Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2006 BMW M6' started by pitoer, Dec 18, 2004.
I think that 133 mph for an M6 is a shit and BMW must add more power to this... nice looking BMW
Well, I think you are a moron. It is 155mph, and it is LIMITED to 155mph. If you knew anything about cars, you'd know that is what all German manufacturers (except Porsche) limit their cars to. It says right in the story that if it was unlimited, it could knock on the door of 200mph. But why would you know that? You clearly can't read. But if it makes you feel any better, I do feel kinda bad for making fun of a retard.
I think that's his first and last post.
i think that you pretty much spoke for everyone here
Why the use of such harsh words? Some people can and do make mistakes when reading. Jeez, plus it is only a car. Why on earth do you need to rip someone a new one when he just mis-read two simple numbers? Besides, I do think that children with a personality such as those so admirably displayed after the new guy's post, should learn to have a little bit of restraint in their messages, and learn to show some respect to others.
On a ntoe about this engine though. I'm not terribly impressed. I've seen better, and known of better also. Some don't need to have super high revs to get the power they need. Such as the new Viper and the upcoming Z06 Corvette. Each with 500 bhp on an 8 and 7 liter engine, respectively. This engine puts out about 83 bhp per liter, but needs to rev alot to get to the power. Granted, that isn't bad, but I would much rather prefer the big rumblers than the high-pitched screamers, when it comes to cars.
a) ahahahha. This thread is jokes.
b) The m6 looks good enough to eat. Looks absolutely stunning.
c) I don't care how fast it goes, really. 155, even 133 is fast enough for me.
how do you missread 2 numbers especially before you post. And unless 5 looks like 3 i think somebody needs to go back 2 pre-school 2 learn his/her numbers.....
you realize you just hated on a 100 hp per liter NA engine right, then said a 73.2 hp/l and 62.5 hp/l engine were better. this engine is amazing. 100 hp a liter is very difficult to do NA, especially when you get above 4 liters.
ROFL...... spot the yanky bagging a euro hahaahaha.
LS2 is nice, but you can buy them here in Oz in a HSV which is basically a factory modded family 4 door GM. The Aussie lS2 makes about 298 kw or around 400hp which is not bad. But its heavy, thirsty and not very willing to rev. Its good for towing trailers and boats, and drag racing. That's it. The big rumbler's have too narrow a power band to be any use on a track.
Same for the Viper V10, it IS a truck engine. Too heavy, to thirsty, not smooth in the torque delivery.
The Oversquare v8 etc.. are nice, sound good, but run out of puff at 6000 rpm. Useless.
For track work, a wide power band is better. Even Aussie touring cars don't use LS1's or LS2's, they use 5l (308 ci) engines, peaky, revvy.
at 6 or 7 tenths the v8 is nice, easy torque etc, but at 9 and 10 tenths, the screaming v10 would maul it on a track
You're an idiot too.
Low end torque is better for track use than high revving motors, plus they're more reliable. The LS2 makes 26mpg, better than the M5 which makes ~20mpg. Try again.
The Viper V10 isn't a truck engine. Lamborghini first built it, but it was too unreliable, so Dodge redid it. They then PUT it into a truck, but the V10 in the Viper isn't related to the one in the truck you moron.
Your last sentence is just a pile of bullshit and an abomination of the English language.
angry yankie hahaha. torque is all good, but there is such a thing as too much. too much wheelspin, heat up the tires too much, break traction, loose the racing line, plus they can be hard to modulate. hence, dtm, aussie touring, f1, etc don't use forced induction and oversquare torquey engines. A nice smooth flow of torque all the way to the redline is the way to go!
Plus its kinda nice to wring the neck of something all the way to 7000rpm plus. how can you get satisfaction from a car that's fast, but wheezing at 6000rpm. Those big torque monsters all seem to run out of puff up top.
fine, i was wrong about the viper. i stand corrected. but that is too much engine for that chassis. Plus the size of that v10 and the weight must have been a problem.
Btw, if your gonna talk torquey engines, nothing beats a 440 hemi or a mopar 500. keep ya viper. gimme a late 60's charger with a mopar big block, or a tuned magnum 440.
More realiable? Chey LS1's start drinking oil 100,000 kays in, and rebuild are then soon to be in order. the 2.5 ltr straight 6 from a 325i m-spec alpina edition will do 250,000 kays if you fang it, 350,000 if you baby it, and thats a peaky revvy mill. No v8's that we get down here last. even porsche 928 v8's start needing major work around 150,000.
Um, actually low revving torquey engines are exactly what you don't want on a track car. The guy you quoted is not an idiot, he's right on the money. Any self-respecting car fan will know that F1 cars have ~800hp but only ~300lb/ft torque and rev up to 18,000rpm. Maybe if you get off the forums and do some research before talking smack to people who know what they're talking about you'd know this too. There's a reason for that high rev range. A wide powerband is much more useful on a track than low end torque. Low end torque is only good for getting off the line fast (drag racing) or towing a trailer. Any diesel pickup truck proves this as well as just about any semi truck. The engine will only rev to maybe 4000 rpm but there is mad torque in any of that region. Torque is especially useful for heavy vehicles. For example any and all AMG's have monster torque because benzes are heavy. The 55K engine makes about 516lb/ft from ~2000rpm and the 65BT engine makes 738+lb/ft over 2000rpm). Thats why a 4000lb benz can outdrag an M5/M6 a much smaller lighter car. But take it to the track and it will get raped by anything with an M badge on it. BMW focuses on a more all rounded performance while AMG likes to shoehorn a monster engine into a heavy ass luxury car without sacrificing any comfort or amenities. The AMGs will undoubtedly be more comfortable but the M's will prevail on the track. I hope I have enlighted some of you in regard to the topic of low end torque vs high revving screamers.
read before you post!
it is limtted to 155 and it can do 200+
nice looking and powerful
Hey, anyone want to tell someone to limit their sig line(s)?? Double posting isn't that fun, either...
155 IS slow, compared to what the car should actually do (unlimited)...Heh.
Thanks for the F1 reference - I was just thinking, "That's why F1 cars use 9 liter, 4000RPM torque monsters...oh wait, they don't."
100 hp/L is very nice - especially from that large an engine. S2000 had "only" 120 hp/L, and it was 2 liter. BMW makes the nicest engines around (except Ferrari, but they're just special). If you question my statement, just look up the McLaren F1. One of the best powerplants...anywhere. Of course, I speak of track work. Work-work would be something completely different, and I'm not going to comment on that.
Rollin Thunda..."Your last sentence is just a pile of bullshit and an abomination of the English language."
Why don't you take a look at your sig, your name, or all your hating on people? This isn't English class, as I'm sure you know from the aforementioned points.
Let's analyze some more, shall we? (feel free to do the same for me...)
"Low end torque is better for track use than high revving motors, plus they're more reliable."
So, you're saying that low end torque is better than motors. Hmmm. I think I'd like BOTH in my car. As an added benefit, that low end torque is more reliable, too. Oh, wait! You had a plural for "they're," which means you must have been talking about the plural from the previous part of the sentence - the "high revving motors." So, I'm understanding now. "High revving motors" are more 'reliable.' Also, shouldn't there be a hyphen between 'high' and 'revving?'
I guess I'm just trying to cause trouble, but I'm also sick of people saying uneducated statements. I know I'm susceptible to that, too, so I'll try to behave from now on.
I've got nothing to add to the above...
geez, i wasn't even bagging torque monsters, i just reckon they're better for other stuff... what a goon! haha
Some examples of the torque vs. revs argument.
I was speaking with my friendly local specialty car dealer. He got in an early RT/10 and I asked him how it was to drive. "It drives like an absolute pig. When I got it I thought the clutch was slipping, but it was just because I was slipping the (375) rear tires because of all the torque. 1st gear was useless and it was pretty hard to control. And becuase it needs such large tires for that engine, it's all grip and no handling" Some slight paraphrasing, but that's pretty much it.
It is pretty much IMPOSSIBLE to drive a street Viper (without the specialty rain tires racers get) in anything approaching slick conditions. Which happens fairly often unless you live in Arizona.
Ever see a torque monster try to AutoX? They are pretty much point and shoot. When all of your 400-500+ lb ft come in at 2500 RPM it's awfully hard to modulate the throttle through a turn and maintain momentum.
Race Corvettes and Vipers are very much tuned for higher revs and wider powerbands.
Yes, torque is a very good thing. But having plenty of linear torque and BHP throughout the powerband is best.
how can you compare 6.0 liter border big block v8 and a big block v-10 to a 5.0 liter v-10 their totally different engines whens teh last time you saw chevy g gettin 500 hp out of their 5.0 liter engine o yeah they didnt and dodge out of their 4.9 liter v-8 o yeah they cant and the point is their totally different engiens
hey i have an idea try reading the article and you would see that its limited to 155mph and without limiter it is estimated over 200mph
I love BMW, because it NOT as THIRSTY as Mercedes