which M engine is the ONE??!!??

[matth76]

Vixpy1 said:

S54 for me

BMW messed up with the S54 unit (the E46 M3) up until 2004. Prior to that there was the bearing engine failure issue.. Later 2004 or later lumps were fixed though on the factory line.

Edited by matth76 on Monday 18th August 20:31

[M5Dave]

matth76 said:

Vixpy1 said:

S54 for me

BMW messed up with the S54 unit up until 2004. Prior to that there was the bearing engine failure issue.. Later 2004 or later lumps were fixed though on the factory line.

How many actual instances of engine failure were there though. I'm not saying it wasn't an issue, just that in internet land things can get over hyped, and relatively rare problems are made out to be the norm.

[stevesingo]

There is merit in the M88, S38 linage, extending through to the s14, as these are the only engines either designed primarily with motorsport in mind or derived from a motorsport engine. As successful as the Mc F1 was in motorsport, it was never intended to race. All of the modern M engines, as good as they are, have no such linage. After all, the "M" stands for MOTORSPORT, not Money Making!

Steve

[Frik]

Motorsport isn't everything you know.

Knocking the S70/2 engine because it didn't come directly from an engine designed for the track is ridiculous.

Roadcar engines are in many ways far more challenging to design because they need to do it all.

[stevesingo]

Nowhere have I knocked the S70/2 or any other engine. All I said that there was merit in the M88, s38 s14 argument.

Steve

[Frik]

Fair enough, I guess I misread your post slightly.

Just venting my pet peeve really. Motorsport is a marketing exercise after all...

[ASBO]

Jesus boys, this place reeks of

[SleeperCell]

R5GTTgaz said:

It was based on the 2002 Turbo block I think?

Not even the turbo block, just a plain old M10, (I dont think the turbo block was different anyway, just the internals) which was designed around 1959.

some BMW history book said:

It sounds absolutely incredible, but the world`s most powerful Grand Prix engine was based on a production block! That was taken from the 1969 presented type 2002 and reduced from original cubic capacity of 2.0 litres to the 1.500 ccm the Formula One regulations had allowed for turbocharged engines. To reduce inner tentions within the engine blocks BMW only took those ones that had done more than 100.000 kilometres - " they are like well-hung meat," as engineer Paul Rosche said, who had a very close relationship to Nelson Piquet considering him as a perfect test driver. Later a special treatment had been invented to imitate this high kilometre performance to avoid BMW to run out of old engine blocks. And the 4-cylinder-unit with up to 11.000 revs per minute demanded a verx "heavy" fuel to prevent the engine from blowing up. That synthetic petrol produced out of cole came from a German refinery and its recipe was based on a patent the Nazis once had developed for war purposes.

[GTWayne]

This just HAD to turn into some kind of Spoon Fest didn't it?













Nighty night

[Beedub]

matth76 said:

Vixpy1 said:

S54 for me

BMW messed up with the S54 unit (the E46 M3) up until 2004. Prior to that there was the bearing engine failure issue.. Later 2004 or later lumps were fixed though on the factory line.

Edited by matth76 on Monday 18th August 20:31

i wouldnt say bmw messed up but what they did do was do alittle consumer testing!!! just like they do with most of the m engines!!!

[carl_w]

Beedub said:

i wouldnt say bmw messed up but what they did do was do alittle consumer testing!!! just like they do with most of the m engines!!!

Didn't they replace all engines affected by the Nikasil and VANOS problems, even if they were out of warranty?

[MarkM3Evoplus]

Message for Cheburator:-

Don't think a factory S14 would have come with schrick cams - BMW M Sport had their own cams made.

Cheers,

[Cheburator mk2]

MarkM3Evoplus said:

Message for Cheburator:-

Don't think a factory S14 would have come with schrick cams - BMW M Sport had their own cams made.

Cheers,

I think you could specify whatever you wanted and BMW would oblige, subject to you paying them...

[Baddie]

Frik said:

Fair enough, I guess I misread your post slightly.

Just venting my pet peeve really. Motorsport is a marketing exercise after all...

It is now..... But not 20-40 years ago.

You can't credibly dismiss the E30 M3's or S38's motorsport links. The S38 was even built and installed in the same factory as the Motorsport cars.

For it's 80's turbo F1 motor BMW reputedly used M10 blocks that had acquired 100k in road cars because the stresses had been taken out. This was apparently useful c. 1000 hp.

[Baddie]

Cheburator mk2 said:

MarkM3Evoplus said:

Message for Cheburator:-

Don't think a factory S14 would have come with schrick cams - BMW M Sport had their own cams made.

Cheers,

I think you could specify whatever you wanted and BMW would oblige, subject to you paying them...

Paul Rosche's nickname amongst his groovy buddies was something like "Nocken Paul" ("Cam Paul"). As well as an engine guru par none, he must also have been a total camshaft geek. I would be surprised if cams other than OEM were ever better overall. Perhaps the Schricks were just different character

Edited by Baddie on Friday 29th August 23:38

[Frik]

Baddie said:

Frik said:

Fair enough, I guess I misread your post slightly.

Just venting my pet peeve really. Motorsport is a marketing exercise after all...

It is now..... But not 20-40 years ago.

You can't credibly dismiss the E30 M3's or S38's motorsport links. The S38 was even built and installed in the same factory as the Motorsport cars.

For it's 80's turbo F1 motor BMW reputedly used M10 blocks that had acquired 100k in road cars because the stresses had been taken out. This was apparently useful c. 1000 hp.

It's not a question of dismissing any link. It's a question of how much that link actually means to a road going product.

And racing is always a marketing exercise, at least from the manufacturers point of view.

[Baddie]

Frik said:

And racing is always a marketing exercise, at least from the manufacturers point of view.

It is now, market forces rule all. Though having said that how many new M car drivers have any clue about the M1, or original M3. Modern M-cars are just the top of the range now.

But once upon a time I really believe it had a lot to do with enthusiasts who loved fast cars and wanted to prove theirs was the best. I think that time included the first 15-20 years of Motorsport, when first M-generation engineers were still around, designing cars they loved themselves. Theres no way an engine with the S38's refinement would be found in a £50k saloon today - it had a straight through back box on the exhaust for goodness sake! The E36 M3 and E39 M5 were a clear break with the racous road-racing M cars of the past.

[carl_w]

Frik said:

And racing is always a marketing exercise, at least from the manufacturers point of view.

Enzo Ferrari started selling road cars to finance his racing.

[Pentoman]

Baddie said:

D_T_W said:

The 3.8 in the E34 M5.

It's the last of the true ///M engines, relying on big capacity, lumpy cams and lots of intake and exhaust work to achieve its power. Yes, things have moved on hugely since then, but technology has taken over, taking away a lot of the engines character.

In my eyes a BMW ///M car should have a straight 6 up front, not a V8 or a V10. In todays world that's just not practical to allow then to keep up with the competition, hence the changes. I'm not denying the modern ///M cars aren't good, they most certainly are, but in my opinion the E34 M5 was the last of the great ///M cars, with a true motorsport engine under the bonnet, hand assembled by a group of BMW's finest geeks to create what is still today an awesome driving machine.

S52/54 is a phenomenal achievement for series production motor, easily surpassing Porsche's achievements for many years (only now routinely 100 BHP/litre and GT3 engine is >£30k). However, S38 had highest specific output of any production motor bar 1.6 Hondas in early 90's, and how many Lambos and Fezza's would see 200k miles?

Interesting post. However you did leave out the words "naturally aspirated"! Also (feel free to use the geek icon here) didn't the early 90s also have the E30 Sport Evo, with ~ 94bhp/litre and the 190 Evolution Merc with 92bhp/litre on... erm MECHANICAL injection (crikey)! One of those would certainly do 200,000 miles.

Hold on, I'll find it myself....

Oh my vote's for the S54 even though the S52 sounds better. Never driven either.

[Baddie]

Pentoman said:

Baddie said:

D_T_W said:

The 3.8 in the E34 M5.

It's the last of the true ///M engines, relying on big capacity, lumpy cams and lots of intake and exhaust work to achieve its power. Yes, things have moved on hugely since then, but technology has taken over, taking away a lot of the engines character.

In my eyes a BMW ///M car should have a straight 6 up front, not a V8 or a V10. In todays world that's just not practical to allow then to keep up with the competition, hence the changes. I'm not denying the modern ///M cars aren't good, they most certainly are, but in my opinion the E34 M5 was the last of the great ///M cars, with a true motorsport engine under the bonnet, hand assembled by a group of BMW's finest geeks to create what is still today an awesome driving machine.

S52/54 is a phenomenal achievement for series production motor, easily surpassing Porsche's achievements for many years (only now routinely 100 BHP/litre and GT3 engine is >£30k). However, S38 had highest specific output of any production motor bar 1.6 Hondas in early 90's, and how many Lambos and Fezza's would see 200k miles?

Interesting post. However you did leave out the words "naturally aspirated"! Also (feel free to use the geek icon here) didn't the early 90s also have the E30 Sport Evo, with ~ 94bhp/litre and the 190 Evolution Merc with 92bhp/litre on... erm MECHANICAL injection (crikey)! One of those would certainly do 200,000 miles.

Hold on, I'll find it myself....

Oh my vote's for the S54 even though the S52 sounds better. Never driven either.

Good point and perhaps I stand corrected on a few counts, though when discussing great engines I normally exclude turbos, sorry. It must be acknowledged though that Merc had turned to Cosworth for assistance with the original 190 2.3-16, and IIRC the Brits were not at all impressed with Merc's efforts up to that point. So the Merc was originally half British and the Honda was a horsepower-fiend buzzer. The M3's S14 was two thirds an S38, and therefore the two engines' success may be considered as one?? The M3's motor, given its installation and remit had less call for torque and refinement than the S38.

One thing that is often overlooked is the issue of Brake Mean Effective Pressure, or specific torque. On this score the current V8 and V10 have at best parity with the older sixes, but not superiority. Where's the progress in efficiency beyond the headline bhp/litre game that even Audi plays very well these days?

BTW mate, I don't want to enter a geek contest either (too late for me anyway!) and not sure re mechanical injection, but I know race versions of the M88 used purely mechanical injection whereas road versions had at least a partial electronic setup. According to Rosche the purely mechanical set-up could generate much higher injection pressures than contemporary e-systems, leading to shorter injection times and "better torque". The fact that mechanical systems were more compromised over the full range of road operation didn't matter.

Edited by Baddie on Thursday 4th September 23:22