[Year's_End]

That's my guess, Efficient Dynamics.^

There's so much tech packed into M's V10...it's ridiculous.

[Ryan@Motorwerks]

^ I don't really understand. Why is forced induction off limits and things like say....fuel injection or more than 2 valves to a cylinder aren't. I'm interested to see why you draw this line.

[Year's_End]

It's not that, it's all the valve timing tech and the ecu and all that other tech stuff.

[Ryan@Motorwerks]

^ I meant that for t bone

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

It's not that, it's all the valve timing tech and the ecu and all that other tech stuff.

The N54 is such a standout in FI engines, it is crazy. It has the same fuel economy as my old E36 M3 with 25% more power.

It regulates cylinder head temperature to enhance fuel economy.
DI
clutched and electric accessories

The N54 is actually a much more complex engine than the V10 or V8.....

Look for the next generation ///M engines to adopt and enhance many of the technologies we see in the N54.

Hell look at the N64....this will win next year.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by 335e90

^ I don't really understand. Why is forced induction off limits and things like say....fuel injection or more than 2 valves to a cylinder aren't. I'm interested to see why you draw this line.

You need to look at this as an engineering competition. The main differentiation for this contest is displacement. The more power per given quantity of displacement, the better the engineering. How can engineers make an engine of a given displacement breathe better and produce power? This is the contest.

When you throw displacement in there like the American V8's, they are still using push rods and using displacement to increase power. Forced induction is just a way to effectively increase displacement to increase power.....crude.

Remember there are tax rules outside the US that tax and restrict displacement.

The N54 didn't win because it was turbo charged, it won for all the other innovations that engine brought.

[hks786]

I do agree that BMW's V10 is absolutely amazing. It is high revving (8250rpm) and achieves 100hp/l. It also has lots of other tech stuff...

However, that doesn't mean Audi's V10TT in "inferior". As I said, if we're going to talk about revs, then look at the rev range that Audi's max tq can be achieved at. (1500-6250rpm).

Regarding hp/l, I dont think the Audi is puting out 580bhp, I think it is around 600bhp based on what I've heard. However, even if we go with the official numbers, 116hp/l is still respectable. BMW's official figures for their 3.0TT is 100hp/l and for their 4.4TT V8 in the new X6 is 90hp/l. Saleen's V8TT is 7l and it achieves 107hp/l and the Veyron achieves 125hp/l.

Audi's V10TT also comes with FSI tech etc. and as I said if we're going to talk about engine finesse, just look at some of the comments on it such as Tiff Needels

As as I said, I think it really depends on what you're looking for. Let's not forget nothing can change the fact that Audi has produced a more powerful engine than BMW's V10 yet it is still more economical. In the real world, that might count for a lot more

[footie]

hkz786,

You are fighting a losing battle, TB has his opinions and you have yours. I agree with 99% of what you are saying, the RS6 engine regardless of the fact it's turbocharged is a masterpiece of the highest order, what it's achieving is credible, the power and torque is better than anything else and yet it didn't get the recognition for it. In comparison the 997tt engine isn't in the same class.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by hks786

I do agree that BMW's V10 is absolutely amazing. It is high revving (8250rpm) and achieves 100hp/l. It also has lots of other tech stuff...

However, that doesn't mean Audi's V10TT in "inferior". As I said, if we're going to talk about revs, then look at the rev range that Audi's max tq can be achieved at. (1500-6250rpm).

Regarding hp/l, I dont think the Audi is puting out 580bhp, I think it is around 600bhp based on what I've heard. However, even if we go with the official numbers, 116hp/l is still respectable. BMW's official figures for their 3.0TT is 100hp/l and for their 4.4TT V8 in the new X6 is 90hp/l. Saleen's V8TT is 7l and it achieves 107hp/l and the Veyron achieves 125hp/l.

Audi's V10TT also comes with FSI tech etc. and as I said if we're going to talk about engine finesse, just look at some of the comments on it such as Tiff Needels

As as I said, I think it really depends on what you're looking for. Let's not forget nothing can change the fact that Audi has produced a more powerful engine than BMW's V10 yet it is still more economical. In the real world, that might count for a lot more

I think you are missing the point..... Audi can't achieve the 580 hp without turbo charging which is generally not as view as elegantly as atmospheric engines.

BMW could build a nitro-methane top fuel engine but what's the point.

Fact is Audi's V10 TT is way inferior to the BMW V10 in terms of technology. Don't confuse that with output.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by T Bone

I think you are missing the point..... Audi can't achieve the 580 hp without turbo charging which is generally not as view as elegantly as atmospheric engines.

BMW could build a nitro-methane top fuel engine but what's the point.

Fact is Audi's V10 TT is way inferior to the BMW V10 in terms of technology. Don't confuse that with output.

I think Audi have proven a long time ago that they could produce great engines. Consider the RS4 engine:

4.2l V8
revs to 8250rpm
420bhp (100hp/l)
430Nm of tq availible between 2250-7600rpm.

Based on that, Audi have hit the 100hp/l similar to BMW's V10. If Audi wanted to hit 580bhp, believe me they could do that without turbo-charging. Granted, the engine might exceed 5.0l in displacement, but with tuning it wouldnt exactly need to be a 6.0l. So when you say Audi NEED to use turbo-charging. I dont agree.

Also, look at their efforts with the new 6.0 V12 TDi, I already said in another thread it hits 500bhp and has 1000Nm of tq. The Veyron achieves 1250Nm from a 8.0 W16 Quad-turbocharged unit. They arent really comparable though since they Veyron hits 1000bhp. It's just to give you an idea of what Audi's efforts are.

I think if we were to study every single detail, maybe BMW's V10 would be more favourable in terms of technology. I admit I am no engineer, but if you were to ask most people I can assure you they would praise Audi's efforts of producing a more powerful engine that is more economical. As to what engine you would want though, it depends if you want a screamer that hits 8250rpm or if you want something with more tq across a hugeee rpm range. etc.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by footie

hkz786,

You are fighting a losing battle, TB has his opinions and you have yours. I agree with 99% of what you are saying, the RS6 engine regardless of the fact it's turbocharged is a masterpiece of the highest order, what it's achieving is credible, the power and torque is better than anything else and yet it didn't get the recognition for it. In comparison the 997tt engine isn't in the same class.

True lol. Let's leave it at that. It's better to see people with different opinions anyway. What would the world be if we all thought the same about everything.

[footie]

Originally Posted by T Bone

I think you are missing the point..... Audi can't achieve the 580 hp without turbo charging which is generally not as view as elegantly as atmospheric engines

Fact is Audi's V10 TT is way inferior to the BMW V10 in terms of technology. Don't confuse that with output.

TB, if you really believe that to be the case then you are so wrong it's laughable.

It's not rocket science to build a high revving N/A engine, heck man has been doing it for the best part of 70 years. Turbo charging and other forms of forced induction are a very fine science now, especially to make the engine behave as there was no turbo there at all and deliver on both economy and emissions. To think of the RS6 engine as inferior to the BMW v10 is so laughable.

Thanks, you really made me smile today.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

TB, if you really believe that to be the case then you are so wrong it's laughable.

It's not rocket science to build a high revving N/A engine, heck man has been doing it for the best part of 70 years. Turbo charging and other forms of forced induction are a very fine science now, especially to make the engine behave as there was no turbo there at all and deliver on both economy and emissions. To think of the RS6 engine as inferior to the BMW v10 is so laughable.

Thanks, you really made me smile today.

I know you like Volkswagen and they make great 1.5 liter engines.

People think normally aspirated big displacement engines are "easy".....throwing on a couple of snails is easy.

The RS4 engine is a really good engine. Too bad it is attached to a useless drivetrain.

The V10TT is a joke. 580 hp from a big V10 with 2 turbos?? Not only is the output sad but it is inelegant Why doesn't Audi copy GM or AMG and just use a 8.0 liter engine to get 600 hp and call it a day....saves them alot of R&D and which they can use to perfect the 911

[hks786]

Originally Posted by T Bone

I know you like Volkswagen and they make great 1.5 liter engines.

People think normally aspirated big displacement engines are "easy".....throwing on a couple of snails is easy.

The RS4 engine is a really good engine. Too bad it is attached to a useless drivetrain.

The V10TT is a joke. 580 hp from a big V10 with 2 turbos?? Not only is the output sad but it is inelegant Why doesn't Audi copy GM or AMG and just use a 8.0 liter engine to get 600 hp and call it a day....saves them alot of R&D and which they can use to perfect the 911

Well to be fair, I've already shown that the output isnt as bad as you think:


BMW X6 4.4 V8TT = 96hp/l
BMW 335i 3.0 I6TT = 100hp/l
Saleen S7 7.0 V8TT = 107hp/l
Audi RS6 5.0 V10TT = 116hp/l
Bugatti Veyron 8.0 W16TTTT = 125hp/l

Then you start to get some insane cars that can achieve ~150hp/l.

Also, we cannot ignore the fact that it's engine is more economical than it's rivals engines and we cannot ignore that cars are under-rated. Think of the GT-R, 335i, and is it so hard to believe the RS6 is under-rated? I've heard from great sources it is actually producing around the 600 mark.

[footie]

If you are talking hp/l you have to give the GTR a mention, it's 3.8L is in reality producing closer to 550hp, now that way more impressive than the RS6 but then again the two cars are playing to different roles. The RS6 maybe producing closer to the 600hp mark but I reckon it's true potential would be way higher than that, like 700hp or even more.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by footie

If you are talking hp/l you have to give the GTR a mention, it's 3.8L is in reality producing closer to 550hp, now that way more impressive than the RS6 but then again the two cars are playing to different roles. The RS6 maybe producing closer to the 600hp mark but I reckon it's true potential would be way higher than that, like 700hp or even more.

I had a great source once who confirmed pretty much everything about the RS6 right down to the Ur-quattro style wheel arches. He said that there is a small posibility of a RS6 Plus which could have something like 650bhp. I cant remember any specifics but he made it clear that the RS6 is producing more than 580bhp and the engine still has lots of potential

I was going to mention the GT-R too. I just couldnt be bothered typing it out, but I did try to give an idea of the spectrum and quite clearly even 580bhp from Audi's new V10 is not ridiculous at all.

Oh yeah and you are right about them being different types of cars. When I said some cars have in the region of 150hp/l, I was reffering to things like the Chrysler ME-412 Concept and Noble M15 etc. I think if you look at the hp/l for the RS6 in the "spectrum", I think it fits in quite nicely for the under-rated figures of 580bhp. Everything above it is supercar material

[dagjohnsen]

the Nissan GT-R does not produce 550 hp. More like 490, a tad more than the 911tt, look at the dynos.

[footie]

Originally Posted by T Bone

The V10TT is a joke. 580 hp from a big V10 with 2 turbos?? Not only is the output sad but it is inelegant

Originally Posted by World Car Fans website

Still two years away, the next generation 2011 BMW M5 development is well underway and will arrive a year after the regular 5-series. Now Brits over at autocar have uncovered the Germans are working on a successor to the 507hp 5.0-liter V10 which has won countless awards including the engine of the year in 2005 & 2006 and has just been awarded the Engine of the year in the above 4-liter category for 2008.

The New 5.5-liter V10 will see power rise to 550hp and will be mated to BMW's new seven-speed M DCT doube-clutch transmission or the six-speed manual gearbox. To combat the extra displacement's effect on emissions and fuel economy, the new engine will likely get a direct injection turbo-charged unit and BMW's stop-start technology which automatically switches the engine off when it is not being used such as when the car is stopped in traffic.

The 2011 M5 will also benefit from an intelligent alternator control system which monitors the battery and makes use of energy that is usually wasted with its regenerative braking. The new technology increases the vehicle's power and fuel economy without sacrificing performance.

The picture above shows a protoype for the new BMW M5 caught testing last year when WCF exclusively uncovered the new engine will get twin-turbos.

TB, this is what is wrong with most of your comments, you don't read enough because if you had have you would have knew that BMW were developing their own V10TT and the reason for this is to reduce emissions and improve economy (sound familiar). Oh yeah and notice how it's output was less than the RS6 from a bigger capacity, whether that final figure proves to be correct isn't important, the fact is that times are changing and all manufacturers have to be seen as being green which includes their ultra-performance models.

Basically what I am trying to say is that you have a gift of putting your foot in your mouth on a regular bases.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

TB, this is what is wrong with most of your comments, you don't read enough because if you had have you would have knew that BMW were developing their own V10TT and the reason for this is to reduce emissions and improve economy (sound familiar). Oh yeah and notice how it's output was less than the RS6 from a bigger capacity, whether that final figure proves to be correct isn't important, the fact is that times are changing and all manufacturers have to be seen as being green which includes their ultra-performance models.

Basically what I am trying to say is that you have a gift of putting your foot in your mouth on a regular bases.

You're basically an idiot but likable idiot. I cast my vote on what the next M5 will feature and I will be right or wrong in a few years. My theory is simple BMW ///M will follow F1. If F1 goes turbo, BMW will go turbo but I am betting on KER.

Where's your theory and analysis? Other than Audi doesn't suck and Quattro cures cancer?

You are using rumors as a source of authority

[BlackSapphireZ]

BMW engines > others mine's only a m54 2.5l and its superb quality and performance is absolutely amazing

[footie]

Originally Posted by T Bone

You're basically an idiot but likable idiot. I cast my vote on what the next M5 will feature and I will be right or wrong in a few years. My theory is simple BMW ///M will follow F1. If F1 goes turbo, BMW will go turbo but I am betting on KER.

Where's your theory and analysis? Other than Audi doesn't suck and Quattro cures cancer?

You are using rumors as a source of authority

TB,

Is that the best reply you could come up with.

Lame...............very lame.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

TB,

Is that the best reply you could come up with.

Lame...............very lame.

You quote rumors as facts to make your argument. You criticize without offering an opinion with some supporting fact instead of wishful thinking. You have the technical knowledge of a 6 year of girl. This is lame.

But you are a mate