OMG : E92 BMW M3 V8 Official Engine Specs

[Raghavan]

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]

HOW IS 290LBS/FT NOT ENOUGH FOR DAILY DRIVING? HOW MUCH DO YOU NEED FOR YOUR WORK AND BACK???

[GoCougs]

Interestingly enough, the Ferrari F599 also has exactly an 8,400 RPM redline. M/T tested one 0-60 in 3.2 sec and 1/4 mile in 11.2 sec. Any chance of "lower RPM powerband/daily driving" issues? Not a chance. And not with this V8, either.

With modern "powerband adjustment" technologies; direct injection, variable valve lift, cam-to-crank phasing, cam-to-cam phasing, and probably a bunch of other cool junk, coupled with proper gearing an 6sp+ transmissions, high RPM engines aren't the low RPM gutless pigs of yore.

Beyond this, I think we're getting periously close to infamous torque vs. power "debate"...

[Raza]

Wow, not even a "BMWs suck" could break this up.

[Raghavan]

Wow, not even a "BMWs suck" could break this up.

It's because i'm right and Leblowski is wrong.

[Tave]

Good analogy with the 997, too, as that isn't a totally different type of car or anything.

Yeah, because it's totally not a german sports coupe, it totally doesn't retail for about the same amount of money, and it totally doesn't put out similar levels of power.

[Tave]

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?

No. It doesn't. This engine makes 90% of it's torque from 2250 rpms. Why the hell would you have to "rev the living shit out of it" to drive around town?

In other words, you're going to have almost 300 lb/ft at the tip of your foot as soon as the car is in motion. In other words, you're going to have to worry about wheelspin if you try to gun it at city speeds (30-40) in the lower gears. Like I've said, if that's not enough, fine, but it's not a legitimate complaint or point about the car; it's a personal quirk.

But whatever, this thread (or this part of it) has gotten pointless. We've been repeating the same arguments (almost verbatim) ad nauseum. I'm going to stop saying anything on the subject of the M3 and "it's lack of low end torque." I'm just thankful that the BMW engineers seem to share my viewpoint.

[omicron]

I hope it sounds nice.

[SVT666]

No. It doesn't. This engine makes 90% of it's torque from 2250 rpms. Why the hell would you have to "rev the living shit out of it" to drive around town?

Where did I say that  would need to rev the shit out of it to to drive around town?  Do you only read what you want to see?  I don't like having to rev the shit out of an engine to get everything it has to offer is what I said.  If I want to really let loose with this car, I have to be over 6000 rpm to keep it hot.  I prefer a lower revving engine so that I don't have to keep it screaming over 6000 rpm.  What's not to understand?

In other words, you're going to have almost 300 lb/ft at the tip of your foot as soon as the car is in motion. In other words, you're going to have to worry about wheelspin if you try to gun it at city speeds (30-40) in the lower gears. Like I've said, if that's not enough, fine, but it's not a legitimate complaint or point about the car; it's a personal quirk.

Holy shit.  Where did I say it was any different then a personal preference? 

[sportyaccordy]

I would bet money that the new M3 would put down close to, if not the same peak rolling road torque as the 400HP Corvette. Torque ratings are all semantics... HP is HP. Perhaps they should rate the torque in some weird metric unit so the M3 would have an even 400 everything all around...???

Put it like this. If there were no tachometer in the M3 would it all even matter?

[r0tor]

With modern "powerband adjustment" technologies; direct injection, variable valve lift, cam-to-crank phasing, cam-to-cam phasing, and probably a bunch of other cool junk, coupled with proper gearing an 6sp+ transmissions, high RPM engines aren't the low RPM gutless pigs of yore.

thats my thought as well... with variable valve technology and such, you no longer have to choose between a cam that gives good low end torque and sacrifices high rpm breathing or the other way around - you have engines that have great low end torque and high end power, as this BMW engine has 90% of its peak torque from 2500 - 8700 rpms.

.. and i still have no idea what the obsession is with torque anyway - you have a transmission to multiply torque

[Champ]

.. and i still have no idea what the obsession is with torque anyway - you have a transmission to multiply torque

Comparing two cars with similar HP but entirely different torque curves: Viggen vs. S2000
Viggen has 285ft-lb of torque @ 2,500 rpm. S2000 has like a lot less (don't know numbers)
To keep the cars moving at the same speed, I can shift the Viggen at 3,000 RPM and drive at a very brisk pace, or shift at ~2,250 RPM and move at the speed of traffic.
The Honda needs to be shifted in the 5,000 RPM range to keep the pace I shift the Viggen, ~3,750 to keep up with traffic.

You have a low torque car so you say torque isn't needed, just like I have a FWD car and say it isn't bad (and it's not!).  We always try to make up arguements to justify the shortcomings.

[r0tor]

Comparing two cars with similar HP but entirely different torque curves: Viggen vs. S2000
Viggen has 285ft-lb of torque @ 2,500 rpm. S2000 has like a lot less (don't know numbers)
To keep the cars moving at the same speed, I can shift the Viggen at 3,000 RPM and drive at a very brisk pace, or shift at ~2,250 RPM and move at the speed of traffic.
The Honda needs to be shifted in the 5,000 RPM range to keep the pace I shift the Viggen, ~3,750 to keep up with traffic.

You have a low torque car so you say torque isn't needed, just like I have a FWD car and say it isn't bad (and it's not!).? We always try to make up arguements to justify the shortcomings.

ok... your torque monster vs my torqueless wonder (Saab 9-3 Aero 6 spd vs RX8 6 spd)

                     
   Saab 9-3 Aero         Mazda RX8         

Torque   258   lbft      159   lbft      
Final Drive   3.55         4.444         
      ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Torque         Torque      ? ? ? ? ? ? ??% diff
1st   3.77   3453      3.76   2657      ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -23
2nd   2.04   1868      2.269   1603      ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -14
3rd   1.37   1255      1.539   1087      ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -13
4th   1.05   962      1.187   839      ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -13
5th   0.85   779      1   ? ? ? ? ?707      ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??-9
6th   0.71   650      0.843   596      ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -8


Each gear ratio is listed and the torque reaching the rear wheels (no drivetrain losses accounted for).  So for gears 2-6th you have about a 10% torque advantage even though at the engine you have over a 50% advantage... hence the use of a transmission.

[Nethead]

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.

Whatever, 565.? Those carbon fiber Koenigsegg engine parts (and all the other Koenigsegg engine parts, reqardless of their molecular composition) bolt onto (or into) any modular-engined F150, F250, F350, Explorer, Expedition, Mustang, Crown Vic, Ford GT, Marauder, Town Car, Mark LT, yada yada yada.? These are pretty mainstream, y' know, except for the Ford GT.? The parts might fit non-Fords powered by the modulars, but fitment into a Panoz engine compartment might create issues--I dunno...

A year or so ago, the Koenigsegg website had "Tour the Factory" pics, and there were Ford 'Quadcammer short-blocks in crates in the pics of their Receiving Department.? The Ford 'Quadcammer may seem exotic to other domestic manufacturers, but it's pretty much business as usual for the company that's been building world-beating 'Quadcammers since the mid-'Sixties (the DOHC Indy V8, then the Cosworth DFV Formula 1 V8, and now the current modular V8s) and 'Quadcammer V12s since Aston Martin introduced the Vanquish several years ago.
It was a naturally-aspirated 750 HP 'Quadcam 5.4 that powered the F150 that won the only Baja 2000 ever run.
The Jaguar/Volvo/Land Rover/Thunderbird 'Quadcam V8 is pretty light, too, but it should only be compared to under 5.0 liter pushrodders since it's a 4.2.

What about the Northstar?? Is it heavy for it's displacement and power?

We need a chart of V8 weights--pushrod and OHC.? The chart should specify the weight in running condition--everything hooked up necessary to run but no accessories (like air-conditioning, power steering, etc.) hooked up.? Any time you see a posted engine weight, you have to ask yourself what's included and not included in that weight--such as an airfilter and the ducting that connects that airfilter to the throttle body.? Is the weight of those items included or not?? ?Which version of the exhaust system is included in the engine weight figure you're looking at--the version used in a GT500, or a Ford GT, or a Panoz, or a Koenigsegg, or an FR500C, or a powerboat?? Are we looking at the weight of the exhaust in a Ram or a Viper, a Silverado or a Z06, yada yada yada...Ditto for the imports, which use OHCs pretty much exclusively except for rebadged Holdens and Mazda rotaries.

[sportyaccordy]

ok... your torque monster vs my torqueless wonder (Saab 9-3 Aero 6 spd vs RX8 6 spd)

                     
   Saab 9-3 Aero         Mazda RX8         

Torque   258   lbft      159   lbft      
Final Drive   3.55         4.444         
                       Torque         Torque                    % diff
1st   3.77   3453      3.76   2657                          -23
2nd   2.04   1868      2.269   1603                      -14
3rd   1.37   1255      1.539   1087                      -13
4th   1.05   962      1.187   839                          -13
5th   0.85   779      1            707                        -9
6th   0.71   650      0.843   596                            -8


Each gear ratio is listed and the torque reaching the rear wheels (no drivetrain losses accounted for). So for gears 2-6th you have about a 10% torque advantage even though at the engine you have over a 50% advantage... hence the use of a transmission.

Not to mention, I bet the RX-8 is lighter than the 9-3, so actual peak acceleration values would vary less. He might have a little more area under the torque curve than you, but not much more as the power is the same.

Again, when gear ratios and all that becomes available we will do the calculations and see what it all really is.

The Audi FSI V8 >>>> the BMW V8, btw.

[565]

Whatever, 565.?
We need a chart of V8 weights--pushrod and OHC.? The chart should specify the weight in running condition--everything hooked up necessary to run but no accessories (like air-conditioning, power steering, etc.) hooked up.? Any time you see a posted engine weight, you have to ask yourself what's included and not included in that weight--such as an airfilter and the ducting that connects that airfilter to the throttle body.? Is the weight of those items included or not?? ?Which version of the exhaust system is included in the engine weight figure you're looking at--the version used in a GT500, or a Ford GT, or a Panoz, or a Koenigsegg, or an FR500C, or a powerboat?? Are we looking at the weight of the exhaust in a Ram or a Viper, a Silverado or a Z06, yada yada yada...Ditto for the imports, which use OHCs pretty much exclusively except for rebadged Holdens.

I've been looking for a list like that for a long time.  But you are right to say that the configuration of the engine really matters.  Which is why I'm suspect of the CCR's engine weight listed as "as low as 215kg."   Sounds like its not a fully dressed engine...

[Champ]

Not to mention, I bet the RX-8 is lighter than the 9-3, so actual peak acceleration values would vary less. He might have a little more area under the torque curve than you, but not much more as the power is the same.

Then the car he used, yes.  It is also a 4-door vs. 2-door comparison, and in reality my Viggen weights less than a 2004 RX8 by some small number <100lbs.  But we aren't really talking about weights or vehicle acceleration here.  Just engines.

Sure you can do transmission tweaking, but it comes down to torque usually being more useful.  My car can turn higher gears to acheive better gas mileage, for instance.

[850CSi]

Wow, not even a "BMWs suck" could break this up.

That's because you're telling everyone what they already know you think. 

[GoCougs]

Oh, this is gettin' good. Just steps away from both torque vs. horsepower and OHC vs. pushrod...

[850CSi]

Oh, this is gettin' good. Just steps away from both torque vs. horsepower and OHC vs. pushrod...

[r0tor]

i think i know why i'm so confused about the torque obsession...

The rotary engine has an internal 3:1 gearing, meaning the output shaft spins 3x faster then the rotors themselves do.  So my engine rated at the output shaft is 160ftlbs and a 9,000 rpm redline - a high revving torqueless wonder.  Move the tach signal to pick up rotor speed, and the engine now is rated at the rotors with 480ftlbs and a 3,000 rpm redline - a low revving torque monster.

so do i have a torqueless wonder or a torque monster... and yet either way of rating it, its the same engine and the car accelerates at the same rate    

[SJ_GTI]

It seems like people intentionally misinterpret what other people say a lot.

But I do agree with Raza. BMW's suck.

[Raza]

I don't see why anyone is even arguing.  It doesn't matter how much BMWs suck.  It's a BMW, and because it's a BMW, the magazines are all going to say it's the best car in the world.  I can see the review now:

MMmmmmmm....
by Random C&D Writer

BMW good.  New BMW make happy.  New M BMW make more happy.  Mmmm.  Engine good.  Transmission good.  Handle good.  Fun to drive.  Ugg smash!  No, no Ugg smash.  Ugg like BMW.  BMW good.  New BMW make happy.  New M BMW make more happy.  Ugg am fast in BMW because BMW fast and Ugg am in BMW. 
BMW gooder than other car.  BMW fast.  BMW pretty.  BMW pretty?  Ugg told to like BMW pretty.  BMW fun to drive.  Much more funner than better car. 
BMW M bestest everest car.  No prick buy BMW.  BMW am for nice person. 

BMW M3
Front engine, rear drive coupe, 2+2
0-60:  Fast
0-100:  Fast
1/4 @ mph:  Fast @ fast
Skidpad: .fast g
Slalom speed: Fastmph

Price:  BIG! (but am worth it because it am bestest car)

[Champ]

I don't see why anyone is even arguing. It doesn't matter how much BMWs suck. It's a BMW, and because it's a BMW, the magazines are all going to say it's the best car in the world. I can see the review now:

MMmmmmmm....
by Random C&D Writer

BMW good. New BMW make happy. New M BMW make more happy. Mmmm. Engine good. Transmission good. Handle good. Fun to drive. Ugg smash! No, no Ugg smash. Ugg like BMW. BMW good. New BMW make happy. New M BMW make more happy. Ugg am fast in BMW because BMW fast and Ugg am in BMW.
BMW gooder than other car. BMW fast. BMW pretty. BMW pretty? Ugg told to like BMW pretty. BMW fun to drive. Much more funner than better car.
BMW M bestest everest car. No prick buy BMW. BMW am for nice person.

BMW M3
Front engine, rear drive coupe, 2+2
0-60: Fast
0-100: Fast
1/4 @ mph: Fast @ fast
Skidpad: .fast g
Slalom speed: Fastmph

Price: BIG! (but am worth it because it am bestest car)

Those words are mighty big for this article.  And the big title on the front cover of the mag will be something like: "BEST CAR EVER PRODUCED FOR ANY REASON OR PURPOSE"

[LonghornTX]

I don't see why anyone is even arguing.  It doesn't matter how much BMWs suck.  It's a BMW, and because it's a BMW, the magazines are all going to say it's the best car in the world.  I can see the review now:

MMmmmmmm....
by Random C&D Writer

BMW good.  New BMW make happy.  New M BMW make more happy.  Mmmm.  Engine good.  Transmission good.  Handle good.  Fun to drive.  Ugg smash!  No, no Ugg smash.  Ugg like BMW.  BMW good.  New BMW make happy.  New M BMW make more happy.  Ugg am fast in BMW because BMW fast and Ugg am in BMW. 
BMW gooder than other car.  BMW fast.  BMW pretty.  BMW pretty?  Ugg told to like BMW pretty.  BMW fun to drive.  Much more funner than better car. 
BMW M bestest everest car.  No prick buy BMW.  BMW am for nice person. 

BMW M3
Front engine, rear drive coupe, 2+2
0-60:  Fast
0-100:  Fast
1/4 @ mph:  Fast @ fast
Skidpad: .fast g
Slalom speed: Fastmph

Price:  BIG! (but am worth it because it am bestest car)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, that just made my day....

[LonghornTX]

The Audi FSI V8 >>>> the BMW V8, btw.

I am curious as to why you think so, they seem pretty much even as far as features/power/etc is concerned.  Or, are you simply acting a fool' like Raza  ?

[Nethead]

I've been looking for a list like that for a long time.? But you are right to say that the configuration of the engine really matters.? Which is why I'm suspect of the CCR's engine weight listed as "as low as 215kg."? ?Sounds like its not a fully dressed engine...

565: I don't know the precise configuration of the 215 kg CCR engine either--in an earlier edition of the company website, there were pics of the bare engine--but no specific subtitle or such that claimed that this is the 215 kg configuration.? The CC8S has a different configuration, and of course the CCGT would, too.?

Subtle things can made a difference--the starter motor of the Ford GT attaches to the transaxle--not the engine-- but the starter motor of the front-engined applications of the 'Quadcammer have the starter motor attached to the engine block.? Dry sump variants have a different weight than wet sump variants.? And the monster intakes on the FR500Cs and the FR500GTs would cause those versions to weigh differently than all previous naturally-aspirated 'Quadcammers, including the 2000 Cobra R and its slick intake.? Then there are the 3-valve versions of the modulars and the 2-valve versions adding spice and variety to the readings on the scales.? The Boss versions will doubtless be different still...

[Tave]

I don't see why anyone is even arguing.? It doesn't matter how much BMWs suck.? It's a BMW, and because it's a BMW, the magazines are all going to say it's the best car in the world.? I can see the review now:

MMmmmmmm....
by Random C&D Writer

BMW good.? New BMW make happy.? New M BMW make more happy.? Mmmm.? Engine good.? Transmission good.? Handle good.? Fun to drive.? Ugg smash!? No, no Ugg smash.? Ugg like BMW.? BMW good.? New BMW make happy.? New M BMW make more happy.? Ugg am fast in BMW because BMW fast and Ugg am in BMW.?
BMW gooder than other car.? BMW fast.? BMW pretty.? BMW pretty?? Ugg told to like BMW pretty.? BMW fun to drive.? Much more funner than better car.?
BMW M bestest everest car.? No prick buy BMW.? BMW am for nice person.?

BMW M3
Front engine, rear drive coupe, 2+2
0-60:? Fast
0-100:? Fast
1/4 @ mph:? Fast @ fast
Skidpad: .fast g
Slalom speed: Fastmph

Price:? BIG! (but am worth it because it am bestest car)

That looks more like C&D reviewing Porsche.

[SVT666]

That looks more like C&D reviewing Porsche.

My thoughts exactly.  I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but BMW has not been faring too well in some the comparos in the last two years, so Raza can knock that chip off his shoulder any day now.

[850CSi]

My thoughts exactly.? I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but BMW has not been faring too well in some the comparos in the last two years, so Raza can knock that chip off his shoulder any day now.

A BMW ran over his dog a few years back, so it's much more complicated than that.

[sandertheshark]

MMmmmmmm....
by Random C&D Writer

LOL.

That's actually kinda the way I act in my car.