Close

    • 430 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque for 2014 F80 M3 / F82 M4 S55 twin turbo motor - Curb weight of 3306 pounds, manual transmission

      Finally some concrete details from BMW on the next generation M3/M4! What may be interpreted as bad news is the horsepower output from the 3.0 liter inline-6 S55 twin turbo (single scroll turbo) motor is 'only' 430 horses. The torque figure is at 369 pound-feet. Not exactly a powerhouse of a motor or a torque monster but the good news is that this powerplant is mated to a chassis that will weigh about 3306 pounds or 1500 kilograms.

      A curb weight of 3306 pounds makes the F80 M3 / F82 M4 lighter than both previous generation M3 vehicles the E46 and E9X. It seems AutoBild got the specifications correct for the most part when they leaked them last month although horsepower is up from their claimed 416. If BMW does a Competition Package with the new M3 (chances are they will as fanboys will raise hell about the C63 out-muscling the M3 and the tiny increase over the E9X) the power, curb weight, torque, and dual clutch transmission will make for a package likely capable of high 11's in the 1/4 mile out of the box.

      What is the redline of the motor? A good question. BMW has not officially confirmed the redline although they claim the new motor is high revving. Keep in mind BMW also made this claim about the S63TU V8 under the hood of the M5 and M aficionados hardly refer to that stump puller as a high revver.

      AutoBild claimed 7800 rpm although that may be overly optimistic. Current reports place the redline somewhere between 7500 to 7800 rpm. BMW has yet to confirm the exact number but says it is 'over 7500 rpm.' How much over they do not say.

      The motor has a closed deck design meaning it is not based on the N54 as some people speculated (N54 fanboys). The motor does have Valvetronic. The block is seemingly a brand new design. The power is sent to a carbon fiber driveshaft.

      BMW also confirmed the manual transmission option meaning Autoblog F'd up royally with their report stating the M3/M4 would not have a manual transmission. Further details to come but what is concrete as of right now are the horsepower, torque, transmission, and curb weight figures. Additionally, both the sedan and the coupe will have carbon fiber roofs. BMW press release and photos below.












































































      1. The new BMW M3 Sedan and new BMW M4 Coupe:
      Innovative engine technology and a focus on lightweight design.


      The launch of the new BMW M3 Sedan and new BMW M4 Coupe sees BMW M GmbH revealing an all-new interpretation of the high-performance sports car – and carrying the BMW M philosophy over into the fifth generation of the M3. More than 40,000 examples of the fourth-generation BMW M3 Coupe were built, and now the BMW M4 Coupe is poised to continue this history of success. The "M4" badge is a reference to the model series that provides the basis for the new M model. And for the first time, the Coupe will be introduced at the same time as the four-door variant, which logic dictates will be christened the BMW M3.

      "Four generations of the BMW M3 have blended motor sport genes and uncompromised everyday usability within an emotionally rich overall concept;" explains Dr Friedrich Nitschke, President BMW M GmbH. "The BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe represent an ongoing commitment to this philosophy. The engine is the heart of every M model, and the example fitted in the two new cars combines the virtues of a high-revving naturally aspirated unit with the strengths of turbocharger technology. An all-embracing lightweight design concept keeps the cars' weight to just under 1,500 kilograms. The BMW M3 and BMW M4 take motor sport technology from the track to the road, and thousands of laps of the legendary Nürburgring Nordschleife – the world's most demanding race track – have readied the new models for that transition. Meticulous and passion-fuelled development work has underpinned the creation of two high-performance sports cars that set new standards in terms of overall concept, precision and agility."

      The high-revving six-cylinder in-line engine with BMW M TwinPower Turbo technology newly developed for the new BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe produces maximum output of approximately 430 hp. Its peak torque soars far beyond 500 Newton metres (369 lb-ft), outstripping the figures recorded by the outgoing BMW M3 by well over 30 per cent. And yet the engine also achieves a reduction in fuel consumption and emissions of around 25 per cent. The weight of the cars has been reduced to just under 1,500 kilograms, which helps to ensure outstanding driving dynamics and exceptional efficiency.

      2. The balance of the overall concept:
      A blend of elements working in perfect harmony delivers outstanding performance, precision and agility.


      The new BMW M3 Sedan and new BMW M4 Coupe share a low-slung and broad-set, yet finely balanced, stance on the road, highlighting the emphasis on performance capability in the emotional development of M design. Large air intakes at the front end, exposed carbon-fibre-reinforced plastic (CFRP) components and the diffuser at the muscular rear end are far from mere design flourishes; they also fulfil functional roles in terms of aerodynamics, cooling and weight saving.

      Numerous aerodynamics measures integrated into all areas of the body.
      The aerodynamics concept of BMW M GmbH models has always been one of the key elements in their development. The engineers need to channel the air around the car to create the best possible platform for dynamic excellence, while also ensuring the engine, powertrain and brakes receive the requisite cooling given the significant loads they are operating under. But at the same time, the cars should also have a good Cd – an indicator of impressive efficiency at higher speeds, in particular.

      Details such as the powerfully formed front apron, smooth underbody and clearly defined Gurney spoiler lip at the rear of the M3 Sedan (or integrated spoiler lip at the rear of the BMW M4 Coupe) reduce lift by an equal degree at the front and rear axle and produce optimum handling attributes. These examples underline in familiar fashion the success of M engineers in reconciling the requirements of everyday use with the demands of action on the race track. Elements like the Air Curtain and M gills with integrated Air Breather rearwards of the front wheels minimise turbulence in the front wheel arches. And, together with the smoothly sculpted exterior mirrors, they are also highly distinctive design features of the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe.

      Sophisticated cooling concept for maximum performance.
      The exceptional performance potential of the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe places extremely exacting demands on temperature management in the engine and peripheral assemblies. In order to ensure optimum operating temperatures in everyday use, on short journeys around town and on the race track, the BMW M GmbH engineers have developed an extremely effective cooling system. For example, alongside the two ultra-dynamic turbocharger units, the air intake system of the six-cylinder engine also includes an indirect intercooler to cool the intake air, maximising charge pressure and engine output. As well as a main radiator, the track-ready cooling concept also comprises additional radiators for the high- and low-temperature water circuits, turbocharger and transmission oil. These ensure a consistent temperature balance and therefore unrestricted performance during hard driving. An additional electric coolant pump cools the turbocharger bearing mounts when the car is stationary.

      The powertrain gains from a wide variety of motor sport technologies.
      The many years of experience in motor sport clocked up by the BMW M engineers also make their presence felt in the construction of the powertrain for the new BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe. For example, the engine's impressive torque is sent on its way by a forged crankshaft with high torsional rigidity, whose low weight also allows a significant reduction in rotating mass. The crankshaft therefore helps to optimise the engine's responsiveness and acceleration and makes an important contribution to its high-revving character.

      The engine sends its power to the wheels through a six-speed manual gearbox as standard. This gearbox is significantly more compact than its predecessor and 12 kilograms lighter, allowing it to assist the car's optimum – virtually 50:50 – weight distribution. As a means of increasing shift comfort, the manual gearbox uses innovative new carbon friction linings in its synchroniser rings. Dry sump lubrication provides an efficient supply of oil to all parts of the gearbox. The new gearbox also works a lot more quietly than before and blips the throttle on downshifts – previously a feature reserved for the M Double Clutch Transmission. This engagement speed control function helps to enhance stability and was originally developed by motor sport engineers.

      Seven-speed M Double Clutch Transmission with Launch Control.
      The optional seven-speed M Double Clutch Transmission with DriveLogic takes a very special route to combining the apparently conflicting values of absolute sports performance and comfort. As well as changing gear automatically, in manual mode the transmission enables ultra-fast gear changes with no interruption in the flow of power. The integrated Launch Control function ensures optimum sprinting performance off the line, producing acceleration figures that would be out of range with the manual gearbox. The M Double Clutch Transmission also offers drivers extra functions, such as selectable modes which make the BMW M3 and BMW M4 more comfortable, easier on fuel or even sportier. The extra gear over the manual gearbox allows more tightly spaced ratios – and delivers the positive effects on performance and efficiency you would expect as a result.

      The material properties of carbon have allowed the engineers to follow a fundamentally new approach in the manufacture of the drive shaft. This component feeds the engine's torque from the gearbox to the rear differential and works under extremely heavy loads – especially in high-performance vehicles. The impressive stiffness and low weight of CFRP as a material allow the drive shaft to be constructed as a single-piece unit with no centre bearing. As well as a weight saving of 40 per cent over its predecessor, this leads to a reduction in rotating masses and, in turn, to sharper responses to movements of the accelerator, combined with enhanced dynamics.

      Another feature that adds fresh polish to the dynamic repertoire of the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe is the Active M Differential. Unlike the manual system used by the outgoing BMW M3, here an electric actuator constantly varies the locking effect, as required. That enables better traction, the adjustability of the car is improved, and understeer coming out of corners is dialled out to impressive effect. M Dynamic Mode – a subfunction of the Dynamic Stability Control (DSC) system – quenches the thirst of enthusiastic drivers for keen dynamics. While DSC intervenes as required to counteract understeer and oversteer, M Dynamic Mode allows greater wheel slip and therefore easy drifting. Owners with a taste for sporty and dynamic driving will appreciate this breadth to the cars' handling, although DSC will still step in if the car ventures over the limits – unless it is switched off completely. Whichever setting the driver chooses, he or she remains responsible for the car's stability.

      Aluminium suspension elements ensure sharper dynamics.
      The core expertise of BMW M GmbH resides in creating cars that offer impressive steering precision, on-the-limit adjustability, agility and driving feeling, together with unbeatable traction and outstanding directional stability – all without neglecting everyday usability. In order to blend these attributes with the significantly increased performance capability of the new BMW M3 Sedan and new BMW M4 Coupe, the axles of the outgoing BMW M3 have undergone further development and all relevant components have been newly designed or constructed.

      Here again, low weight and a high level of structural rigidity are essential ingredients in ensuring the cars provide an ultra-dynamic driving experience. In the double-joint spring strut front axle alone, the use of a lightweight aluminium construction for components such as control arms, wheel carriers and axle subframes saves five kilograms over a conventional steel design.

      Play-free ball joints and elastomer bearings developed specially for the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe ensure an optimum and direct transfer of forces both laterally and longitudinally. An aluminium stiffening plate, CFRP front strut brace and additional bolted joints between the axle subframe and the body sills all help to increase the rigidity of the front structure.

      Also lighter than the construction in the outgoing BMW M3 is the new five- link rear axle. All the control arms and wheel carriers are manufactured using forged aluminium, which reduces the unsprung masses of the wheel-locating components by around three kilograms compared with the previous model generation. The rigid connection between the rear axle subframe and the body – without the use of elastic rubber elements – is borrowed from motor sport and serves to further improve wheel location and therefore directional stability.

      The development of the tyres for the cars was incorporated from the outset into the construction process for the axles. For high-performance sports cars like the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe, in particular, steering feel and precision are the foremost considerations in the development of tyres for the front axle, alongside lateral stability and braking forces. At the rear axle, meanwhile, traction, lateral stability and directional stability take centre stage. For this reason, both cars will leave the factory on low-weight forged wheels with mixed-size tyres. The specially developed forged wheels make a significant contribution to the reduction in the cars' unsprung masses and, in turn, to the optimisation of dynamic qualities and efficiency.

      Electric Power Steering with three settings.
      The electromechanical steering system used in the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe is a new development from BMW M GmbH. It has been tuned specially to assist the cause of dynamic driving and offers the gifts of direct steering feeling and precise feedback. The integrated Servotronic function electronically adjusts the level of steering assistance according to the car's speed, providing optimum steering characteristics at all speeds. The steering for the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe also offers the driver three steering characteristics as standard, which can be selected at the touch of a button. COMFORT, SPORT and SPORT+ modes allow the level of steering assistance to be adapted to suit the situation at hand and the driver's personal tastes.

      The optional Adaptive M suspension likewise comes with COMFORT, SPORT and SPORT+ modes, enabling the driver to choose between a more comfortable damper setting for motorway driving, for example, a stiffer set-up for dynamic driving on country roads, and a third option that minimises wheel movements and maximises dynamic performance for use on the track.

      With their supreme dynamic attributes in mind, the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe also come as standard with BMW M compound brakes boasting impressive feel, outstanding stopping power and high resistance to fade. Far lighter than conventional equivalents, these brakes contribute to a substantial reduction in unsprung masses and therefore help to enhance dynamic performance. Even lighter BMW M carbon ceramic brakes can also be specified as an option, their further optimised performance attributes equipping them even more effectively for track use.

      3. New six-cylinder in-line engine:
      High-revving, turbocharged engine combines the best of both worlds.


      The new BMW M3 Sedan and new BMW M4 Coupe from BMW M GmbH see a return to a six-in-line engine configuration, as used on the second and third generations of this iconic sports car. The new turbocharged unit, which can develop more than 7,500 rpm, combines the best of both worlds – on the one hand a high-revving design for instant response, linear power delivery over a wide engine speed range and an unmistakable and characterful engine note, and on the other hand BMW TwinPower Turbo technology for maximised torque over a broad rpm range. A further hallmark of this engine is its outstanding efficiency.

      The new engine sees a slight power upgrade over the previous V8 to approximately 430 hp, while peak torque has been increased by well over 30 per cent to substantially more than 500 Newton metres, and is maintained over a very wide rev band. The new powerplant also boasts excellent fuel consumption, with an improvement of more than 25 per cent over the previous model's figures, while emissions are already EU6-compliant.

      The BMW M TwinPower Turbo technology comprises two mono-scroll turbochargers, High Precision Direct Injection, VALVETRONIC variable valve timing and Double-VANOS seamlessly variable camshaft timing. The variable valve and camshaft timing provide fully variable control of intake valve lift. This allows the engine to deliver its power smoothly and efficiently, resulting in lower fuel consumption and emissions. At the same time, throttle response is even sharper than before.

      The six-cylinder engine features a closed-deck crankcase design, which increases rigidity and allows cylinder pressures to be increased for maximised power output. And instead of liners, the cylinder bores feature a twin-wire arc-sprayed coating, which results in a significant reduction in engine weight.

      A further technical highlight is the forged, torsionally rigid crankshaft which, as well as providing increased torque-carrying capacity, is also lighter in weight. Its reduced rotating masses also improve throttle response and acceleration.

      Track-ready cooling system and engine oil supply for outstanding performance.
      The exceptional performance of the BMW M3 Sedan and BMW M4 Coupe also demands an exceptionally sophisticated thermal management system for the engine and ancillary units. To ensure optimal operating temperatures both in short everyday trips around town and also when the vehicle is being driven flat out on the track, the M GmbH engineers developed a highly efficient cooling system, comprising a main radiator plus additional radiators for the high- and low-temperature circuits, turbocharger and transmission, while a temperature-stabilising electric water pump ensures that the engine can develop its full performance at all times.

      The engine oil supply system, too, reflects the extensive motor sport experience of BMW M GmbH. The low-weight magnesium oil sump, for example, features a special cover to limit movement of the oil under the effects of strong dynamic lateral acceleration. Under extreme longitudinal acceleration and deceleration, an oil extraction pump and a sophisticated oil return system situated close to the turbocharger likewise help to maintain uninterrupted oil circulation. Oil is therefore supplied continuously to all engine components in all driving situations – whether in everyday motoring or during hard driving on the track.

      An engine sound in keeping with the motor sport-level performance of the BMW M3 and BMW M4 is provided by an innovative flap arrangement in the twin-pipe exhaust system. The electrically controlled flaps just before the rear silencer minimise exhaust back-pressure and produce a BMW M sound which is striking and unmistakable over the entire engine speed range, as well as giving precise feedback on engine load.

      Intelligent lightweight design was a top priority in the development of the BMW M3 and BMW M4. The goal was to minimise kerb weight in order to give both models outstanding driving dynamics and exemplary efficiency. These measures have delivered impressive results. The kerb weight of the BMW M4 has been reduced to less than 1,500 kilograms, which means the new model is now around 80 kilograms lighter than a comparably equipped predecessor model – with benefits for driving dynamics and fuel consumption as well.

      BMW M3 Sedan also gets CFRP roof for first the time.
      On the outgoing models, the CFRP roof was confined to the Coupe version. Now, for the first time, the four-door BMW M3 will also include this striking design and functional feature. The CFRP roof brings weight savings of five kilograms in the case of the BMW M3 Sedan and more than six in the case of the BMW M4 Coupe. It also lowers the vehicle's centre of gravity, which has a positive impact on driving dynamics.

      On the M4 Coupe, the contoured roofline with the central Gurney bubble continues into the boot lid, and emphasises the even sportier personality of the new model. The newly developed boot lid of this model not only provides extremely effective tail end styling but at the same time its geometry is precisely tailored for optimised aerodynamics, while the use of carbon fibre and plastics provides additional weight savings.

      The new BMW M3 Sedan and new BMW M4 Coupe also feature a CFRP propeller shaft. CFRP's high rigidity and low weight mean that the drive shaft can be produced as a single-piece component without a centre bearing. This provides 40 per cent weight savings over the previous model, and the reduction in rotating masses results in sharper throttle response. The use of carbon in these models is a reminder that BMW is a global leader in high- strength, lightweight CFRP construction, and that it was BMW who brought out the first mass-production vehicle with a body consisting entirely of this material – the innovative BMW i3.

      The CFRP strut brace in the engine compartment is a further example of how all weight-saving measures on these vehicles have also been tailored to the improvement of driving dynamics. Weighing only 1.5 kilograms, the strut brace offers superior rigidity to a comparable aluminium component, and plays a key part in the excellent steering response and precision of both vehicles.

      5. DTM support for the development process:
      Testing at the Nürburgring with Bruno Spengler and Timo Glock.


      In the development of the new BMW M3 Sedan and new BMW M4 Coupe, the BMW M engineers could count not only on track-honed technologies, but also on the driving talent of experienced racers. For example, BMW works drivers Bruno Spengler and Timo Glock took part in extensive testing and set- up runs on the Nürburgring-Nordschleife circuit, focusing on assessment of the cars' suspension, tyres and all elements of the powertrain. After taking the prototypes for a run-out over the legendary and highly demanding circuit, the two professional racing drivers were able to give the BMW M development team some valuable feedback.

      "I'm proud to have made a contribution to the set-up work on these two cars," explained reigning DTM champion Spengler. "The development work may not be totally completed yet, but the driving experience is already sensational. The suspension has a very sporty set-up, the feedback from the front axle is extremely direct and the grip at the rear axle is phenomenal. The engine is impressive, too. The power is right there, even at low rpm, and you can sense that you'll be able to access the output and torque over an extremely wide rev band. I'm looking forward to driving the cars again, but I'm even more excited about driving my first laps in a BMW M4 DTM."

      Timo Glock was similarly impressed: "These two cars are capable of generating quite incredible centrifugal forces," reported the ex-Formula One driver.

      This article was originally published in forum thread: 430 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque for F80 M3 / F82 M4 S55 twin turbo motor - Curb weight of of 3306 pounds, manual transmission started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 251 Comments
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        why would they bother?
        Exactly. Why would they bother when they don't care about miles per gallon or gallons per mile?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        besides the fact it would cost them MANY millions (tens+) to develop a direct injector that can flow liters per second, you're not just comparing apples to oranges here... you're comparing lychees to watermelons
        Am I? Or is this yet another example where direct injection is not necessary for high performance?

        Look, it's 2013 we all knew the M3 would get direct injection but is the car really better for it? Is it higher performance for it? BMW put more power into the E9X with the S65 without turbos and direct injection and that's OEM. Doesn't that tell you enough as to why direct injection is used? BMW is obsessed with fuel efficiency and emissions now. I wouldn't have even been shocked if it was a hybrid with how hard they are pushing that junk on us.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        actually, out of the DI pool, N54 would be struggling the most fuelling wise yes, VAG has a much easier time with their HPFP system ( - they can hit 600whp+ on their 2.0 DI motors) - it's not the injectors fault though, purely the HPFP.
        Actually, if you do some VWboost reading you will see VAG has struggles too. It's just certain companies are really proficient with fueling on that platform. It also depends on the motor if it's FSI or TSI as they have fuel system differences.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        yes, it's an efficiency tech at heart, but that's not to say if it's limits are overcome it won't perform better than an equivalent PI (more boost, more timing, more compression) motor while ALSO being more efficient.

        it's still baby tech.
        Baby tech? The Mercedes SL had direct injection in 1955.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        yeah? i mean.. 10+ or something? 20 even? it's getting more and more common these days... and i don't belive anyone has had an issue related to block strength (tuning, fuelling, yes)

        ok.

        and.. yeah, it needs built internals because the rods and pistons aren't strong enough, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with how strong the block is

        their block strength simply means it's 1200-1500whp capable, which the N54 logically won't be lol.

        yeah, people have popped motors at less than 400lb-ft probably.. $#@!, in the FA20 world, people have popped them at 250whp, others daily at 400... gotta cut out the outliers from the bell curve haha

        yes i am, unless you REALLY REALLY WANT TO SEE the S55 break 1000whp on every second joe's car... it's simply dead weight?

        they focused on weight loss for the F80 right? so why did they make it closed deck, which adds weight.. please, tell me, when they don't aim to make 1000+ from the factory?
        You're saying more guys are getting closer to 700 whp and in the same breath saying the block can take 700 whp no sweat. There aren't tons of guys running around with 700+ at the wheels every day. We only have a couple documented cases of the motors even reaching that HP level and it's just for a dyno pull. No roadcourse videos or anything like that.

        You think it will survive a Nurburgring lap based on your faith alone? BMW seems to think a closed deck is necessary for that.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        they focused on weight loss for the F80 right? so why did they make it closed deck, which adds weight.. please, tell me, when they don't aim to make 1000+ from the factory?
        Closed deck adds more material but more material doesn't always equate to more weight it depends what that material is to begin with. BMW clearly feels the S55 needs more material for long term durability. Do they plan to race it? Maybe. Do they want it to be reliable on the road course? Clearly.

        I've never seen anyone advocate for less material around the cylinders when wanting to add power. If people do buy the new M3 and do tune it I think they'll be glad they more material there. I wouldn't have minded for a slightly smaller bore in the S65 personally if it meant more material. I'm sure my motor would be oh so much stronger with an open deck....
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Exactly. Why would they bother when they don't care about miles per gallon or gallons per mile?
        yeah, so why are you asking?

        would they want to do it for.. IDK... F1? V8 supercars? LMP? $#@! yes they would.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Am I? Or is this yet another example where direct injection is not necessary for high performance?

        Look, it's 2013 we all knew the M3 would get direct injection but is the car really better for it? Is it higher performance for it? BMW put more power into the E9X with the S65 without turbos and direct injection and that's OEM. Doesn't that tell you enough as to why direct injection is used? BMW is obsessed with fuel efficiency and emissions now. I wouldn't have even been shocked if it was a hybrid with how hard they are pushing that junk on us.
        no... i never said DI IS SOOO NECCESSARY11... i'm just saying it IS the future... it may not make more power than an equivalent PI car, but it uses less fuel... and ASSUMING LIMITATIONS ARE FIXED in the DI system... it will continue to do so at any power level.. on any boost level, with any turbo setup.
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Actually, if you do some VWboost reading you will see VAG has struggles too. It's just certain companies are really proficient with fueling on that platform. It also depends on the motor if it's FSI or TSI as they have fuel system differences.
        yes, of course they've struggled... but they do have solutions for their HPFP's now for sure... because it's not driven the same way as the N54 one, it's a fair bit easier to modify as far as i can tell
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Baby tech? The Mercedes SL had direct injection in 1955.
        completely the same piezo tipped running 2000psi?
      1. Group.america's Avatar
        Group.america -
        The irony of the N54 in the E82 (?) 1 series really created a whole boutique tuning culture that I am sure they (BMW) did not want.... in retrospect.............. but their BMW marketing machine was aiming the 1 series at the post-yuppy sub market at a lower price level.......... in reality they created a mini tuning beast 135i that for mind has created some great innovations for $$$$ for BMW lovers..... I see the N54 as a nice piece of engineering (albeit by rote a mistake) that has gained a HUGE following and some great performance numbers...
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You're saying more guys are getting closer to 700 whp and in the same breath saying the block can take 700 whp no sweat. There aren't tons of guys running around with 700+ at the wheels every day. We only have a couple documented cases of the motors even reaching that HP level and it's just for a dyno pull. No roadcourse videos or anything like that.

        You think it will survive a Nurburgring lap based on your faith alone? BMW seems to think a closed deck is necessary for that.



        Closed deck adds more material but more material doesn't always equate to more weight it depends what that material is to begin with. BMW clearly feels the S55 needs more material for long term durability. Do they plan to race it? Maybe. Do they want it to be reliable on the road course? Clearly.

        I've never seen anyone advocate for less material around the cylinders when wanting to add power. If people do buy the new M3 and do tune it I think they'll be glad they more material there. I wouldn't have minded for a slightly smaller bore in the S65 personally if it meant more material. I'm sure my motor would be oh so much stronger with an open deck....
        uhhhh you understand that torque is the stress on the engine, not direct HP numbers.. and the torque level required to make 700whp isn't particularly incredible?

        you'd think by the thousands of N54's racing on the track, and never having had a block strength issue YET... well, i'm not seeing their train of thought here.. it's clear it's not needed at 550-600whp at the very least.

        if you don't have any issues with a motor being open deck... well if it aint broken, don't fix it??

        ED: if the N54 block can't take 700whp++, then.. well it's a pretty useless longterm platform no?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        yeah, so why are you asking?

        would they want to do it for.. IDK... F1? V8 supercars? LMP? $#@! yes they would.
        I'm not asking I'm making a point. That direct injection for high performance is not necessary. What it's necessary for is emissions, efficiency, etc. It is not a high performance decision anything you can do on direct injection you can do with port injection and certain things you can do even better. You certainly don't have the same fuel pump limitations.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        no... i never said DI IS SOOO NECCESSARY11... i'm just saying it IS the future... it may not make more power than an equivalent PI car, but it uses less fuel... and ASSUMING LIMITATIONS ARE FIXED in the DI system... it will continue to do so at any power level.. on any boost level, with any turbo setup.
        Some people seem to be implying that. People, if it was a high performance technology we wouldn't be waiting until 2013 to see it on an M3. We are seeing it because of emissions standards not because of a horsepower war. Same reason we are seeing turbos. Seriously, what's so hard to understand here?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        yes, of course they've struggled... but they do have solutions for their HPFP's now for sure... because it's not driven the same way as the N54 one, it's a fair bit easier to modify as far as i can tell
        I really don't know the exact details but what I can tell you is the commonality between the fuel issues is that the motors are direct injected. See my point?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        completely the same piezo tipped running 2000psi?
        Of course not. So how is it still baby tech then if it isn't the same psi as in the 50's? Clearly that defense can't be used and isn't applicable. It isn't baby tech. It has design limitations.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        uhhhh you understand that torque is the stress on the engine, not direct HP numbers.. and the torque level required to make 700whp isn't particularly incredible?

        you'd think by the thousands of N54's racing on the track, and never having had a block strength issue YET... well, i'm not seeing their train of thought here.. it's clear it's not needed at 550-600whp at the very least.

        if you don't have any issues with a motor being open deck... well if it aint broken, don't fix it??

        ED: if the N54 block can't take 700whp++, then.. well it's a pretty useless longterm platform no?
        I can say power or hp and I'm still saying torque as that is exactly what power is. It's torque x rpm / 5252 the same equation everybody knows so not sure why you are even bringing something so trivial up as they are a function of each other.

        There aren't thousands of 700+ whp N54's on the track that is the train of thought and should be clear. Would you trust a block with more material or less material at higher stress levels in a higher stress environment? It's common sense.

        Maybe the N54 block can even take 1000 whp. Will it be for 5 minutes or 5 years?
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm not asking I'm making a point. That direct injection for high performance is not necessary. What it's necessary for is emissions, efficiency, etc. It is not a high performance decision anything you can do on direct injection you can do with port injection and certain things you can do even better. You certainly don't have the same fuel pump limitations.
        where did i say it was NECCESSARY.. i just said it was superior, long term. not for outright numbers, but an overall package.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Some people seem to be implying that. People, if it was a high performance technology we wouldn't be waiting until 2013 to see it on an M3. We are seeing it because of emissions standards not because of a horsepower war. Same reason we are seeing turbos. Seriously, what's so hard to understand here?
        fortunately, turbos used for emissions DOES also mean performance ;D

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I really don't know the exact details but what I can tell you is the commonality between the fuel issues is that the motors are direct injected. See my point?
        there would have been issues at the start of PI too... that's not to say, just like that, DI issues aren't impossible to overcome, or not worthwhile overcoming.

        yeah i understand the comparison, but they ARE very very different DI types (HPFP wise)

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Of course not. So how is it still baby tech then if it isn't the same psi as in the 50's? Clearly that defense can't be used and isn't applicable. It isn't baby tech. It has design limitations.
        it IS baby tech.. this type of HPFP, these injectors.. yeah they may have been injecting directly into the cylinders decades ago, but it's like saying the first car is similar to the current car because it has an engine and wheels?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I can say power or hp and I'm still saying torque as that is exactly what power is. It's torque x rpm / 5252 the same equation everybody knows so not sure why you are even bringing something so trivial up as they are a function of each other.

        There aren't thousands of 700+ whp N54's on the track that is the train of thought and should be clear. Would you trust a block with more material or less material at higher stress levels in a higher stress environment? It's common sense.

        Maybe the N54 block can even take 1000 whp. Will it be for 5 minutes or 5 years?
        indeed.. and the torque levels to break 700whp are normal already for the, and have been FAR exceeded.

        why do you assume they plan on racing the S55 at 700whp+? i'm not sure where you're coming from

        and the last statement? depends on so many other factors than 'it will last x time at x power'.. i'd say somewhere more than 5mins, somewhere less than 5yrs Click here to enlarge



        don't get me wrong i'm VERY happy with the S55's specs.. .slightly confused... but happy haha
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        where did i say it was NECCESSARY.. i just said it was superior, long term. not for outright numbers, but an overall package.
        It isn't superior. So there.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        fortunately, turbos used for emissions DOES also mean performance ;D
        All it means is easier performance from the factory setup not better performance. A turbo S65 or S54 will dump all over this. And I mean a big nasty fat dump.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        there would have been issues at the start of PI too... that's not to say, just like that, DI issues aren't impossible to overcome, or not worthwhile overcoming.

        yeah i understand the comparison, but they ARE very very different DI types (HPFP wise)
        Sure different pump setups and whatnot but the common theme for direct injected motors and tuning is fuel issues. I mean what do I know I just happen to write about them all the time.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        it IS baby tech.. this type of HPFP, these injectors.. yeah they may have been injecting directly into the cylinders decades ago, but it's like saying the first car is similar to the current car because it has an engine and wheels?
        No, it's a baby excuse. It's been around since the 50's. Period. Can't argue it. Fuel injection really started replacing carburetors when? You can't use the timeline argument on this one. You have to acknowledge direct injection weaknesses in high performance applications. Acting like it's all sunshine and rainbows is ignorant.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        indeed.. and the torque levels to break 700whp are normal already for the, and have been FAR exceeded.

        why do you assume they plan on racing the S55 at 700whp+? i'm not sure where you're coming from

        and the last statement? depends on so many other factors than 'it will last x time at x power'.. i'd say somewhere more than 5mins, somewhere less than 5yrs
        I don't know if they plan on racing the S55 but considering the design it sure seems it has a better chance of doing so than the N54/N55 wouldn't you agree? A race car engine doesn't need high hp to see high stress that is often why their longevity is rated in hours and at RPM.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        don't get me wrong i'm VERY happy with the S55's specs.. .slightly confused... but happy haha
        I'm happy with the specs as well. What is confusing?
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        It isn't superior. So there.
        not for raw numbers... but that's one out of several factors

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        All it means is easier performance from the factory setup not better performance. A turbo S65 or S54 will dump all over this. And I mean a big nasty fat dump.
        why would a turbo S54 dump all over the S55? absolutely zero reason for it to be superior in any way (not counting the added displacement)

        S65 just has the capacity and revs Click here to enlarge

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Sure different pump setups and whatnot but the common theme for direct injected motors and tuning is fuel issues. I mean what do I know I just happen to write about them all the time.
        fair enough... apples to oranges comparing N54 DI to VAG DI, but fair enough

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        No, it's a baby excuse. It's been around since the 50's. Period. Can't argue it. Fuel injection really started replacing carburetors when? You can't use the timeline argument on this one. You have to acknowledge direct injection weaknesses in high performance applications. Acting like it's all sunshine and rainbows is ignorant.
        you may as well compare that DI to todays PI, for all it relates to todays DI.

        there's no weakness, there's limitation.. you think that PI motors STARTED with the ability to easily break 1000whp? no, no they did not.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I don't know if they plan on racing the S55 but considering the design it sure seems it has a better chance of doing so than the N54/N55 wouldn't you agree? A race car engine doesn't need high hp to see high stress that is often why their longevity is rated in hours and at RPM.
        i can't see why they won't race it, but no, i can't really see anything that makes it superior to the N54 for racing, unless you mean high-end timeattack stuff pushing 1000whp+ lap after lap with the stock block.. or something?.. or the fact the stock cooling setup shouldn't suck ass lol.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm happy with the specs as well. What is confusing?
        what i've been posting about, exactly why they chose closed deck other than 'because ///m division'... which would totally make sense, as their last hold on 'noooo noott effiicnenncyyy !111'
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        not for raw numbers... but that's one out of several factors
        Kind of a big one when it comes to... um, power right?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        why would a turbo S54 dump all over the S55? absolutely zero reason for it to be superior in any way (not counting the added displacement)
        Here's reasons just off the top of my head for its superiority:

        1. Higher redline.
        2. Stronger block material.
        3. Stronger cylinder walls.
        4. Higher volumetric efficiency.
        5. Higher torque per liter due to stroke design.
        6. Easier DME to tune.
        7. Advantage of being on the market longer.

        That's 7 just off the top of my head. You said zero. Well, it seems one of us is wrong and I wonder which one it is. I'm scoring it 7-0 in my favor.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        S65 just has the capacity and revs
        Yep. EXACTLY. Capacity and revs... so it will ALWAYS win.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        fair enough... apples to oranges comparing N54 DI to VAG DI, but fair enough
        Yep.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        you may as well compare that DI to todays PI, for all it relates to todays DI.

        there's no weakness, there's limitation.. you think that PI motors STARTED with the ability to easily break 1000whp? no, no they did not.
        Click here to enlarge

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        i can't see why they won't race it, but no, i can't really see anything that makes it superior to the N54 for racing, unless you mean high-end timeattack stuff pushing 1000whp+ lap after lap with the stock block.. or something?.. or the fact the stock cooling setup shouldn't suck ass lol.
        I see a top end that makes it superior at least as far as how it can be geared and a block that can withstand further abuse in a racing environment. If BMW engineers did not believe this was the case why do the motors they race have closed deck blocks?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        what i've been posting about, exactly why they chose closed deck other than 'because ///m division'... which would totally make sense, as their last hold on 'noooo noott effiicnenncyyy !111'
        I hate to put it so bluntly because it gets N54 guys panties in a twist but they chose it because it's better. S motors are better engineers. Maybe it will finally sink with some of you that the N54 was a budget motor never intended to be an M motor. Sorry if that's harsh and some of you burst into tears but feel free to hit your monitor or shake your fist in my general direction.
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Kind of a big one when it comes to... um, power right?
        i never said it was INFERIOR.. just CURRENTLY LIMITED ... simple.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Here's reasons just off the top of my head for its superiority:

        1. Higher redline.
        2. Stronger block material.
        3. Stronger cylinder walls.
        4. Higher volumetric efficiency.
        5. Higher torque per liter due to stroke design.
        6. Easier DME to tune.
        7. Advantage of being on the market longer.

        That's 7 just off the top of my head. You said zero. Well, it seems one of us is wrong and I wonder which one it is. I'm scoring it 7-0 in my favor.
        1 - agreed, straight up advantage.. stock, non turbo (or with massive turbo).. and the capacity

        the others? doesn't mean that REAL WORLD it's a superior platform.. and even the revs, there's nothing physically stopping a modified S55 revving as high.

        2+3, can't tell that it's actually a real world ADVANTAGE

        4 - higher VE than a turbo motor? Click here to enlarge

        5 - i'm not sure how you're getting that?

        6 - uhh i was of the belief that it was a PITA to tune even today, and especially boosted, it's only really JUST become really solid?

        7 - not a design advantage in any way, i should have been more clear.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Yep. EXACTLY. Capacity and revs... so it will ALWAYS win.
        sooo... 2.5-3.2 straight 6 turbo's vs boosted S65... don't have a history of making more power?

        heck, same motor, compare to a boosted LS3 and which engines have a history for making more power?

        .... except this is a limitation that can be overcome, not a weakness as such

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I see a top end that makes it superior at least as far as how it can be geared and a block that can withstand further abuse in a racing environment. If BMW engineers did not believe this was the case why do the motors they race have closed deck blocks?
        because it takes a lot less engineering to go 'eh, more material' (then a fair bit more to go which material and which design, don't take me wrong i'm not saying it's not 10/10ths engineered lol) - they may have just lucked out with their 'performance efficiently' N54.. it's likely they never intended it to be even a fraction as strong as it is.

        heck, most open deck blocks that are used for performance don't die due to deck type.. take subie EJ motors, they die due to weak internals and poor tuning 99% of the time. (which just happens to take the block WITH IT)

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I hate to put it so bluntly because it gets N54 guys panties in a twist but they chose it because it's better. S motors are better engineers. Maybe it will finally sink with some of you that the N54 was a budget motor never intended to be an M motor. Sorry if that's harsh and some of you burst into tears but feel free to hit your monitor or shake your fist in my general direction.
        oh yes, totally agree the N54 has likely exceeded all design specifications

        but you're 's motor' fan-boying pretty hard right now

        there is nothing REASONABLY real world that's superior in their design choice?.. sure, it may be able to hit a few hundred hp more in block strength alone, but realistically, that's not real world.. the people even wanting to PUSH the N54 to 1000whp are likely counted on one hand almost hah (though the people wanting to follow suit would be quite a few hands on top of that haha)... yeah the people wanting to push their expensive M3 to as far as it goes could be higher.. but then again, look at the S65.. sticky, you're literally THE ONLY GUY (that is publically known) really seriously pushing their E9x M3 to it's limits and beyond.

        there's nothing TO sink in.. if you don't think having a perfectly streetable car at the powers the N54 has already made, and will likely be able to make, is somehow inferior to.. well, just about anything... that's funny.

        i'm not disagreeing that the S55 is arbitrarily superior to the N54 in some ways (and hopefully directly in others.. better DI system, better cooling etc.), but trying to say the N54 isn't an awesome motor, purely because it's not 's' labelled? that's ridiculous.

        the F80's, however, engine aside, are through and through 100% superior in every way chassis and suspension wise.. as well as the transmissions logically being stronger (hopefully the DCT is pretty beastly stock)
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        i never said it was INFERIOR.. just CURRENTLY LIMITED ... simple.
        I'm going to go with inferior. Sorry, port injection dominates the highest performance end landscapes today. Fact.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        1 - agreed, straight up advantage.. stock, non turbo (or with massive turbo).. and the capacity

        the others? doesn't mean that REAL WORLD it's a superior platform.. and even the revs, there's nothing physically stopping a modified S55 revving as high.

        2+3, can't tell that it's actually a real world ADVANTAGE

        4 - higher VE than a turbo motor?

        5 - i'm not sure how you're getting that?

        6 - uhh i was of the belief that it was a PITA to tune even today, and especially boosted, it's only really JUST become really solid?

        7 - not a design advantage in any way, i should have been more clear.
        So people call the N52 the 2JZ of the German world yet the S54 being far closer to it gets dismissed despite that being the real world reality? Oh you N54 guys.

        Stronger block and material isn't a real world advantage? Ask me if I'd like to have an iron block in this real world.

        Add turbos to the motor without higher NA VE and what do you get?

        Look at the bore x stroke ratio of the S54.

        Yes it's finally being tuned on the stock DME not that you need the stock DME. It's harder to get a turbo working but the DME won't have the same protections or encryptions as the new M3. Don't believe me? Take a look at the F30 N55 tuning some time.

        It was designed earlier hey that's an advantage one way or another whether it applies to what you meant or not it's reality.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        sooo... 2.5-3.2 straight 6 turbo's vs boosted S65... don't have a history of making more power?
        I don't know what your'e saying here.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        .... except this is a limitation that can be overcome, not a weakness as such
        The design limitation of the direct injection fuel delivery window can never be overcome. It's part of the design.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        heck, most open deck blocks that are used for performance don't die due to deck type.. take subie EJ motors, they die due to weak internals and poor tuning 99% of the time. (which just happens to take the block WITH IT)
        From hands on experience with my friends turbo upgraded Subi in the high 400 whp range he needed reinforcement and lost his stock motor. Glory pulls are not reality.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        oh yes, totally agree the N54 has likely exceeded all design specifications
        I'm not saying exceeded. It simply adds power by virtue of being forced induction from the factory not because it was designed to be an excellent BMW power adding powerplant. It's a by product of factory forced induction, that's it.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        but you're 's motor' fan-boying pretty hard right now
        BMW agreeing with me is me being a fanboy? Maybe BMW M and I just agree on certain design principles?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        there is nothing REASONABLY real world that's superior in their design choice?
        How anyone can say this about a closed deck and a higher redline (likely flatter torque curve as well) as not being real world superiority I have no clue. I really don't. It's blatantly superior.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        if you don't think having a perfectly streetable car at the powers the N54 has already made, and will likely be able to make, is somehow inferior to.. well, just about anything... that's funny.
        I'm making more power than an N54 ever has made and I'm barely getting warmed up. There's one direct real world example of its inferiority due partially due to the direct injection you praise. That's funny to me.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        i'm not disagreeing that the S55 is arbitrarily superior to the N54 in some ways (and hopefully directly in others.. better DI system, better cooling etc.), but trying to say the N54 isn't an awesome motor, purely because it's not 's' labelled? that's ridiculous.
        The S55 is a better motor than the N54 and N55 by virtue of its top end and block alone.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        the F80's, however, engine aside, are through and through 100% superior in every way chassis and suspension wise.. as well as the transmissions logically being stronger (hopefully the DCT is pretty beastly stock)
        I agree.

        This is the best six cylinder factory turbo motor BMW has ever made IMO. It isn't the best M motor. Not by a long shot.
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm going to go with inferior. Sorry, port injection dominates the highest performance end landscapes today. Fact.
        irellevant to the future.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        So people call the N52 the 2JZ of the German world yet the S54 being far closer to it gets dismissed despite that being the real world reality? Oh you N54 guys.

        Stronger block and material isn't a real world advantage? Ask me if I'd like to have an iron block in this real world.

        Add turbos to the motor without higher NA VE and what do you get?

        Look at the bore x stroke ratio of the S54.

        Yes it's finally being tuned on the stock DME not that you need the stock DME. It's harder to get a turbo working but the DME won't have the same protections or encryptions as the new M3. Don't believe me? Take a look at the F30 N55 tuning some time.

        It was designed earlier hey that's an advantage one way or another whether it applies to what you meant or not it's reality.
        I don’t call it the 2jz of the N54 world at all. It has some parallels, but I agree with your that their design is totally different.
        Add turbos to a high VE NA, and … well specifically the S54, you have a tuning headache with the stock high compression?

        yeah I’m sure the S55 will have a $#@! of an ECU, but with every top tuner in the game working at it… well the N54 was cracked pretty easily lol

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I don't know what your'e saying here.
        You’re saying revs + displacement > all
        You yourself have a 4.0L 8500RPM motor that hasn’t made anywhere near the power of 3.0 <8000rpm motors… or even 2.6 <8500RPM motors.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The design limitation of the direct injection fuel delivery window can never be overcome. It's part of the design.
        that’s not the limitation… have you not read the threads calculating the effective flow rates of the N54’s being somewhere wahaaaay north of 1000cc/min, something like 1400-1600cc/min.
        The injectors themselves are NOT the limitation… injector supply is.



        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        From hands on experience with my friends turbo upgraded Subi in the high 400 whp range he needed reinforcement and lost his stock motor. Glory pulls are not reality.
        yeah, in the high 400whp range, they’re just not gonna last.. they have pretty thin cylinder walls, and high cylinder wall loading.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm not saying exceeded. It simply adds power by virtue of being forced induction from the factory not because it was designed to be an excellent BMW power adding powerplant. It's a by product of factory forced induction, that's it.
        no… I’m saying they designed it to take their 330bhp tune.. they may have gone ‘yeah it’ll take.. 450-500’ or whatever as safety.. it’s hit over 700 AT THE WHEELS.. there’s no way in hell they DESIGNED IT to take that sort of load…. Ok there’s a slight chance, but it’s illogical lol.
        I’m just talking about their initial intent and how and what they engineered it for.


        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        How anyone can say this about a closed deck and a higher redline (likely flatter torque curve as well) as not being real world superiority I have no clue. I really don't. It's blatantly superior.
        superior on paper, technically superior in the real world.. doesn’t mean it’s practically superior. For arguments sake lets say the N54 cracks with 900whp being the safe limit… the S55.. idk, 1100whp, but it takes tens of thousands more to get there anyway
        What’s the advantage?
        And how are you getting flatter torque curve? rob@RB has just come out saying the stock turbos look to be in between N54 stock and N54 hybrid, and quite likely almost maxed out in top-end terms… predictions now stand at the S55 having a similar power curve when pushed to the stock turbo limits, as the N54 (with obviously a little more power due to better head)





        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm making more power than an N54 ever has made and I'm barely getting warmed up. There's one direct real world example of its inferiority due partially due to the direct injection you praise. That's funny to me.
        you’re making 48whp more on a FAR more expensive build.. the N54 is just getting warmed up at that figure too, considering vargas cracked 700 and pulled the pin on even bothering to go further?

        you’re saying ‘inferior’ like it can’t be overcome in one way or another… sure, you might be right.. and if so, well $#@! that sucks Click here to enlarge hahaha

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The S55 is a better motor than the N54 and N55 by virtue of its top end and block alone.
        on paper, yes. And stock, oh hell yes.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I agree.

        This is the best six cylinder factory turbo motor BMW has ever made IMO. It isn't the best M motor. Not by a long shot.
        oh without a doubt.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
        irellevant to the future.
        We'll be driving autonomous electric cars before your 'future' will ever come about it.

        I'll respond to the rest of your stuff later I'm naked and I need to jump in the shower.
      1. ezec63's Avatar
        ezec63 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        This is a very good post and I'd make many of the same points. I wouldn't be able to have this discussion on MBWorld as if I pointed out any of the things I did AMG fanboy's heads would start exploding and I'd get banned for not pledging allegiance to the correct cult in the correct spot.

        The thing the P31 established though is that Mercedes did not just do a software change but internal hardware changes to the M156 to match the M159 forged internals. I was pleasantly surprised with the quality of that package which firmly placed the C63 ahead of the M3 performance wise essentially overcoming the revs, curb weight, and DCT. They just out-muscled it. BMW stood pat and acted like the P31 package didn't exist. Instead they released a competition edition that added spoilers and different paint colors so you could look like you were faster.

        The P31 is the limit of what could be done as you can't change a W204 chassis into the SLS chassis. Of course, the SLS should always have the advantage considering price and positioning. The DCT by itself ensures that along with the curb weight.

        The displacement advantage isn't as hard to make up as people think. The S54 is evidence of this and the S65 as well but that is only with forced induction. Once you take these motors and add some boost their hard earned gains in naturally aspirated form sparkle. It's the same thing that happens to a Gallardo when you add turbos. If the motor didn't have such good volumetric efficiency and such a high redline to begin with it would not become so potent.

        In naturally aspirated form of course the S65 will never match the M156. Too big of a displacement gap. The M3's weight and DCT help but it's a never ending uphill battle. Yes, I most definitely agree it would take the S85 to match the M156/M159 in naturally aspirated form. From what we have seen the M159 puts out around 530 wheel in the Black Series so the S85 and M159 battle comes down to whomever wants to spend more money eeking out horses. The S85 would need to go to 5.7 liters though but since the S65 and S85 are such short stroke motors to begin with they can increase displacement quite a bit. Takes a bunch of money though.

        The ace up MB's sleeve is Black Series. BMW has no answer although it may be coming. If Mercedes does a Black Series version of the C63 again it's game over. They can do 600 horsepower, 200 pounds less weight, sharper handling, etc., and knock the M3/M4 the F out.

        It's going to be fun especially once the next gen RS4/RS5 get in the mix with their turbo V6 powerplants which will be previewed in the Macan.
        Thanks glad we can have an informative conversation without any fan boyism or Nazi moderators thats why I come here for tech discussions I go to MBworld to see correct wheel offset threads for the 178th time.

        Absolutely the P31 was a big step for AMG they went above and beyond what people were expecting to not only increase power through a tune that any 3rd party tuner could do but also implementing stronger/lighter hardware from their AMG Flagship car. The pre 2012 c63 was really no match for the m3 its handling and body control was way off and without the P31 and MCT trans the straight line edge was taken away by the DCT m3 while getting raped in the handling department. They saw what was happening and totally transformed the suspension + adding alot of negative camber and tightened the chassis up significantly with the introduction of the C63 Coupe. The MCT while no DCT was a huge upgrade over the 7G torque converter and gave the car the trans it always deserved to shine. They even changed bushings in the suspension, control arms, anti roll bar thickness as well as everything you described about the P31 package. Thats what separated AMG for me and why I decided to go with the c63 coupe over the E92 M3 they were willing to always keep up and surpass competition.

        *The only thing that really pisses me off about my c63 coupe is the pano roof. I mean AMG nailed the engine, trans, chassis etc and decides to throw on a lead roof on the highest point of the car to upset the center of gravity

        Forced induction is a totally different field and once we start talking built internals and all that we are on a different level. The M156 also takes very kindly to F/I look at weistec i believe theyre basic stage 3 kit on stock trans and internals runs at 7psi and puts down 670 whp on 93 octane. A fact most people dont know (I know you do) is that the M156 even at 6.2L and closed deck (like s65) weighs slightly less than the s65. Point is M156, s65, s85 etc are some of the greatest engines ever made and F/I will only juice them up.

        Havent heard about the TT V6 in the future RS4/5 do you have any information on it? This is a great era of cars its awesome to have all these options but RS with quattro is out of the equation. This new M4 is getting better and better the more I look into it 3300 pounds 7 speed DCT and a factory twin turbo motor with closed deck hmmmm
      1. Flinchy's Avatar
        Flinchy -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        We'll be driving autonomous electric cars before your 'future' will ever come about it.

        I'll respond to the rest of your stuff later I'm naked and I need to jump in the shower.
        hah, sadly you're probably right Click here to enlarge

        though i'd hope they just move to LPG/hydrogen/Ethanol fuels Click here to enlarge

        oh thank god, it was getting so long, i saw the reply and went 'noooo why so fast'
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ezec63 Click here to enlarge
        Havent heard about the TT V6 in the future RS4/5 do you have any information on it?
        You guys should know by now there is little I miss: http://www.audiboost.com/content.php...n-single-turbo

        Disregard the single turbo part, it will likely be twin and this same motor: http://porscheboost.com/content.php?...-Press-Release
      1. ezec63's Avatar
        ezec63 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You guys should know by now there is little I miss: http://www.audiboost.com/content.php...n-single-turbo

        Disregard the single turbo part, it will likely be twin and this same motor: http://porscheboost.com/content.php?...-Press-Release
        Good stuff bro your the human archive ! To bad its AWD :-/

        How some people still dont understand Closed Deck is way superior to open deck especially on a F/I car that will be highly modified by a large part of the consumers is beyond me.
      1. Nugs's Avatar
        Nugs -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge

        Class is marketing? Seems to me the McLaren is in a over $200k+ sports car class so you are comparing it to what? Everything out there? That doesn't make any sense it should be compared to other cars in that class which the Porsche 911 Turbo is simply not in. The 458 Italia and Gallardo would be more in that class don't you think?
        Kind of OT but over here a
        • 911 Turbo S starts at $478k (non S is $393)
        • MP4-12C starts at $398k.
        • 458 starts at $525k
        • Gallardo LP550-2 starts $410k

        McLaren really is the bargain supercar.

        And you are all failing to mention the most important downside of DI, it sounds like a diesel when idling Click here to enlarge