OMG : E92 BMW M3 V8 Official Engine Specs

[Galaxy]

The exhaust is only 0.65mm thick.

[sportyaccordy]

What a beautiful engine.

[SVT666]

As far as the comparo to the TT L6...this has the same peak torque for 2,000 more RPM. Low end, high end, who cares? It makes a 3rd more power. Even if it had weaker low end torque the gearing would make up for it.

A third more power means nothing if you gotta rev the engine to 8000 rpm to get it.  Like I said before, I would prefer a lower revving engine with more torque across the board with the same power.  A lower revving engine is more flexible and more usable in daily driving, and if I was spending $100K on a car, I want to be able to drive it every day.

[Galaxy]

A third more power means nothing if you gotta rev the engine to 8000 rpm to get it. Like I said before, I would prefer a lower revving engine with more torque across the board with the same power. A lower revving engine is more flexible and more usable in daily driving, and if I was spending $100K on a car, I want to be able to drive it every day.

You want a 335d. 

[SVT666]

You want a 335d.?

Diesels don't have the throttle response I like.

[Galaxy]

Diesels don't have the throttle response I like.

I think an engine like in the 335d would surprise you.

[SVT666]

I think an engine like in the 335d would surprise you.

Well, if I could afford a BMW I would definitely look at it.

[Tave]

I agree the 335i likely has a better power curve for the average joe - the sad thing is, the avg joe doesn't know what a power curve is and looks only at the peak hp number.

I sort of have mixed feelings about it, the high revving nature would be great at times but I only own one car at a time and use it as my daily driver, so I like the flat power curve for my daily commute.

Huh? This thing makes 260 lb/ft from 2250 rpm. Do you need more than that for a "commute?"

In my opinion, people shouldn't worry about cars like the M3 and M5 not having enough torque for "daily driving." The engine makes plenty of power; even at lower rpm's it's going to be quicker than a lot of cars on the road.

I mean shit, the Aveo can "commute" just fine, and it doens't even make at its peak what this thing makes from idle.

[sportyaccordy]

A third more power means nothing if you gotta rev the engine to 8000 rpm to get it. Like I said before, I would prefer a lower revving engine with more torque across the board with the same power. A lower revving engine is more flexible and more usable in daily driving, and if I was spending $100K on a car, I want to be able to drive it every day.

I still don't see what the big deal is. This motor will pull like the turbo L6, but all the way to 8.5K. How is that a bad thing?

[Nethead]

565:? Sure, the pushrod LS engines are light, as you say.? But so is this engine, and the DOHC 4.7-liter V8 version of the Mustang Cobra engine used in the 806 HP/678 feet pounds Koenigsegg CCR weighs 473 pounds (215 kg)--complete with supercharger.? The E85 version of this engine produces 1,018 HP and 782 feet pounds of torque (the figure officially certified is 1,060 "Newton metres", which I believe converts to a little over 782 feet pounds), and it meets all US requirements, too.?

The 7.0-liter pushrodder LS7 and the 4.7-liter Quadcammer Koenigsegg are both street legal in the US and both meet current US emissions standards, only one offers 505 HP on gasoline and the other offers 806 HP on gasoline or 1,018 HP on ethanol--a 300+ HP advantage for the Quadcammer on gasoline for only an extra 15 pounds of weight.? ?Since that 15 pounds is easily the weight of the supercharger and then some, let's compare the unsupercharged 5.0-liter Quadcammer Koenigsegg, which has something over 600 HP on gasoline at something less than 458 pounds of engine weight.

The once-upon-a-time lightness advantage of pushrodders seems to be disappearing faster than beer at a tailgate party...

[850CSi]

I still don't see what the big deal is. This motor will pull like the turbo L6, but all the way to 8.5K. How is that a bad thing?

A lot people prefer lower-revving engines for driving around town, I guess - especially if the car is a manual.

[Tave]

A lot people prefer lower-revving engines for driving around town, I guess - especially if the car is a manual.

But in a high-horsepower engine this doesn't matter. This engine will be making the peak figures of an Accord coupe or TL Type-S in the lower part of its powerband.

If people can't "put up" with 260 lb/ft in their "daily driving" then they're deluding themselves. From stoplight to stoplight that is more than enough.

I bet people who drive high-torque engines don't even use more than that on their commutes, unless you're one of those assholes who turns every red light into a drag race.

(and I'm using the generic second person, I know you personally were just explaining the midset of people who don't like the engine)

[GoCougs]

Two completely different cars = two completely different engines = no comparison.

The M3 will be a much quicker and faster vehicle than the 335i in any manner one wishes to mention.

Just look at that torque curve...

[Lebowski]

I bet people who drive high-torque engines don't even use more than that on their commutes, unless you're one of those assholes who turns every red light into a drag race.

[565]

565:? Sure, the pushrod LS engines are light, as you say.? But so is this engine, and the DOHC 4.7-liter V8 version of the Mustang Cobra engine used in the 806 HP/678 feet pounds Koenigsegg CCR weighs 473 pounds (215 kg)--complete with supercharger.? The E85 version of this engine produces 1,018 HP and 782 feet pounds of torque (the figure officially certified is 1,060 "Newton metres", which I believe converts to a little over 782 feet pounds), and it meets all US requirements, too.?

The 7.0-liter pushrodder LS7 and the 4.7-liter Quadcammer Koenigsegg are both street legal in the US and both meet current US emissions standards, only one offers 505 HP on gasoline and the other offers 806 HP on gasoline or 1,018 HP on ethanol--a 300+ HP advantage for the Quadcammer on gasoline for only an extra 15 pounds of weight.? ?Since that 15 pounds is easily the weight of the supercharger and then some, let's compare the unsupercharged 5.0-liter Quadcammer Koenigsegg, which has something over 600 HP on gasoline at something less than 458 pounds of engine weight.

The once-upon-a-time lightness advantage of pushrodders seems to be disappearing faster than beer at a tailgate party...

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

[SJ_GTI]

Two completely different cars = two completely different engines = no comparison.

The M3 will be a much quicker and faster vehicle than the 335i in any manner one wishes to mention.

Just look at that torque curve...

A 335i is a totally different car than the M3?

If you say so.

[SJ_GTI]

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

Does the AMG 6.3L V8 weigh less than the LS7?

[565]

Does the AMG 6.3L V8 weigh less than the LS7?

Well I did a search and this appeared to be the topic of some debate over at C&D a few years ago.

http://www.caranddriver.com/idealbb/view.asp?pageNo=14&topicID=68795&num=20

There was a number of 438(or 439) lbs thrown around for the 6.3 V8, but this appeared to be the weight for just the long block and no one could find the fully dressed weight anywhere.

Then there was a bit of debate because the manual LS1 and auto LS1 weights differed due to the weight of the flywheel for the manual tranny.   And so there was a bit of debate whether the LS7's published weight of 458 lbs included the heavy flywheel or not.  Supposedly a fully dressed LS1 auto weighs 457.6 pounds.

Either way the 6.3 V8 from AMG isn't exactly from a mainstream manufacture as it was entirely developed by in house tuner AMG. 

[SVT666]

X2

[Tave]

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.

[Tave]

X2

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.

[SJ_GTI]

Well I did a search and this appeared to be the topic of some debate over at C&D a few years ago.

http://www.caranddriver.com/idealbb/view.asp?pageNo=14&topicID=68795&num=20

There was a number of 438(or 439) lbs thrown around for the 6.3 V8, but this appeared to be the weight for just the long block and no one could find the fully dressed weight anywhere.

Then there was a bit of debate because the manual LS1 and auto LS1 weights differed due to the weight of the flywheel for the manual tranny.? ?And so there was a bit of debate whether the LS7's published weight of 458 lbs included the heavy flywheel or not.? Supposedly a fully dressed LS1 auto weighs 457.6 pounds.

Either way the 6.3 V8 from AMG isn't exactly from a mainstream manufacture as it was entirely developed by in house tuner AMG.?

Is a CLK63 more expensive than a Z06? Surely you aren't claiming the LS7 is a "mainstream" engine.

[565]

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

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.

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.

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.

[Raghavan]

Wow, yo uguys are lame, complaining about 260lbs of torque in the lower part of the powerband.
The Accord has about 190 lbs of peak torque... Even that will scoot you nicely through traffic.

[SVT666]

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.

Let's see.  I go WOT every time I pass someone going to work every morning and again on my way home.  Approximately 6 times total each day.  I'm a fast driver, but I'm safe too.  There's a difference between fast and dangerous.

[565]

Is a CLK63 more expensive than a Z06? Surely you aren't claiming the LS7 is a "mainstream" engine.

Yes the CLK is more expensive. 

I stated for Nethead to find me a engine made by a mainstream company.  The LS7 is made by a mainstream company (GM) and is inherently tied to it's origins in the other LS series motors, and GM's small block V8 structure in general.  It's not a from scratch, tuner built engine, like the M156 from AMG.

The AMG M156 is AMG's own ground-up unit that has it's own block and all other components.
 
http://www.worldcarfans.com/news.cfm?NewsID=2050713.001&bmw=1.html/country/gcf

"This eight-cylinder unit was developed to series production maturity entirely by the efforts of the engineers and technicians in Affalterbach"

"In design terms the new eight-cylinder engine by Mercedes-AMG is the first completely autonomous development to have no features or shared parts whatsoever in common with other eight-cylinder units by Mercedes-Benz. The new 6.3-litre unit differs from the other AMG V8 engines based on Mercedes designs in the distance between cylinders, the crankcase concept, the sophisticated intake and exhaust manifolds and the valve train; the bore/stroke ratio is also a completely new departure for Mercedes-AMG. "

The M156 was not made by a mainstream automanufacture, but rather completely designed and built by tuner AMG.

[Submariner]

Well I did a search and this appeared to be the topic of some debate over at C&D a few years ago.

http://www.caranddriver.com/idealbb/view.asp?pageNo=14&topicID=68795&num=20

There was a number of 438(or 439) lbs thrown around for the 6.3 V8, but this appeared to be the weight for just the long block and no one could find the fully dressed weight anywhere.

Then there was a bit of debate because the manual LS1 and auto LS1 weights differed due to the weight of the flywheel for the manual tranny.   And so there was a bit of debate whether the LS7's published weight of 458 lbs included the heavy flywheel or not.  Supposedly a fully dressed LS1 auto weighs 457.6 pounds.

Either way the 6.3 V8 from AMG isn't exactly from a mainstream manufacture as it was entirely developed by in house tuner AMG. 

Well, I wouldn't say the LS7 is a mainstream engine, either.

[MexicoCityM3]

A 335i is a totally different car than the M3?

If you say so.

It certainly feels totally different.

[MexicoCityM3]

Well, I wouldn't say the LS7 is a mainstream engine, either.

Exactly. Mercedes/AMG probably manufactures more 63 engines than Chevy does LS7s. Shouldn't be to hard to check.

[565]

Well, I wouldn't say the LS7 is a mainstream engine, either.

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.


Here is a example from a list taken from Wikipedia.

                                                                                      Hp/lb (engine weight)

Powertec RPA V8 2.6 V8 DOHC Radical SR8                    1.76
F140 6.0 V12 DOHC 2002 Enzo Ferrari                           1.33
M80 5.7 V10 DOHC 2005 Porsche Carrera GT                 1.28
F130 4.7 V12 DOHC 1995 Ferrari F50                             1.17
LS7 7.0 V8 pushrod 2006 Corvette Z06                          1.10
AMG 6.3 6.2 V8 DOHC 2007 Mercedes CLK63 AMG         1.08
S85 5.0 V10 DOHC 2007 BMW M5 & BMW M6                 0.94
LS2 6.0 V8 pushrod 2005 Chevrolet Corvette C6            0.89
S62 5.0 V8 DOHC 2003 BMW M5                                      .75


The names that top this list are by no surprise, Porsche, Ferrari and AMG.  Even engine wizards at BMW can't quite match a dedicated motor made by specialized names like Porsche or Ferrari.