OMG : E92 BMW M3 V8 Official Engine Specs

[Nethead]

The 5.0 engine is from the Koenigsegg CCGT race car.? The logical comparision would be LS7.R? from the C6.R which makes around 600hp as well.

The fact you had to find a high tuned FI engine tuned by a supercar manufacturer, and also a race engine from that same manufacture to best the mainstream NA street legal LS7, means that the lightness advantage of pushrodders is indeed very much apparent.

Find me a 500+ hp NA street motor made by a mainstream company that weighs less than the LS7, and then maybe you'd have a point

565:  If you look at the total sales of vehicles equipped with LS7s, you'll have to agree that this is hardly "mainstream" by any stretch of the term.  The most popular LS engine found in the Silverados and Sierras is a "mainstream" engine, so that's the weight we should be looking at if we limit ourselves to "mainstream" engines.  But since the LS7 isn't "mainstream" either (After all, is there an LS7 in your vehicle?), there's no justification for excluding the non-mainstream but still totally US-legal engines found in the CCR, the CCX, and the CCXR.  Sure, these engines are powerful and the cars they're in are hugely fast, but that's what's needed in cars that can sustain 241 MPH on 286 cubic inches in verified, certified, street-legal trim.  To be fastidiously fair, the CCR is no longer exported to the US because it has a too-low-for-the-US nose (I believe the CCR became no longer legal when the new pedestrian-friendly front-end regulations went into effect--which is why the CCX was developed).  But it's engines we're talking about here, not the cars they're in...

I didn't pick these cars because they're monster fast--these are the only V8s whose weight I happened to have at hand--the new BMW V8's weight is in the thread already.  The Mustang's 4.6 is quite light, and it's a 3-valve OHC engine--but I don't have the engine weight to hand.  And sure, compare the weight of a LS7-R engine to the weight of the 5.0 Koenigsegg CCGT engine!  Why on Earth not?  If you have the weight of a homologated LS7-R engine, post it in your reply (with a source for the weight).  I only mentioned the naturally-aspirated Koenigsegg 5.0 since it's on page 4 of the sheets I printed off last night, and it's the only N-A Koenigsegg I have any info on.  Luckily, the engine weights in kilograms just happened to be given at the point you were extolling us with the glories of pushrods.  I just thought a few facts might add some veracity to the discussion...

[SJ_GTI]

Whether a engine can be considered mainstream is often up to debate.? In some ways, few engines meant for high performance can be considered mainstream (BMW V10, Chevy LS7, Nissan 3.8VQTT, Audi 4.2 V8, etc)

But what is easier to determine is whether an street engine was made by a mainstream manfacture, or whether it was built entirely by a performance specialized company.? That's why I was careful in my wording to find an engine built by a mainstream manufacture.

The distinction to some might seem moot since mainstream companies have performance divisions and racing departments, but the engines that top the list with high output and small size almost always the result of performance specialized manufactures.

I think the phrase I am looking for here is "distinction without a difference."

The LS7 is purposeful, handbuilt engine for a very limited version of aan already limited (compared to most production cars) sports car. Because its made by "GM" instead of "AMG" doesn't mean much to me.

But hey, to each their own.

[r0tor]

Damn is it bad if my answer is more than 8 (round trip)?

I think about once for the on ramp in 4th gear at about 2000rpm or so that gets me on the connector.? Once again from the connector to 1st highway done in 6th gear.? Once more from the merge to another highway.? And finally one last merge onto the last connector.? ?Once I get onto the highway I just don't leave 6th gear, I'm just too lazy to shift.? And the return trip is just a mirror image.? Since the RPMS are so low in each case WOT isn't accelerating me any faster than traffic anyway.? In fact there are times when I have to shift to 5th just to keep up with traffic, since 6th is sooooo tall.


Its just the opposite, low end torquey engines make the daily commute alot easier.? The more torque you have, the lower RPMS you can commute around with, the looser you can be with your gear selection.? My commute goes like this.? Start off in 1st go to 20mph.? ?Obey the stupid CAGS nanny and shift to 4th, done.

Downshifting becomes an option for anything but the slowest speeds.

my daily commute in heavy traffic goes like this in my torqueless wonder... start in 1st until about 15 mph, shift to 3rd and go to 30 mph, shift to 5th until i hit 40mph, and then hit 6th and stay there

who needs torque?

[565]

The reason why I made a distinction between the hugely expensive CCR engine and the LS7 is because there is a vast difference in price and hence the materials used.

Sure the LS7 uses titanium pushrods and valve stems and other portions of the valvetrain are lightened, but truth be told it's not exactly super high tech stuff.  Most of the materials in the LS7 are pretty conventional.

From http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/engineering.asp?engineering=2

"The CCR engine is made of super lightweight materials, e.g. aerospace specified aluminium alloy, titanium and carbonfibre. The engines are equipped with carbonfibre valve, timing and front covers, which reduce overall weight by about 12 kg. Additionally, all parts of the highly efficient induction type air intake system are made of carbonfibre. It is a complex series of ducts and tanks, organically shaped to maximize the flow of air into the engine. The total weight of the Koenigsegg CCR engine is as low as 215 Kg. "

Look at that just the carbonfibre covers shave 12kg (26.4lbs) over conventional materials,  if those were made of conventionals materials, the engine quickly balloons to 500pounds.  Add in the savings the carbonfibre intake and various other parts, that engine quickly begins to show its true weight.

You can't just look at production numbers as indication of how far removed from the mainstream an engine is.  Otherwise a Honda Insight is kickass car just because it sells in low volume.  Ultimately you have to look at price.  You can buy a LS7 Crate motor from GM for around 12K, thats pretty cheap.

[565]

I think the phrase I am looking for here is "distinction without a difference."

The LS7 is purposeful, handbuilt engine for a very limited version of aan already limited (compared to most production cars) sports car. Because its made by "GM" instead of "AMG" doesn't mean much to me.

But hey, to each their own.

As I stated to Nethead, production numbers don't tell the whole story.  Just because GM doesn't make too many of the LS7's doesn't make it some super expensive exotic effort, it's price of just 12K should be evidence to that.

The distinction lies in what kind of company made the engine.  As you can imagine, engines designed from the ground up to be super high performance engines by dedicated performance specialists will tend to be more suited for performance than engines adapted from lesser engines by a mainstream company with other priorities.

But hey, don't take my word for it.  Just take a look at the list of HP to engine weight ratios I posted up before.  The top of the list is populated by Ferrari,  Porsche, AMG, by engines that are more or less stand alone (ie not modified version of lesser engines).  It's no concidence that they are all from manufactures that don't also make cobalts and impala competitors.

I'm not denying that the LS7 is a limited production specialized engine, but it's not a stand alone design like the forementioned engines, and it's not a money is no object masterpiece like the Koenigsegg  engine either.  Rather, it was built to a budget, it was adapted from the existing LS generation engines, and the fact it's still right up there on the list is a testiment to the inherent weight savings of pushrod design.

[565]

Apparently there are some recorded M3 engine sounds.  Well the only thing I can understand on the page are M3 and V8, so I figure it's right.

http://autotelegraaf.nl/vanonzeredactie/?id=43322


Sound quality of the recording is pretty low, but at least we can establish that it will be a screamer.

[Raza]

They're putting an AMG 6.3 in C-class?  Are they insane?

Why not?  Mercedes stuck the 55 in there.  The 6.3's a revver, and it will compare nicely with this engine and the RS4's.

[sandertheshark]

If you're using more that 300 lb/ft of torque in a 3-series-size passenger car all the time during daily driving then you need to slow down. That's irresponsible.

Damn, you're right.  I'm sorry.


It's just so much fun though.

[sandertheshark]

I think the phrase I am looking for here is "distinction without a difference."

The LS7 is purposeful, handbuilt engine for a very limited version of aan already limited (compared to most production cars) sports car. Because its made by "GM" instead of "AMG" doesn't mean much to me.

But hey, to each their own.

You're kinda right.  There're probably actually more AMG 6.3's on the road than LS7's.  But the LS7 costs GM about $14000 to build.  The AMG motor I'm sure costs more than that.  And there's definitely a lot more technology in there.

[Tave]

Hemi and 565, I appreciate your responses, but you are both missing my point. You're cherry-picking my posts and responding to incidental or unimportant parts of it.

My greater point was that the M3 has more than enough torque for daily driving. If you think otherwise, fine, but the evidence is against it. This M3 makes over 80% of a Mustang GT's peak torque more than 2000 rpm's sooner.

It makes 75% of a C5 Vette's peak torque over 1500 rpm's sooner.

So the idea that this is a "low torque" engine is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous, unless you're willing to consider cars like the Corvette and Mustang GT "low-torque" vehicles as well.









I simply cannot fathom why anyone would think 295 lb/ft insufficient for daily driving.

[MexicoCityM3]

Hemi and 565, I appreciate your responses, but you are both missing my point. You're cherry-picking my posts and responding to incidental or unimportant parts of it.
My greater point was that the M3 has more than enough torque for daily driving. If you think otherwise, fine, but the evidence is against it. This M3 makes over 80% of a Mustang GT's peak torque more than 2000 rpm's sooner.
It makes 75% of a C5 Vette's peak torque over 1500 rpm's sooner.
So the idea that this is a "low torque" engine is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous, unless you're willing to consider cars like the Corvette and Mustang GT "low-torque" vehicles as well.
I simply cannot fathom why anyone would think 295 lb/ft insufficient for daily driving.

What he said. Tave, you are totally right. I have no words to adequately express how stupid I find it to criticize this engine because of its "low torque". OMFG

[Lebowski]

You disagree?

How are you supposed to use all of the available torque of something like the, let's say SL65 AMG, on 40 mph, city roads?

I'm talking about daily commutes. How often are you at WOT on your way to work?

How often do you need 700 lb/ft to push you to the grocery store?

The original point wasn't about how capable the M3's engine is when you open it up, it was that the M3 will somehow be lacking during "daily driving."

In my experience, "daily driving" is relatively calm, and since the BMW has over 250 lb/ft available in its lower rpm range, I think it would be more than capable of even offering up some "spirited daily driving," even when you're not wringing it out.







You can throw all the little smilies at me you want, but if you're honest with yourself, you'll admit that during 90% of driving, you (the average driver) are using a small portion of an engine's power. Most "daily driving" is spent @ about 2500 rpm's with the throttle cracked 1/2 open or less. On massively high-torque engines, the opportunities to fully exploit that engine's capabilities dramatically decreases, especially in everyday driving. Nearly every magazine I've read has said the same thing about recent AMG cars: it's hard to find somewhere where you can get all you can out of them.

??

I gotta admit, that's the longest response to a mere "" I've ever seen.

[Tave]

??

I gotta admit, that's the longest response to a mere "" I've ever seen.

My bad. I took your reply and ran with it.

But you didn't give me much to go on.

Here we are, three pages later, and you still haven't explained why the M3 would be unsuitable to daily driving.

[Lebowski]

My bad. I took your reply and ran with it.

But you didn't give me much to go on.

Here we are, three pages later, and you still haven't explained why the M3 would be unsuitable to daily driving.

I'm not saying it's "unsuitable".? Hell, a Chevy Aveo is "suitable" for daily driving.? However, for ~$60k of my money, I damn well expect something a lot better than "suitable"!

I'm not saying the new V8 isn't a great engine, as I'm sure it is.? And, I'll gladly conced that since none of us have driven the new M3 yet, this is all purely speculation at this point.

All I'm saying is, for daily driving, I like having an engine that pulls at any rpm and in any gear.? That doesn't mean I'm driving like an asshole, burning my tires from stoplight to stoplight.? It does, however, mean that sometimes I'm in 5th gear with a coffee in my right hand (or, as is more likely, I'm just feeling lazy) and I want to have plenty of pull to easily pass someone without downshifting.

High revving engines are great fun on open roads, all I'm saying is that I currently only have the means to own a single car at a time, which means my toy car is also my daily driver, and I prefer a flatter powerband for daily driving.

[SJ_GTI]

Hemi and 565, I appreciate your responses, but you are both missing my point. You're cherry-picking my posts and responding to incidental or unimportant parts of it.

My greater point was that the M3 has more than enough torque for daily driving. If you think otherwise, fine, but the evidence is against it. This M3 makes over 80% of a Mustang GT's peak torque more than 2000 rpm's sooner.

It makes 75% of a C5 Vette's peak torque over 1500 rpm's sooner.

So the idea that this is a "low torque" engine is, in my opinion, completely ridiculous, unless you're willing to consider cars like the Corvette and Mustang GT "low-torque" vehicles as well.

I simply cannot fathom why anyone would think 295 lb/ft insufficient for daily driving.

I think the appropriate phrase here is "strawman."

I don't think anyone claimed a car with 295 lb-ft of torque is insufficient for daily driving, but rather that...given a specific level of power, they would also prefer more torque.

At the same time, this started with a comparison to BMW's 335i. Its essentially the same car, with an engine that makes a bit more torque are every RPM below 6000, which is where most people spend their time. All my point was, and the point I believe the OP was trying to make, was that this V8, while an enthusiasts dream, probably isn't going to feel all that different to an average joe. A C63 AMG is going to feel faster than a C350 at any and all RPm's, whereas you really need to try to get the speed out of an M3's engine (assuminjg the transmission gearing was the same, which I admit it probably wouldn't be).

All that said, I am not even dissing the BMW V8. I think its a fantastic engine, and unlike the other's I would probably take this BMW V8 over a torquier LS2 or Hemi 6.2. It was more meant to be a compliment to the 335i's engine.

[SJ_GTI]

??

I gotta admit, that's the longest response to a mere "" I've ever seen.

Pictures are worth a thousand words...?

[Tave]

I'm not saying it's "unsuitable".? Hell, a Chevy Aveo is "suitable" for daily driving.? However, for ~$60k of my money, I damn well expect something a lot better than "suitable"!

I'm not saying the new V8 isn't a great engine, as I'm sure it is.? And, I'll gladly conced that since none of us have driven the new M3 yet, this is all purely speculation at this point.

All I'm saying is, for daily driving, I like having an engine that pulls at any rpm and in any gear.? That doesn't mean I'm driving like an asshole, burning my tires from stoplight to stoplight.? It does, however, mean that sometimes I'm in 5th gear with a coffee in my right hand (or, as is more likely, I'm just feeling lazy) and I want to have plenty of pull to easily pass someone without downshifting.

High revving engines are great fun on open roads, all I'm saying is that I currently only have the means to own a single car at a time, which means my toy car is also my daily driver, and I prefer a flatter powerband for daily driving.

Like I said, it has almost as much torque as a Mustang GT from 2250 rpm, and a good fraction of the C5 vette's torque from that point as well. It has has much torque as an XK coupe, which it is priced against. It has as much torque as a V8 Vantage, every 911 in Porche's line-up excluding the Turbo, an RS4, and a ton of others.

This thing is going to pull like a fricking freight train. It's going to provide effortless acceleration from anywhere in its rpm range, and @ 6000-8000, it's going to scream.

The torque curve on this car is flat. If you feel like you need more than a car like the M3 offers, and you currently only have the means for one vehicle, then I feel sorry for you, because you are going to have to spend a shitload of money to get a car with significantly more torque than the M3.

This thing is offering nearly 300 ft/lbs from almost anywhere in its powerband. How much do you want on a nice car? 400? 600? I mean, please, that may be a ridiculous quirk of yours, but I hardly see it as a valid criticism against this car.

[1 BAD 7]

Well said SJ. 


I think the 335i has a clear edge in torque over the M3. But I think the SMG III with far quicker shifts and higher reving engine with its greater engine speed will compensate for that weakness much like the M5 V10 engine did against the far more torquey CLS-55 AMG.

Its not a bad point. The torque curve will most likely show that at any RPM level below 6000 or so, the 335i will actually be putting more power to the ground. A lot of "average joes" that buy BMW's will probably prefer the power curve (not to mention the civility) of the 335i. Most "enthusiasts" will probably be happy to get that 8000+ redline though.

[Lebowski]

If you feel like you need more than a car like the M3 offers, and you currently only have the means for one vehicle, then I feel sorry for you ...

Well you shouldn't, as my current ride satisfies all of my current wants and needs.

Look, at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference.? There's no sense getting all pissed off because I posted a? at your comment that nobody should possibly want more torque than the M3 offers.? If I'm spending $60k+ on a car, I'll have it the way I want it.? You're welcome to have yours the way you want it.? But there's no sense trying to tell other people what they want and/or need.

[GoCougs]

What he said. Tave, you are totally right. I have no words to adequately express how stupid I find it to criticize this engine because of its "low torque". OMFG

Yep.

[Tave]

Well you shouldn't, as my current ride satisfies all of my current wants and needs.

Look, at the end of the day it comes down to personal preference.? There's no sense getting all pissed off because I posted a? at your comment that nobody should possibly want more torque than the M3 offers.? If I'm spending $60k+ on a car, I'll have it the way I want it.? You're welcome to have yours the way you want it.? But there's no sense trying to tell other people what they want and/or need.

Please don't infer that I'm trying to dictate your opinions.

It has as much torque and more horsepower than many of its competitors. I don't hear people complaining about the 997 "daily driving" experience: that you can only pass that hyundai accent next to you by revving the piss out of the engine.

[Lebowski]

Please don't infer that I'm trying to dictate your opinions.

It has as much torque and more horsepower than many of its competitors. I don't hear people complaining about the 997 "daily driving" experience: that you can only pass that hyundai accent next to you by revving the piss out of the engine.

You're right, you clearly aren't trying to dictate anyone's opinion.  That this is the greatest engine ever made is a fact not subject to opinion or personal preferences 

Good analogy with the 997, too, as that isn't a totally different type of car or anything.  And nobody here said anything about it not being able to pass a hyundai, only that some have a preference for more low in grunt during daily driving.  Again, a preference, and yes if you disagree with that you are trying to dictate others' preferences.

I'll point out that nobody here even said that this isn't a good, or even isn't a great engine (I certainly never said that).  You're getting your panties in a wad over nothing.

[Raghavan]

I still don't see how 290 lbs of torque isn't good for daily driving.
If you're too lazy to downshift, then buy an automatic.

[Lebowski]

I still don't see how 290 lbs of torque isn't good for daily driving.
If you're too lazy to downshift, then buy an automatic.

NOBODY EVER SAID IT WASN'T "GOOD" FOR DAILY DRIVING.

[SVT666]

You people are missing the point.  This V8 is a wonderful engine (I never said it wasn't).  But what I did say was that I prefer an engine where I get all the power out of it below 6000 rpm.  How often are you going to get to rev this thing out to 8400 rpm???  Again, it's an incredible engine, but I don't want to have to rev the living shit out of it to get all it has to offer.

Does that make sense?

[Raghavan]

NOBODY EVER SAID IT WASN'T "GOOD" FOR DAILY DRIVING.

THEN WHY ARE YOU GUYS COMPLAINING THAT IT ISN'T ENOUGH FOR A DAILY DRIVER??

[Lebowski]

THEN WHY ARE YOU GUYS COMPLAINING THAT IT ISN'T ENOUGH FOR A DAILY DRIVER??

Nobody said it wasn't enough, just not perfectly suited to it[/color]

[Raghavan]

Nobody said it wasn't enough, just not perfectly suited to it[/color]

How is it not suited for traffic driving? It makes more torque down low than many cars' peak torque.

[Raza]

BMWs suck.

[Lebowski]

How is it not suited for traffic driving? It makes more torque down low than many cars' peak torque.

It's a $60k+ car, it shouldn't be compared to "many" cars.? If I pay $60k for a car that will be my daily driver I want no less than 400 lb-ft of torque you little turd[/color][/b][/size]