F30 M3 testing

[ForcedFirebird]

http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/09/29/spy-video-2014-bmw-m3-sedan-with-v6-biturbo-engine/

Holy crap, they are testing a v6 and it's 3.5l.

[Massimo]

http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/09/29/sp...iturbo-engine/

Holy crap, they are testing a v6 and it's 3.5l.

Well we can expect anywhere from 330kw at 7000rpm to 370kw at 8000rpm

[ForcedFirebird]

Well we can expect anywhere from 330kw at 7000rpm to 370kw at 8000rpm

Should be no problem. I did a turbo job on a Chevy Corsica a few years ago and the trans blew up on the dyno. v6 with a t3/t4 Garret made 350-ish WHP when the trans let go and that was only at 4k-ish (6.8k rev limiter). Hell, the new Chevy 3.6dohc is making over 300hp N/A.

The thing is, I would gather they are using the v8 with 2cyls lopped off, but in reality a v6 should be at a 60 degree bank angle as the 60 degree motor is closer to being naturally balanced than a 90 degree. A 90 degree engine will either be rough or require a balance shaft, specially if paired cylinders are on the same crank dowel (odd fire). The 4.3l GM converted to even fire, but because the bank angle vs firing degree the crank pins had to be weird and break easy.

[FredK]

They should just go balls to the wall and go TT V8. :)

yup.

I wonder if they've learned anything about valley pan gaskets...

[walktheboard]

praying for s54 based turbo

[VinniE30]

I don't know any objective, non-retard that despises turbocharged engines. They increase the efficiency of an engine, don't add a ton of weight, and are just plain better all-around than a naturally aspirated engine.

I don't despise them, but I would prefer a NA engine with the same HP(comparing apples to apples), which BMW has in the past done a great job at.

Turbos definitely have their advantages and I agree with most of what you said... except for this:
"are just plain better all-around than a naturally aspirated engine."

That's certainly not true.

A NA engine has less to go wrong and have on average been more reliable. NA engines are usually better for the track in several ways.
NA has lower engine temps.
With NA you don't have to worry about killing the turbo running it on full boost for long period of time.
Turbos usually doesn't r3v as high so you can't stay in the same gear as long.
Increase in power with rpm is not as linear.
With NA there is less to worry about and generally more reliable.

And that's not even getting into the subjective reasons such as power delivery, throttle response, and sound.

Just look at the S54 vs the N54 (or the 1m version of it) for example.
Both around the same HP so pretty even comparison in that regard.
The S54 is a better engine for the track.

The weight can be a tossup, a lot of times with the added weight of turbo components vs the extra size or strengthening needed for a NA engine of the same HP, it comes out to be around the same.

[dnick]

I don't despise them, but I would prefer a NA engine with the same HP(comparing apples to apples), which BMW has in the past done a great job at.

Turbos definitely have their advantages and I agree with most of what you said... except for this:
"are just plain better all-around than a naturally aspirated engine."

That's certainly not true.

A NA engine has less to go wrong and have on average been more reliable. NA engines are usually better for the track in several ways.
NA has lower engine temps.
With NA you don't have to worry about killing the turbo running it on full boost for long period of time.
Turbos usually doesn't r3v as high so you can't stay in the same gear as long.
Increase in power with rpm is not as linear.
With NA there is less to worry about and generally more reliable.

And that's not even getting into the subjective reasons such as power delivery, throttle response, and sound.

Just look at the S54 vs the N54 (or the 1m version of it) for example.
Both around the same HP so pretty even comparison in that regard.
The S54 is a better engine for the track.

The weight can be a tossup, a lot of times with the added weight of turbo components vs the extra size or strengthening needed for a NA engine of the same HP, it comes out to be around the same.

VERY well said. i agree. lol

[Vtec?lol]

Hey guis, excuse me...






................. What the fu** is an M4????

[CorvallisBMW]

If they make a V6, I'm going to start a 4th Reich on their asses.

[BMC227]

so ghey.

[CrusherCurtis]

I don't know any objective, non-retard that despises turbocharged engines. They increase the efficiency of an engine, don't add a ton of weight, and are just plain better all-around than a naturally aspirated engine.

Turbo's are great and I don't despise them, but I think that at the end of the day there are still alot of use that just want's a big ole Naturally aspirated engine.

[Thatcher]

awesome

[ForcedFirebird]

awesome

The fact that it's a v6 in the vids, or ?

[325ix]

I don't know any objective, non-retard that despises turbocharged engines. They increase the efficiency of an engine, don't add a ton of weight, and are just plain better all-around than a naturally aspirated engine.

Maybe despise isn't the wrong word but, a lot of BMW people think of an ///M car with turbos as sacrilege if it comes that way from the factory.

[325ix]

Hey guis, excuse me...






................. What the fu** is an M4????

4 door M3? prolly...maybe...