[footie]

Originally Posted by T Bone

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

Much better.

That's the T-Bone of old, if it wasn't for the fact you are so many miles away I would BITCH SLAP YOU.

[ianbiz]

Nothing new but why no AMG powered cars?

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by ianbiz

Nothing new but why no AMG powered cars?

Because they have the engineering and finesse of a push rod V8 from Chevy....

Any monkey can make power from a big displacement engine.

The benchmark is 100 hp / liter. No one can do it in a big displacement (like a 5 liters) except BMW.

The reason why Audi's V10TT doesn't make the mark is they need to use turbocharging.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Because they have the engineering and finesse of a push rod V8 from Chevy....

Any monkey can make power from a big displacement engine.

The benchmark is 100 hp / liter. No one can do it in a big displacement (like a 5 liters) except BMW.

The reason why Audi's V10TT doesn't make the mark is they need to use turbocharging.

C'mon man.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

C'mon man.

I am actually serious. You can hide alot of sloppiness behind displacement.

The LS7, a great engine, needs 7 liters to make 500 hp.

Just remember these contests are like beauty contests, it looks at very specific things like hp / displacement.

If I wanted to tow a boat, BMW has nothing for me.

[footie]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Because they have the engineering and finesse of a push rod V8 from Chevy....

Any monkey can make power from a big displacement engine.

The benchmark is 100 hp / liter. No one can do it in a big displacement (like a 5 liters) except BMW.

The reason why Audi's V10TT doesn't make the mark is they need to use turbocharging.

What about Ferrari or had you forgot to mention the fact that they have engines producing way more than BMW, and then their is Lamborghini. In fact if I thought about it long enough I could come up with a few more.

TB the reason for Audi choosing to go the TT route was most likely as I said before economy and emissions, the engine was already there in the Lamborghini if they really wanted, a slight increase in capacity and 550hp was there for the taking, but they choice not to because of the reasons I mentioned. Don't think by choosing a different approach means it's an less capable or as advanced.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

What about Ferrari or had you forgot to mention the fact that they have engines producing way more than BMW, and then their is Lamborghini. In fact if I thought about it long enough I could come up with a few more.

TB the reason for Audi choosing to go the TT route was most likely as I said before economy and emissions, the engine was already there in the Lamborghini if they really wanted, a slight increase in capacity and 550hp was there for the taking, but they choice not to because of the reasons I mentioned. Don't think by choosing a different approach means it's an less capable or as advanced.

Yes, I forgot about the Ferrari V12 that powers the 599 GTB....nice motor.

[footie]

To me the 5.0v10 that's used in the M5/6 would be better suited in a car of true performance capabilities. I'm not saying there much wrong with either of them but they are trying to be a luxury saloon in the case of the M5 and a Grand Tourer in the case of the M6, their engine would be best used in a true supercar.

I feel that BMW wanted to design the best N/A engine they could, without think of what kind of car it suited best. If the next M5 does get a larger capacity twin turbo unit then I reckon it will be a much better car for it. The need of a luxury saloon to rev to 8000+rpm is plain silly and having to work the engine that hard to unlock it's true potential is beyond me in this class of a car.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by footie

To me the 5.0v10 that's used in the M5/6 would be better suited in a car of true performance capabilities. I'm not saying there much wrong with either of them but they are trying to be a luxury saloon in the case of the M5 and a Grand Tourer in the case of the M6, their engine would be best used in a true supercar.

I feel that BMW wanted to design the best N/A engine they could, without think of what kind of car it suited best. If the next M5 does get a larger capacity twin turbo unit then I reckon it will be a much better car for it. The need of a luxury saloon to rev to 8000+rpm is plain silly and having to work the engine that hard to unlock it's true potential is beyond me in this class of a car.

BMW doesn't do sportscar (shame) but the V10 is fine for the M5 / M6.... This is the ultimate autobahn stormer. Power in the upper RPM range....

BMW would lose me as a customer if they dumbed down the engine to something that AMG currently does.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Because they have the engineering and finesse of a push rod V8 from Chevy....

Any monkey can make power from a big displacement engine.

The benchmark is 100 hp / liter. No one can do it in a big displacement (like a 5 liters) except BMW.

The reason why Audi's V10TT doesn't make the mark is they need to use turbocharging.

Man, c'mon T Bone

We both know the RS4's engine is a screamer like the M3's. It revs hard to 8250rpm and achieves 100hp/l. Can you not see that if Audi can achieve 100hp/l with a 4.2l engine they could achieve it with 5.0l or greater?

Instead, Audi went with turbo's which means instead of a 5.8l V10 to achieve 580bhp, they achieve it from a 5.0l engine which is a) more powerful and b) more economical than BMW's V10, yet still the same size.

I've also shown against other turbo'd engines where Audi's V10TT sits with hp/l and that's the official figures that are underrated

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

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by hks786

Man, c'mon T Bone

We both know the RS4's engine is a screamer like the M3's. It revs hard to 8250rpm and achieves 100hp/l. Can you not see that if Audi wanted to achieve 500bhp they could do that with a 5.0V10 like the M5?

Instead, Audi went with turbo's which means instead of a 5.8l V10 to achieve 580bhp, they achieve it from a 5.0l engine which is a) more powerful and b) more economical than BMW's V10, yet still the same size.

I've also shown against other turbo'd engines where Audi's V10TT sits with hp/l and that's the official figures that are underrated

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

Let's just disregard BMWs.... I have alot more respect for Audi's 4.2 RS4 engine than their V10 TT.

You cannot compare HP / liter between normally aspirated engines and turbos!

If you really want to normalize the 2 engine types....you need to use the effective displacement of a turbo engine. Using a very rough approxmation:

Effective Displacement = Displacement + (boost in PSI / 14.7 * displacement)

Then divide power over the effective displacement....won't be anywhere near 100 hp / liter.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Let's just disregard BMWs.... I have alot more respect for Audi's 4.2 RS4 engine than their V10 TT.

You cannot compare HP / liter between normally aspirated engines and turbos!

If you really want to normalize the 2 engine types....you need to use the effective displacement of a turbo engine. Using a very rough approxmation:

Effective Displacement = Displacement + (boost in PSI / 14.7 * displacement)

Then divide power over the effective displacement....won't be anywhere near 100 hp / liter.

I did no such thing

Look above. You said:

Originally Posted by T Bone

The benchmark is 100 hp / liter. No one can do it in a big displacement (like a 5 liters) except BMW.

I showed that Audi CAN achieve that in a big engine. They achieved 100hp/l in a 4.2l V8 in the RS4. Why cant they achieve that in a bigger engine?

BUT I went on to say Audi decided to use the turbocharging which means keeping the displacement as a 5.0L which is the SAME SIZE as BMW's V10 yet more powerful and economical.

Also, the figures I gave for hp/l were for other twin-turbo engine, except the Veyron which has 4 turbos. Facts are still facts. I compared Audi's V10TT to other turbocharged engines and it fits right it the middle for hp/l. It's very respectable.

Bottom line: Audi has achieved 100hp/l in big NA engines and over 100hp/l in FI engines. I rest my case

[footie]

I think it's equally as big an achievement to make a turbo engine to not only provide a huge torque range and provide a peak power figure which stretches over 500rpm instead of the normal one rev point that is the usual thing and then make it feel like there is no turbo present at all as it is to make a N/A engine achieve the magical 100hp/L.

In fact I rate both the RS4 and M3 engines better than the M5/6 in that both have a broader torque range than the M5/6 engine which is easier to do with the bigger the capacity.