends what you want from your car? Some people think low end grunt and a wave to turbo induced torque is fun, whereas others (myself included) prefer to work an engine to get the best from it. Golf R etc may well be quick but lightweight RWD cars, with free revving 16 valve 4 pots are way more fun to me.
It depends what you want from your car? Some people think low end grunt and a wave to turbo induced torque is fun, whereas others (myself included) prefer to work an engine to get the best from it. Golf R etc may well be quick but lightweight RWD cars, with free revving 16 valve 4 pots are way more fun to me.
rb5er said:
k-ink said:
It's all pointless stats. The reality is sitting in traffic and avoiding pot holes and cameras.
Are you saying that you never get to enjoy the roads? I regularly find the time and a place to enjoy mine.Or I could just be fed up after a day of DIY.
zainster said:
I just looked up 0-124mph for the 991 Turbo S with PDK and it was 9.9! I think you've set the bar so incredibly high that 99% of cars using your criteria can't be considered that fast then? (Even the 570 PS GTR doesn't crack the 10 sec 0-124).
maybe I have. I'll set it at 12 seconds which is just as arbitrary as 10 seconds. In any case I have not been in an S54 car without serious forced induction that has the torque to make it even feel the effects of acceleration where you feel pinned back in the seat at full bore. I've driven a Golf R and when you link up a good few bends with the drive hooking up on exit did I ever think "gosh this would be better with an NA engine". Horses for courses and all that.
Babw said:
maybe I have. I'll set it at 12 seconds which is just as arbitrary as 10 seconds. In any case I have not been in an S54 car without serious forced induction that has the torque to make it even feel the effects of acceleration where you feel pinned back in the seat at full bore. I've driven a Golf R and when you link up a good few bends with the drive hooking up on exit did I ever think "gosh this would be better with an NA engine". Horses for courses and all that.
I think people expecting exceptional "modern day" performance from an engine that has been out of production for 10 years and even then was an evolution of older technology is missing the point.
N/A engines are a rare breed these days and I for one am glad I own one.
Babw said:
maybe I have. I'll set it at 12 seconds which is just as arbitrary as 10 seconds. In any case I have not been in an S54 car without serious forced induction that has the torque to make it even feel the effects of acceleration where you feel pinned back in the seat at full bore. I've driven a Golf R and when you link up a good few bends with the drive hooking up on exit I did think "this would be better in an M3 CSL". Horses for courses and all that.
But yes, horses for courses but I have corrected it for you as we are talking about the S54 engine right?
DoubleTime said:
GregorFuk said:
Hmm, not so fast. People often quote the same parts list dump from realOEM and sure, those are the part differences but since when would blueprinting show up on an electronic parts catalogue? What people consider to be 'blueprinted' can vary dramatically and I'd not compare the CSL engine to something like a Millington but I do believe the engines have seen some degree of hand finishing. Having had the head of a CSL engine on a bench you can see that the ports have had had extra work to open them out and match them to the inlet better, kind like what Honda did with their Type-R engines.
And you seriously believe that BMW marketing department are just sitting around staring at walls whilst all these handcrafted heads are being built down on the shop floor and never a two shall meet?Personally, I would think that announcing these minor details relating to the low volume performance car with it's hand crafted performance components to your niche target market might help ever so slightly with the sales.
I also remember they had some difficulty shifting the CSL didn't they?
This is all imo, of course.
Anyway, back to the OP. They are fantastic engines and I would never consider one slow.
GregorFuk said:
DoubleTime said:
GregorFuk said:
Hmm, not so fast. People often quote the same parts list dump from realOEM and sure, those are the part differences but since when would blueprinting show up on an electronic parts catalogue? What people consider to be 'blueprinted' can vary dramatically and I'd not compare the CSL engine to something like a Millington but I do believe the engines have seen some degree of hand finishing. Having had the head of a CSL engine on a bench you can see that the ports have had had extra work to open them out and match them to the inlet better, kind like what Honda did with their Type-R engines.
And you seriously believe that BMW marketing department are just sitting around staring at walls whilst all these handcrafted heads are being built down on the shop floor and never a two shall meet?Personally, I would think that announcing these minor details relating to the low volume performance car with it's hand crafted performance components to your niche target market might help ever so slightly with the sales.
I also remember they had some difficulty shifting the CSL didn't they?
This is all imo, of course.
Anyway, back to the OP. They are fantastic engines and I would never consider one slow.
e21Mark said:
High revving, normally aspirated engines (such as the s14, s54 etc) were never designed with motorway driving in mind.
I wouldn't completely agree and if you take the E92 M3 as an example...it's a comfortable cruiser first and foremost with all the mod cons for blasting up and down motorways for me. That's where the problem lies sadly with cars like the M3 and they try to do so many things well...yet end up being a master of none of them.
RWD cossie wil said:
GregorFuk said:
DoubleTime said:
GregorFuk said:
Hmm, not so fast. People often quote the same parts list dump from realOEM and sure, those are the part differences but since when would blueprinting show up on an electronic parts catalogue? What people consider to be 'blueprinted' can vary dramatically and I'd not compare the CSL engine to something like a Millington but I do believe the engines have seen some degree of hand finishing. Having had the head of a CSL engine on a bench you can see that the ports have had had extra work to open them out and match them to the inlet better, kind like what Honda did with their Type-R engines.
And you seriously believe that BMW marketing department are just sitting around staring at walls whilst all these handcrafted heads are being built down on the shop floor and never a two shall meet?Personally, I would think that announcing these minor details relating to the low volume performance car with it's hand crafted performance components to your niche target market might help ever so slightly with the sales.
I also remember they had some difficulty shifting the CSL didn't they?
This is all imo, of course.
Anyway, back to the OP. They are fantastic engines and I would never consider one slow.
To blueprint an engine means to build it to exact design specs, limits and tolerances created by its oem engineers or other users, such as high performance racing or heavy duty industrial equipment. It is similar to how many other kinds of mechanical machinery are researched, designed and built, such as a submarine or a hydraulic press.
Because few have the capability to actually blueprint, and because of the monetary incentive of claiming one has performed the work, many people have come to believe blueprinting only means that all the specifications are double-checked. Serious efforts at blueprinting result in better-than-factory tolerances, possibly with custom specifications appropriate for the application. Common goals include engine re-manufacturing to achieve the rated power for its manufacturer's design (because not all mass-production engines put out the rated power), and to rebuild the engine to make more power from a given design than otherwise intended (because custom engines can often be redesigned to different specifications). Blueprinted components allow for a more exact balancing of reciprocating parts and rotating assemblies so that less power is lost through excessive engine vibrations and other mechanical inefficiencies.
Ideally, blueprinting is performed on components removed from the production line before normal balancing and finishing. If finished components are blueprinted, there is the risk that the further removal of material will weaken the component. While it has nothing to do with blueprinting per se, lightening components is generally an advantage provided balance and adequate strength are both maintained, and more precise machining will in general strengthen a part by removing stress points, so in many cases performance tuners are able to work with finished components.
For example, an engine manufacturer may list a piston ring end-gap specification of 0.003 to 0.006 inches for general use in a consumer automobile application. For an endurance racing engine which runs at consistently high temperatures, a "blueprinted" specification of 0.0045" to 0.0050" may be desired. For a drag-racing engine which runs only in short bursts, a tighter tolerance of 0.0035 to 0.0040 inch is optimal. Thus "blueprint" can mean tighter or looser clearances, depending on the goal.
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff