RE: BMW M Division Wants A 1-series M
Discussion
baz1985 said:
Racingteatray
^^^^
That is a pertinent assessment.
If I had the capital to spunk, I'd be inclined to add BMW Performance engine tuning kit, silencer system and air intake system. ACS Shortshift/Racing Strut-Brace, KW V3, H&R ARBs, transplant an E46 M3 diff is possible...and Mich PS2 non-run sh!t tyres.
Thanks. For now, I've just gone for the BMW Performance exhaust, which does a good job of making the car sound and feel more exotic. With money to burn, I'd probably opt for the LSD conversion Birds offer and a remap (but not the BMW one which gives a whopping 20bhp for nigh-on £2k!!). Ride and handling are actually pretty good IMHO as they are. I'll see what the ride is like on the winter tyres (17", non-RFT) when the time comes to fit them. If it makes a massive difference, I may switch to non-RFT when the current set wears out. ^^^^
That is a pertinent assessment.
If I had the capital to spunk, I'd be inclined to add BMW Performance engine tuning kit, silencer system and air intake system. ACS Shortshift/Racing Strut-Brace, KW V3, H&R ARBs, transplant an E46 M3 diff is possible...and Mich PS2 non-run sh!t tyres.
God knows what anyone is thinking fitting the BMW Performance alloys - they look hardly any different, cost the earth and, as Evo have amply demonstrated, don't makes a rat's ar5e of difference.
I actually tried a 130i before opting for the 135i, but although the 130i sounds a bit better and has a keener pick-up, I much prefer the coupe shape to the hatch shape. And ultimately the 135i is noticeably quicker.
Edited by RacingTeatray on Wednesday 18th November 11:31
Escort Si-130 said:
Joke??? Far from a joke. It was a statment.
.
:whoosh:greygoose said:
Escort Si-130 said:
Diesel??? 21 inche alloys?? sorry that is a no no! Yuk @ silver, boring old s
tty sales rep fleet car colour.
If you look really far above your head then you'll just about see that joke flying away tty sales rep fleet car colour..There goes the point again!
The chap you're denigrating was actually being tongue-in-cheek with that post. Most of us got it, but you clearly missed it by a country mile!
You're not American, are you?!?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Honda haven't produced a 'new' hi-power VTEC for about 8 years - the current CTR engine is just a slight warm-over of the last one (and still isn't great in terms of emissions-per-bhp)Renaultsport have been using the same 2.0 block for ages, and it's still not the most characterful of lumps.
Toyota VVT is a copy of old-tech VTEC (Integra-era stuff rather than CTR iVTEC), and is even peakier than the ITR engine. It too was released about 10 years ago.
...so, much as I'd like to see more of that sort of engine, there's nothing out there that's anywhere-near new. IMHO the best-performing 'new' n/asp engines (sub-£100k cars) are:-
- the latest BMW 3.0 I-6 - I suspect it's (like the Honda and Renault) an evolution of the old 231bhp block, but at least now it's ~90bhp/litre.
- the AMG 6.3 block - again ~90bhp/litre
- the (superceded) VAG 4.2FSI lump from the RS4 - close to 100bhp/litre, but when was that designed?
- the punchier LS-series V8s, albeit the LS-2 I drove had quite soft throttle-response for an n/a engine.
- ...and of course Porsche still do good n/asp, but even there DI is apparently robbing them of aural character!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yep, the N52 3.0 is 90bhp/litre, revs to 7000rpm, and is light, being magnesium and alumninum (mag where they can have it light, ally where they need the strength)Uses Valvetronic so is very efficient and can control emissions very well.
The only thing it can't do well is response is a bit soft vs throttle bodies for a sporty engine, but come on, it's still a fantastic engine vs a blown lower capacity engine which will no doubt be softer responding. Probably not much better on fuel either, in the real world, despite turbo engines on paper being fantastic (due to the naff CO2 rating test used)
Dave
aeropilot said:
So, sadly, the days of that sort of tuned n/a engine are over, and people will just have to get used to that.
I keep hearing 'the days of high output NA engines are over'- I'd like someone who's involved in engine design to explain exactly why. Uninformed drivel like this is perplexing.Engineering is not about truth, but about fashion these days unfortunately.
It's true with Direct injection and boosting you can down size- there by theoretcially reducing your fuel consumption and your CO2-however nothing is clear cut.
Yeah- the consultancies like AVL, FEV push downsize boosting- but they're involved in upstream concepts-I've seen this kind of thing before- they pedal something (like the 'wonderful CBR' combustion system
-they still go on about- but when it comes to implementing it into the field the advantages aren't all that apparent). They're a business trying to make money like anyone else-trying to push the next big thing. When you use Direct injection it is true that if you don't boost you can miss a trick- due to the combined advatanged of charge cooling, higher CR and the ability to run large amounts of overlap without short circuiting of the charge-thereby massively increasing your scavenging ability-however in the final application you'll most likely be severely overfueling to keep the turbines cool. Catalyst warm up will be an issue because the cats are further behind the turbos- so integrated exhaust manifolds or not- it's not clear cut, once you actually have to try to calibrate the concept into production. My point is- folks on PH have got to stop thinking there's one right answer and solution (unlikely) but more importantly- the engineering industry has to stop thinking this way.I have measured data comparing the 4 cylinder supercharged Mercedes 2.3 litre engine versus the old Naturally aspirated M52 2.8 BMW straight six: both make the same output and about the same amount of Torque. The downsized boosting Nazis at our smarmy consultanies would dictate that the 4 cylinder boosted engine should have better engine fuel economy (BSFC)- it doesnt. Throughout it's part load and full load regions. It's a similar story comparing the old 4.2 5 valve twin Turbo Audi V8 in the RS6 (and this uses a 9:1 CR!) with the 5.7 litre LS6 Chevrolet engine. Both engines make the same power of 400 Bhp (The Chevy has more very low speed torque) however the Chevy engine is vastly more economical-in terms of BSFCs. More so at Full load.
Now please realise I'm talking about engine out BSFC- don't try to reply and embarras yourselves by quoting MPG figures from in your RS6s in your school runs- thats totally meaningless. BSFC is the only way to compare at appropriate engine load sites.
I also know of a Direct injection V8 engine that has a best point steady state BSFC of 235 g/KWH -which is very similar to the Vauxhall XE engine of the late eighties (and yes it was running stoichiometric) has smaller cylinders and has no VCT or other 'toys'.
So how could this be? I'm not blind to the perceived benefits of downsized- Direct injection and boosting- all I'm saying is that it's not nearly as clear cut as the eggheads make out and try to pedal. There is enough variance in other aspects of detail engine design to cast doubt over a scheme that pushes a wholesale industry wide push towards down sized, direct injection and boosting. However most of you are humans and as such follow trends and fashion like sheep still believing that there is only one right answer.
Edited by Marquis_Rex on Wednesday 18th November 16:21
Thanks - very interesting. Personally, in an M car I'd be primarily interested in how the engine drives from a qualitative perspective, rather than power or economy figures. From that perspective, I personally prefer normally aspirated engines. Next up in order of preference for me would be power, and finally economy. The N52 in my Z4C is just perfect for all of that - 265bhp, 37mpg on the motorway and beautifully driveable (save for the damm annoying DBW throttle which I hate, but all cars have them these days and it's one of the better ones I've tried).
RobM77 said:
Thanks - very interesting. Personally, in an M car I'd be primarily interested in how the engine drives from a qualitative perspective, rather than power or economy figures. From that perspective, I personally prefer normally aspirated engines. Next up in order of preference for me would be power, and finally economy. The N52 in my Z4C is just perfect for all of that - 265bhp, 37mpg on the motorway and beautifully driveable (save for the damm annoying DBW throttle which I hate, but all cars have them these days and it's one of the better ones I've tried).
Pretty-much every performance car has enough power these days - it's the responsiveness and the sound of the powertrains which is suffering now. And who buys a performance car for its economy?!?
havoc said:
RobM77 said:
Thanks - very interesting. Personally, in an M car I'd be primarily interested in how the engine drives from a qualitative perspective, rather than power or economy figures. From that perspective, I personally prefer normally aspirated engines. Next up in order of preference for me would be power, and finally economy. The N52 in my Z4C is just perfect for all of that - 265bhp, 37mpg on the motorway and beautifully driveable (save for the damm annoying DBW throttle which I hate, but all cars have them these days and it's one of the better ones I've tried).
Pretty-much every performance car has enough power these days - it's the responsiveness and the sound of the powertrains which is suffering now. And who buys a performance car for its economy?!?
Give us character and add lightness... more power with more weight are just backwards following backwards
The N52 is a gem! We can only assume BMW didn't want it in the 1 series Coupe because most people would have just bought a 130Ci instead of a 135Ci, and made their FI engine look a bit pointless (which all said and done it is, because it only makes 25bhp more, while being less interesting vocally and in a response sense, for a whole bucket load of additional cost!)
Why BMW are pandering to the CO2 patrol is beyond me. It's mpg, and we can clearly see that anything that makes X power tends to get Y mpg... only the stupid duty cycle manufacturers use makes a difference, the cycle that simulates no real driving cycle in the world... the cycle that in engineering terms is optimal for long-geared auto's with FI engines to excel at, but sod all else!
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Give us character and add lightness... more power with more weight are just backwards following backwards
The thing is, you ,along with alot of us here are an enthusiast. As manufacturers become more successful they tend to cater less to the enthusiast.Examples here in the USA- especially here on the Left coast is the complete love of anything done by Toyota. All you see is Toyota Camrys- it's the United States of Toyota here. The worthy but dull cars are what appeals to the masses for big sales numbers. Hyundai is starting to really gain popularity here. Quite often the ones who love Electric cars also view cars as something of an appliance/white goods-which is also on the rise.
If you look at the big 3- it's Ford that have done the best. However, with the exception of the Mustang- their range is more aligned towards Toyota than the other two. They've been chasing reliability,quality and other sensible metrics. They dropped the excellent RWD Lincoln LS series- with it's Jaguar derrived suspension and the Focus out here now is no where near as good as the Euro one (No Revo knuckle etc)- this is what they've had to do to prosper- appeal to the masses. GM/Pontiac made the fun GTO/G8 and Chrysler the 300Cs and Chargers (don't go comparing them with BMWs- view them in context-they're in a different price bracket- but at least they're RWD with V8s and fun) but it hasnt helped them. Now Pontiac is being dropped. I think we'll see alot more of this- car ranges targeting the highest common denominator masses- and it will effect BMWs, Audis also as their business models adapt. It will be the true dyed in the wool enthusiasts that lose out IMO ultimately.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Regarding BMW I think this may change though, perhaps to a lesser degree than with the big brand stuff. Porsche has definately changed- the GT3 RS supremely competent thoough it is, is far less bespoke and special than the 993 RS and heavier too. BMW made the CSL which was something special.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The 300C and Pontiac GTO/G8 are current production for the moment- they're hardly enthusiast specials- but I'd take one over a Ford Taurus or Lincoln Sedan if I wanted a bit of a road burner every day of the week-but then I'm in the minority- being an enthusiast.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well it's difficult to compare- because they're of different price ranges, and the GT3 is a very competent machine. However the M3 CSL has a bespoke engine and they've at least made effort to reduce the weight (Ok so it's not as special E30 M3 Evo Ceotto edition). The GT3- RS I was comparing to RSs and Club Sport Porsches of yesterday which were more special and bespoke- the GT3 is a heavyweight. I don't question it's ability on road and certainly it's credentials on the track- it's only when you look at it for the price and then cast an eye to the specialist (read more focused towards the enthusiast) nature of it's predessors and where I would have liked to have seen the GT3 evolve myself.Marquis_Rex said:
It's not a comparison :GT3 vs CSL not quite sure where you keep getting that from- I view the cars with respect to their lineage and what went before as I already explained. The CSL was smaller volumes for one in the same way the 993 RS was also. Its not that difficult a concept to understand. It's my opinion- and the fact that it's not shared by many also explains why folks spuff themselves over the GT3.
Porsches have become more market focused and slightly less engineering focused, wiedekings focus was as much on engineering as manufacturability and cost of manufacture. Post 993 cars are set up for much higher volume production. He was very successful in bringing Porsches market share up. Whether that means his actions benefitted the enthusiast in the way that the old range (when they weren't making money) did- is another matter. And that ultimately is what I was getting at before all the inevitable nit picking began.
BMWs are far from small volume- the E36 wasn't nor is the E46 and much higher volume than the Porsche 911s which makes the CSL stand out more considering it's base.
I can't agree with your logic there, MR.Porsches have become more market focused and slightly less engineering focused, wiedekings focus was as much on engineering as manufacturability and cost of manufacture. Post 993 cars are set up for much higher volume production. He was very successful in bringing Porsches market share up. Whether that means his actions benefitted the enthusiast in the way that the old range (when they weren't making money) did- is another matter. And that ultimately is what I was getting at before all the inevitable nit picking began.
BMWs are far from small volume- the E36 wasn't nor is the E46 and much higher volume than the Porsche 911s which makes the CSL stand out more considering it's base.
By the same logic, the Integra Type R is at least as special and stand-out as the CSL, because it was engineered so far beyond the high(er)-volume base that it was developed from (same basic platform underpinned the EG and EK Civics...which are among the biggest-selling cars in the world!). And even I'd say that's patent b'll'cks, despite having huge regard for a car I've bought two of...
The GT3 has quite extensive changes compared with the car it's based on. Paul Freré's book is a good source for things like that. I've read quite a bit of the book, and I can't recall earlier cars like the 964RS being any more or less bespoke than the 996 GT3 for example. As for what's more "special", well I guess that's subjective. I would say that special is a combination of outright performance and rarity.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff