The Best Powerplant ever...???

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by Aaron1978, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. Why would anyone fall in love with a 34 year old engine?
     
  2. Umm, how is 469hp small to you? It hurtles a 4237lb sedan to 60mph in 4.3seconds and through the 1/4 mile in 12.5 seconds.
     
  3. V12s and V10s are the best engines ever made.
     
  4. cady 13.7L V-16 1000hp
     
  5. Too costly, heavy, large, and inefficient even with DoD.

    You're way out of your league.
     
  6. Suzuki 2.5L v8
     
  7. #82 Guibo, Sep 28, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Costly, yes. But then most one-off engines are.


    Heavy. Relatively, yes. About 50 lbs lighter than the first Viper V10. Around 100 lbs more than a Porsche 996 Turbo or McLaren F1 engine. But then you consider the power per lb of engine weight.
    McLaren F1: 1.07 hp/lb
    Chevrolet LS6: 1.03
    996 Turbo w/X50: .75
    SRT-10: .76
    Cadillac Sixteen: 1.44


    Large. At less than 24" it's shorter than the LS6 (which is already very compact). Dry-sump lubrication helps in this regard. Here's how it looks in the shadow of a Northstar V8:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/2003/4/cadillac_sixteen/images/lg_diagram.jpg


    Yes, it's long. But 10" shorter than 2 small block Chevy engines laid end to end; 15" longer than an NSX's V6, which is but 3 cylinders long compared to the Sixteen's 8.


    Ineffecient. I don't think 20 mpg out of an engine capable of 1000 hp (and designed around 87 octane) is too bad.


    Technically, it's a very impressive engine. But can't possibly be considered the best ever for the very fact that it's not in production (and thus, unproven).
     
  8. You make a compelling argument, but the fact remains that you can only say that it's shorter than two engines laid out end to end. Could you conceivable put it in a lightweight application? No.
     
  9. Actually, that's not all I say. I said it's 15" longer than an NSX's V6. In other words, it's 50% longer. Sounds huge, and it is large. However, it's got 167% more cylinders in a straight line.

    I wasn't aware that lightweight applications was a determining criteria in this comparo. (The topic starter even said to consider them in their own contexts.) If that's the case, the turbocharged Suzuki Hayabusa engine is the best powerplant ever put into a car. Vastly better adapted and more useful than, say, the Enzo's or McLaren's V12.
     
  10. Lightweight applications aren't a determining factor, but I believe adaptability should be. Like I said, I wouldn't consider one of the exotic V12's just because it's too cliche, but more importantly, you couldn't put it in every application. Also, there are other factors. The S70/2 is just two E36 M3 3.2 I6's put together (literally, and it also works out since 320hp for the Euro spec E36 M3, gives you about 640hp when doubled). Doesn't that at least say something for BMW 3.2 I6?

    The greater point of all this is, that we can just say the biggest, most powerful engine of them all is the greatest, but that would discredit every smaller engine.
     
  11. But there's more to the Cadillac Sixteen than just power and size. Like I said, look at the power density figures again. And consider the torque figure retained.


    S70/2 is just two E36 M3's put together? You mean the E36 M3 was alloy blocked? It's dry-sumped? Has 3mm cylinder wall thickness between cylinders? Two injectors per cylinder? Individual coils for each cylinder? Carbon fiber intake and Inconel exhaust? Magnesium cam and timing chain covers?


    Engine weight for S50/52: 152kg (x2 = 304kg)
    Engine weight for S70/2: 266kg

    The S70/2 may have had heads closely related to the E36 M3, but it's an entirely different (and custom) application for the F1.

    The S70/2 isn't amazing just because it's bigger and more powerful. It's amazing because of its overall power delivery made possible by 479+ lb/ft of torque from 4000-7000 rpm. It has an incredibly tractable powerband, with 6th gear pulling strongly from as low as 40 mph (and it's good for well over 200 at the top end). And to reach a specific output like that for such a huge engine...extremely remarkable. On top of that, it is nothing short of a work of art.

    And let's not forget it was developed from March-December of '91. When was the 320hp M3 released?
     
  12. Of course the two engines are not going to be equally proportional in every measurement, and there are major differences between the two. First of all, there was a dry-sumped E36 M3, it was the LTW, and you of all should know this. Secondly, the E36 M3 was released in model year 1992, meaning that development was going on around the same time. The E36 M3's original 3.0 was simply the 325i/525i's 2.5 I6, bored and stroked, along with VANOS (single), which means that the base engine had been around for even longer. Of course when the S70/2 was developed, BMW could go all out on the components, the same was not true for the E36 M3. What cannot be denied is that the two engines are very closely related, that in itself shows that the E36 M3 has a very capable powerplant.

    And yes, the 320hp 3.2 I6 wasn't until 96, but the 3.0 I6 still had 286hp.
     
  13. #88 Guibo, Sep 28, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    "First of all, there was a dry-sumped E36 M3, it was the LTW, and you of all should know this."

    Are you quite sure? I have two articles on the E36 M3 LTW. They list pretty much the same items unique to the LTW as this document by BMW:
    http://www.m3ltw.com/images/info/bulletins/bulletin1.gif
    http://www.m3ltw.com/images/info/bulletins/bulletin2.gif

    And this:
    http://www.bmwworld.com/models/m3_ltw.htm


    All four sources indicate there is no dry sump lubrication system for the E36 M3 LTW. And no, a baffled/dual-pickup oil pan and higher capacity oil pump do not make a dry sump system. If you have documentation to the contrary I'd like to see it. Besides, the LTW came out *4 years after* the S70/2's development.
    I of all people should know this? Why's that? Because I'm merely a lukewarm fan of the E36 M3? Next thing you know, you'll be saying I should know more than anybody about the 1-Series.



    "Secondly, the E36 M3 was released in model year 1992, meaning that development was going on around the same time."

    Yet the S70/2 was finished first. And it was based off of an entirely different block with different cylinder spacing.



    "The E36 M3's original 3.0 was simply the 325i/525i's 2.5 I6, bored and stroked, along with VANOS (single), which means that the base engine had been around for even longer."

    So, why don't we simply give the title of "best engine" to those engines, hmmm? Without those engines as a basis, would there even be an M3? Hard to say. Without the S50/52, would there even be an S70/2. Absolutely.


    "What cannot be denied is that the two engines are very closely related, that in itself shows that the E36 M3 has a very capable powerplant."

    One could argue that they are only distantly related. No one is denying that the E36 M3 has a very capable powerplant. Merely that the S70/2 is above and beyond the S50/52 in terms of outright ability (and not just in terms of *peak* power either). It's what put the McLaren F1 on the map. It's what's made the F1 the benchmark for supercars over the past decade. And it has even transcended the F1 itself, having been driven to victory at Le Mans yet again in the V12 LMR.


    "And yes, the 320hp 3.2 I6 wasn't until 96, but the 3.0 I6 still had 286hp."

    Right. So 286 x 2 = 572. A bit short of the S70/2, eh? Seems it's not simply a matter of putting two 3.2-liter M3 engines together. And seeing how the 320-hp version came out 5 years after the S70/2, seeing how the LTW came out 4 years after the S70/2, and seeing how the original M3's engine was developed *after* the S70/2, it would seem that it's the S50/52 that owes its performance and success to the S70/2, wouldn't you say?
     
  14. #89 marcusmv3, Sep 29, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I think this is the answer to our dry sump question, first few messages:

    http://www.mail-archive.com/bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com/msg05231.html

    Otherwise, you might just be a lukewarm fan of the E36, but all I have to do is point out that your name is still Guibo.

    Also, you're still using minor differences to show that the engines can't possibly be related. Just because the original S50 engine only had 286hp and this isn't quite half of the S70/2's power doesn't mean that the engines aren't related. It's not like BMW is unfamiliar with this... didn't the M44 (1.9 I4 DOHC 16V) use the same block as the legendary BMW I4 turbo that was used in Formula 1 and developed well over 1000hp, yet it was used in a road car with only 140hp? You act like the S50 and S70/2 have no common ground, and that my insinuating it insults the S70/2.
     
  15. for a 5.5 supercharged engine it could be a lot better, the engine should have that power output without the supercharger
     
  16. #91 Guibo, Sep 29, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    "I think this is the answer to our dry sump question, first few messages:

    http://www.mail-archive.com/bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com/msg05231.html"


    That link does nothing to show that the M3 LTW had a dry sump. All I see is reference to the E46 M3 having a semi-dry sump, with two oil pumps. Does the M3 LTW have 2 oil pumps? Show me where.

    Or are you saying the S54 isn't quite as advanced as the S50/52? Don't you think that if the LTW had a TRUE dry sump, its engine would be sitting much lower (as much as 6") in the engine bay than a standard M3? Yet, if you look at any pictures of the E36 M3 LTW, its engine isn't any lower than a standard M3's. Next, you'll be saying that a higher CoG is better for handling.

    Take a look at the pic of the Cadillac's V16 engine I linked you to. It shows you how short it is because that's a dry sump system. Now take a look at the S54 engine (below, left), in comparison with the S70/2. Why don't you point out to me where the F1's oil pan is?
    So far, we've got 4 sources (one of which is *BMW themselves*) indicating that the E36 M3 LTW isn't equipped with a dry sump system. Trust me, if it did, they'd want to make that known. I'm going to need something more substantial to go on here. Do you have it?


    "Otherwise, you might just be a lukewarm fan of the E36, but all I have to do is point out that your name is still Guibo."

    And WTF does that mean? Your statement might mean *something* if it was only the E36 M3 that has a guibo. But it's not only the E36 M3 that has it.
    Do you thing gtsorbust knows everything about Dodge Vipers? Seriously, that's about the poorest piece of deduction I've seen in some time. And with guys like bbcstachas2 on here, that's saying something!


    "Also, you're still using minor differences to show that the engines can't possibly be related. Just because the original S50 engine only had 286hp and this isn't quite half of the S70/2's power doesn't mean that the engines aren't related. It's not like BMW is unfamiliar with this... didn't the M44 (1.9 I4 DOHC 16V) use the same block as the legendary BMW I4 turbo that was used in Formula 1 and developed well over 1000hp, yet it was used in a road car with only 140hp? You act like the S50 and S70/2 have no common ground, and that my insinuating it insults the S70/2."

    What a silly analogy. In the case of the BMW Formula One engine, the engines were related because they were using the *same exact block*. What part of this don't you understand?
    If you go back far enough, one could say ALL engines are related. Yeah, the S50/52 is related to the S70/2 because it's built by Motorsport. BFD!
    It appears to me that your'e the one making the case that engines are related on the basis of *peak* hp output.
    Minor differences?...These are HUGE differences. We're talking about engines with totally different dimensions, totally different power and torque characteristics, totally different engine management systems (TAG vs Bosch/Siemens), probably about ZERO parts interchange (I'm sure you can find a nut or washer that'll work in both). With this in mind, what does it mean to say "The engines are related"? It means jackshit. It's a stronger case to say the engines are only distantly related. And judging by this R&T article by Paul Frere back in '94 (below, right), the S70/2 is indeed an entirely new engine built to custom specification.

    Insulted by your insinuation? No, I'm merely pointing out that your claim of the S70/2 being "literally" two M3 engines put together is wrong. It's utter BS. You should have realized that that kind of statement insults your own intelligence.
     
  17. #92 marcusmv3, Sep 29, 2004
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Holy shit. You are exaggerating my claims to no ends as always. I NEVER EVER SAID that the two engines were exactly the same, one was half of the other. No, I said that they were related, but you are blowing me out of the water, for what? The fact that obvious performance parts were different? You don't exactly have proof that the engines were in no way shape or form related, you just have proof that says parts of it aren't.

    You can ask other members (Wheelman) who would be likely to complain about your arguments: it's because you exaggerate our claims and then try to blow us off for it. I'm pointing this out only because it's the first time I've really experienced it, and it's utter bullshit. My original argument was only that smaller engines deserved credit, too, and it's gone everywhere else. F*ck this, this isn't why I still post here.
     
  18. Oh sure it is. You've always been one for the drama.


    What you said was:


    "The S70/2 is just two E36 M3 3.2 I6's put together (literally, and it also works out since 320hp for the Euro spec E36 M3, gives you about 640hp when doubled)."

    What does the word "just" mean? Merely? Only? Sure sounds like you're making the case that there was no genuine engineering going on when Paul Rosche & co. designed and built that engine. They "just" slapped together two M3 engines, despite the fact that the timeline indicates the S70/2 was developed first. Hmmm...whom should we believe? You, or the countless other people (including Rosche himself) who can verify that the S70/2 was a brand new design?


    Let's recount what's gone on in this thread.
    1) You said the S70/2 is "just" two M3 engines literally put together. False.
    2) You said the hp output is indication enough that the two are related. False. It does not follow. And at the time of the E36 M3's release, it didn't make half of the F1's output anyway.
    3) You said the two engines are related. Yet haven't offered anything substantial to support the claim. There's no evidence they "just" literally put two M3 engines together; perhaps E36 M3 fanboys would like to think so, but I don't buy it. On the other hand, there's all the evidence in the world to show that the S70/2 was not developed off a (not as yet existent) M3 engine. As such, any meaningful "relationship" is not even worthy of mention.
    3) You're claiming the M3 LTW had a dry sump (as if that in and of itself is worthy to some claim of being reasonably "related to" the S70/2). I've put up 4 or 5 sources showing there's little evidence of it being equipped with a dry sump. Your only "evidence" thus far is some chit-chat among BMW owners on some obscure email list, where it's pretty apparent they're talking about the *semi* dry-sump system of the S54 anyway. What, was BMW afraid people wouldn't buy the LTW because it (supposedly) has a dry sump? If it had it, I'm sure their marketing department would be all over it. And then there's all of those other things (some of them very significant) which separate the S70/2 from the LTW.
    4) On top of this, you say I of all people should know this. LMFAO!


    And why the hell would I care to ask Wheelman anything? Seriously, you need to stay on topic, and quit trying to stir up your personal BS again. This is a discussion about engines. If you're going to make claims, by all means back them up. I'm waiting for the dry sump info, if you've got it. Otherwise, just admit that you're wrong and quit acting like a damn crybaby.
     

Share This Page