International Engine of the Year 2005

[M&Ms]

Originally Posted by Steffo

the bigger, 12 cylinder, twin turbo, 6.0litre, more powerful, faster S65 AMG. It gets 19mpg 12.38 litres/100km average consumption.. with 1.0litre extra capacity, 2 extra cylinders, two turbochargers, 450 kiloWatts, 1000 Newton metres.. and a few hundred extra kilogram's to pull around.

I was on the floor laughing when i read that part. You don't seriously believe that the S65 can return anything better than 20L/100km do you???

[Sox]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Wheels July 2005 they average 17.1 litres/100km in the new V10 M5, fuel use. That's 13.75mpg (miles per gallon).

Let me call on another Mercedes product here.. the bigger, 12 cylinder, twin turbo, 6.0litre, more powerful, faster S65 AMG. It gets 19mpg 12.38 litres/100km average consumption.. with 1.0litre extra capacity, 2 extra cylinders, two turbochargers, 450 kiloWatts, 1000 Newton metres.. and a few hundred extra kilogram's to pull around.

http://www.buyacar.co.uk/technicalSp...onyq7004.jhtml

Explain to me again how that thirsty V10 is efficient?

You're making this easy for us :.
Surely even you don't believe this?

If you believe that a 2200kg vehicle with V12 producing over 600hp can achieve those economy numbers, then you're sillier than I thought.

Comparing fuel economy from a magazines test and manufactures data is two very different things matey.

I'm not saying either of the cars will be fuel efficient, however I would lay money down and say the BMW will achieve better numbers in a back to back comparison under the same conditions.

Rick.

[Heeno]

Hey steffo, you know its really not hard to admit defeat, btw whats you big problem with BMW, at least it doesn't need a turbo to perform! :thebirds:

Originally Posted by Des

Steffo,
To put it simply, it's much, much harder to get any hp out of a N/A engine than out of a chemically/ mechanically assited engine (of the same, or smaller in this case, size). The N/A motor MUST be much more efficient, to break the 100 hp/Litre mark especially. To then make this motor work day-in, day-out in all weather/ temperatures....
In round figures:
E55 350Kw (476hp) out of 5439cc = 64.35Kw/Litre (87.51hp/Litre)
M5/6 373Kw (507hp) out of 4999cc = 74.61Kw/Litre (101.42hp/Litre)
These figures are quoted from the company sites. Less power from a larger engine.

*edit: Yes I know numbers don't tell the whole story, but there a good indicator in this case!*

HP per litre is utterly pointless. HP compared to the engine weight and external dimensions are more important. The m5 v10 is better than the amg engine though.Im sure the M5 v10 is a fair bit lighter than the AMG and I imagine the lower torque wouldn't be a problem at all because torque is multiplied by gearing.

[MITCHAY]

I love my beemers but i do say i prefer the older ones. I was actually trying to talk my mum into allowing me to get a 93 E36 M3 for $24000 with 79500kms on it. Aint gonna happen though lol. Boss' mate has a fairly new M3 and a 911 GT3. I tell you what that M3 flys so i can imagine what the M5 would do. Luxury plus performance is awesome.

http://www.sbbt.com.au/catalogue/ind...y=item&iID=235

As for the new M5, well not exactly to my design tastes-not the best but not bad either. Id still have one if i could lol :P

[Polyal]

Right thats it, im going to settle this with some GT4 action...watch this space!

Steffo no one said the Benz engines are bad either; its just that BMW go to more effort to produce new technologies etc etc. Benz basically do a FPV and slap a turbo on there cars do produce some ripper times and numbers; but no real great revolutionary thought has gone into the process.

In short; engine wise, BMW put more into their engines than Benz, its that simple.

Steffo I admire your strong pov's, but you remind me of Christie from Big Brother; just because she is being honest doesn't me she is right or not being rude. I can only hope your not as ugly as she is; then you might stand a chance.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I don't get why people like that engine so much... quite overrated like everything else BMW has made this past decade.

Comes from someone who drives a Ford Econovan :MrT_anim:

http://forums.mbworld.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=105310

A few decent post there.

Unlike Mercedes models of recent years, the E55 is nothing special. Sh!t quality control/problems, looks Asian too, apart from straight line speed (as if thats hard to achieve), not a ground breaking new model (didn't the old M5 hand its **** to it, from a drivers viewpoint) . Mercedes have lost the plot. Period. Wouldn't be seen dead driving a new one to be honest.

Don't take hp/torque figures on paper seriously. My BMW I6 makes 210nm @ 4500rpm and 125kw @ 5500, but is still as fast as a VP V6 Commodore. A completely different story in the real world.

hp/l means sh!t, but a figure like the M5 is quite impressive.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by MRJUCY

No amount of numbers, stats or figures can make a car good or bad it's all in how they drive anything else is a ****ing contest

That's the most sensible post I've seen in AFF for a bloody long time!

Hats off to BMW.

[Lukeyson]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Why's that? Because I don't agree with what everyone else thinks?

No because you argue to the enth degree about what power figures and peak torque you read in magazines, i am sure not based from actually driving any of the cars you rave on about yourself, although you always have a mate with a car like the one your talking about : . Please correct me if i am wrong Steffo !

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Steffo

350kW is 469hp not 476hp (that's 355kW). And 373kW is 500hp not 507hp... but anyway..

Wheels July 2005 they average 17.1 litres/100km in the new V10 M5, fuel use. That's 13.75mpg (miles per gallon).

Let me call on another Mercedes product here.. the bigger, 12 cylinder, twin turbo, 6.0litre, more powerful, faster S65 AMG. It gets 19mpg 12.38 litres/100km average consumption.. with 1.0litre extra capacity, 2 extra cylinders, two turbochargers, 450 kiloWatts, 1000 Newton metres.. and a few hundred extra kilogram's to pull around.

http://www.buyacar.co.uk/technicalSp...onyq7004.jhtml

Explain to me again how that thirsty V10 is efficient?

Quoting fuel economy, he's getting desperate.
Motor test drove a SL65 2 months ago and the fuel consumption was over 23L per 100. Big motors in big cars will never get good fuel economy, and if you can afford one of these cars why would you give a about fuel economy.

[Chucky]

Must admit... I've seen some drivel in my time but this thread just about takes the cake!

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Steffo

Let me call on another Mercedes product here.. the bigger, 12 cylinder, twin turbo, 6.0litre, more powerful, faster S65 AMG. It gets 19mpg 12.38 litres/100km average consumption.. with 1.0litre extra capacity, 2 extra cylinders, two turbochargers, 450 kiloWatts, 1000 Newton metres.. and a few hundred extra kilogram's to pull around.

Explain to me again how that thirsty V10 is efficient?

Redbook gives 23.4L/100 city and 10.4L/100 highway for the S65

http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesea...MERC05OC&veh=y

and 22.7L/100 city and 10.2L highway for the new M5

http://www.redbook.com.au/vehiclesea...p?key=BMW+05TX

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Chucky

Must admit... I've seen some drivel in my time but this thread just about takes the cake!

Yeah, I almost regret starting the thread.

It was meant to be a bit of fun with "Any guesses what it is before you check it out?" And also for all to have a light hearted discusion on some fine German engineering.

Instead we get a few fools that have nothing better to do than try & bring everyone down on their downer.

for those that do that (and you know who you are), if you've got nothing constructive to add to a Thread that is meant to be a bit of fun, keep the hell out!

Everyone else, thanks for the constructive comments, & I loved that video, that Beemer sounded awesome.

[M&Ms]

For those still interested, I found those pics I was talking about earlier. Forgot the site I got them from though, it must of been over a year ago.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by micmansour

For those still interested, I found those pics I was talking about earlier. Forgot the site I got them from though, it must of been over a year ago.

That engine is a work of art. The exhaust manifolds look like they have been taken straight of the Williams F1 car, and the cylinder heads are some of the smoothest castings I have seen, look how perfect the combustion chambers are. Automotive porn.

[Perana]

Enigne looks great! Well done to them !

[seano14]

some of you guys are worse than Neil "mr stats" Crompton.

anyway, i'm not really a fan of BMW but i have to admit they have some freakishly impressive engines, that one sounds/looks amazing.

[mitch_lx]

Renesis 13b from RX-8
VQ35DE from 350Z

just a couple suggestions

[Lawsy]

Most of you are all utterly clueless...
I may not know everything, and I'm first to admit it, but one thing I can pick is when someone else knows even less, yet proclaim to know more...

For example, most of the posters in this thread.

I'm not going to name names. You will know if you're in the clear or not. If you're unsure, and you're still reading this, just assume it isn't you (when it probably is) and you'll be nonethewiser.

The basis for my statement is this. Steffo clearly hasn't a clue what hes on about, so don't argue with him.
Anyone who says HP/L is useless, you can jump in steffo's wagon. You know just as much as he does (or as little).
HP/L gives a direct indication of how well an engine performs. If you can multiply 2 numbers, hp/l tells you the engines maximum power. GOSH! Assuming its civilised and doesn't require 11,000rpm, then hp/l is very important when making comparisons.
I don't give a rats **** about the size of the damn thing, because most of the time, the more efficient engines are packed smaller anyway.
To make a 600cu big block produce big numbers is easy... To make a compact 5L engine out perform a large 6 - 7L engine and do it more efficiently, thats engineering. Agree, or go jump.

And forced induction IS the easier way out. Forced induction does exactly the same thing as increasing the capacity of the engine, but at a variable rate. It can also be used to make an engine more compact and in some cases (Read: volvo, merc) make an engine more efficient, but only when used correctly. It is still allot easier than making the same engine produce more HP/L (more efficiency).
You can basically stick a turbo on anything, even an old carby engine, and it will make tonnes of grunt. Its just not that hard and that is the very reason you have an XR6T, because it wasn't that hard...

Hell, my brother stuck a tiny turbo on a 1970 victa lawn mower, the thing eventually shot its piston out the head, but it still ran like a cat slugged up the **** with a shotgun (ok, so it would be dead, but the engine died anyway... So its a valid simile). It was EASY, and the thing mowed lawns, oh boy did that thing mow lawns.

In short: Everyone with an adverse opinion on engineering excellence, adverse when compared with the 'multi-discipline degree-holding doctors/professors' who decided the V10 deserved "best engine", needs a kick to the face. Or several. Harsh? Damn right...

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Lawsy

Most of you are all utterly clueless...
I may not know everything, and I'm first to admit it, but one thing I can pick is when someone else knows even less, yet proclaim to know more...

For example, most of the posters in this thread.

I'm not going to name names. You will know if you're in the clear or not. If you're unsure, and you're still reading this, just assume it isn't you (when it probably is) and you'll be nonethewiser.

The basis for my statement is this. Steffo clearly hasn't a clue what hes on about, so don't argue with him.

Nice way to contradict yourself before you even start. :

Originally Posted by Lawsy

The basis for my statement is this. Steffo clearly hasn't a clue what hes on about, so don't argue with him.
Anyone who says HP/L is useless, you can jump in steffo's wagon. You know just as much as he does (or as little).
HP/L gives a direct indication of how well an engine performs. If you can multiply 2 numbers, hp/l tells you the engines maximum power. GOSH!

It is utterly useless. Take for example, these two cars (they fit the comparison well). The Honda NSX (3.2litre DOHC 24v VTEC 276hp V6) and Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (5.7litre 405hp OHV 16v Pushrod V8). The Honda NSX averages 20.5 miles per gallon fuel economy (11.47litres/100km), and makes 276hp from 3.2litres (86.25hp/litre). The Corvette Z06 averages 23.5 miles per gallon (10 litres/100km) and makes 405hp out of 5.7litres (71.05hp/litre). Do you mean to tell me that the NSX is more efficient then the Z06 because it has more hp/litre, even though the Z06 uses less fuel to make more power? Rightio then.

Originally Posted by Lawsy

And forced induction IS the easier way out. Forced induction does exactly the same thing as increasing the capacity of the engine, but at a variable rate. It can also be used to make an engine more compact and in some cases (Read: volvo, merc) make an engine more efficient, but only when used correctly. It is still allot easier than making the same engine produce more HP/L (more efficiency).
You can basically stick a turbo on anything, even an old carby engine, and it will make tonnes of grunt. Its just not that hard and that is the very reason you have an XR6T, because it wasn't that hard...

Not true. Engine's thrive on air. The basic recipe is air + fuel + spark = bang. Bang = power. That's the most simplistic way of explaining what happens. Now, you're specifically talking about turbocharging in this scenario, and it is my favourite form of forced induction, so lets go with that. It can be argued, that a turbocharger increases engine efficiency in great amounts. In my opinion, it does exactly this. It harnesses energy that is otherwise completley unused. It re-routes expelled exhaust gas to drive a compressor which allows the engine to injest more fuel and air, the basic recipe for more power. What would happen with these gasses otherwise? They'd just be expelled and that's that. Is this not an efficient device? A device that requires no real power to be driven, that uses an untapped energy source, to create more energy in the end. Seems that way to me.

This particular comment of yours intrigues me..
"It can also be used to make an engine more compact and in some cases (Read: volvo, merc) make an engine more efficient, but only when used correctly. It is still allot easier than making the same engine produce more HP/L (more efficiency)."

So you're saying it can make an engine more efficient when used correctly. Yet then at the same time you say its "alot easier then making the same engine produce more HP/L" which according to you means more efficiency? Do you even know what you're trying to say? Perhaps not.

[Steffo]

I will adjust my stance on this a little. I believe I was approaching this thread arguing something totally different.

The 5.0litre DOHC 40v V10 that the M5 uses is indeed a standout engine.

What I feel is that it is misplaced in a car like the M5. But the engine itself is quite excellent.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by mitch_lx

VQ35DE from 350Z

Thats a nice engine. I love the Zeds.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Steffo

I will adjust my stance on this a little. I believe I was approaching this thread arguing something totally different.

The 5.0litre DOHC 40v V10 that the M5 uses is indeed a standout engine.

What I feel is that it is misplaced in a car like the M5. But the engine itself is quite excellent.

Did you wake up and finally realise you were uncontrollably spinning sh!t?

I think you need to get your head out of these magazines, stop having a bat to every second artcle that spits out kw/nm and 1/4 mile figures, and get on with your life.

If bmw's are so bad to drive because of their lack of torque... then why is BMW one of the most respected auto manufacturers in the world?

What BMW can do with a lump of steel is nothing short of amazing, and it shows with them winning this award again.

[MethodX]

Hasnt helped their F1 program lately.
Its fallen in a hole.

Impressive engine, but ill take a Z06, long live pushrods.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by MethodX

Hasnt helped their F1 program lately.
Its fallen in a hole.

Ill take a Z06 too.

So toyota make great, awe-inspiring road cars then do they?

[MethodX]

The Toyota F1 team is based in germany with an Ex Ferrari engine designer.

Ita not in Altona

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by MADXF

Did you wake up and finally realise you were uncontrollably spinning sh!t?

Not at all, was just arguing the wrong thing in the wrong thread. The thread is about the engine itself, and it is a fine engine indeed.

I just personally feel that an engine like that is misplaced in a 1700+kg family sedan. It belongs in a light sports car. That's how I feel anyway.

[Lawsy]

Steffo, my first comment was clearly talking to everyone BUT yourself. That doesn't require explanation. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Now, find where i said "I think engines don't require oxygen, and I also think that turbo's are useless contraptions."
Right, I didn't say that. Give yourself another pat on the back because that is what your arguement seems to indicate.

HP/L is a direct figure to find out how efficiently an engine can make power. It is called the brake mean effective pressure, or bmep, of an engine. Its a measure of efficiency that engineers (professionals, that is, something you aren't) have chosen to express an engines output relative to its displacement. They (the professionals) chose this because it is an extremely effective way of finding out how well an engine is operating; not how much fuel its using. The 2 efficiencies are definately related, but not directly.

Back to turbo's, you are CLEARLY missing the point. I'm not saying turbo's are bad, we are only saying they are easier to implement. Get it? Didn't think so...
I'm not saying some turbo's AREN'T more efficient, and I never did say that. Infact, i said exactly the opposite of that, some are more fuel efficient. But I guess I was expecting a little to much from you to tell the difference (and follow allong) between the 2 efficiencies.
What we are saying is that for one to engineer a turbocharger for a particular engine requires much less headache than engineering an ATMO engine to have a BMEP that out performs the former engine.
We are talking performance engines, not bloody hybrids. No one gives a rats **** about fuel economy at this point in time. Now from that point of view, all of my above points mesh, and still stand.
You ignore what people are saying. You then quote people and argue against points that they didn't make... Even though you quoted them.

[EDIT] You also don't understand the power loss caused by the backpressure when running a turbo. Energy isn't free.
I also love how you said "Not true" to my coment (the one you quoted). Everything I said in that quote is considered to be an automotive engineering fundamental... How is anything I said in that particular quote not true? I'm intregued as to why you think you can re write the physical, God placed laws that govern our physical world. Sigh.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Lawsy

Steffo, my first comment was clearly talking to everyone BUT yourself. That doesn't require explanation. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Now, find where i said "I think engines don't require oxygen, and I also think that turbo's are useless contraptions."
Right, I didn't say that. Give yourself another pat on the back.

HP/L is a direct figure to find out how efficiently an engine can make power. It is called the brake mean effective pressure, or bmep, of an engine. Its a measure of efficiency that engineers (professionals, that is, something you aren't) have chosen to express an engines output relative to its displacement. They (the professionals) chose this because it is an extremely effective way of finding out how well an engine is operating; not how much fuel its using. The 2 efficiencies are definately related, but not directly.

http://www.factorypipe.com/Technical...BMEP/bmep.html

Originally Posted by FactoryPipe.com

Bmep is a useful comparitor of engine performance and state of tune, although, care must be taken to consider the rpm at which the engine is operating to determine the power potential. Different engines can be compared directly as swept volume has been removed from the power or torque figures to calculate bmep. The relevant equations are shown below along with a comparison of several engines tuned by Factory Pipe.

bmep = Power / ( Swept Volume x revolutions per second)
bmep = 2 x Pi x Torque / (Swept Volume)

Yep, you need the Power divided by the number you get from swept volume x revs per second to calculate BMEP. That's not HP/Litre. Where does that article mention HP/Litre?

Originally Posted by Lawsy

Back to turbo's, you are CLEARLY missing the point. I'm not saying turbo's are bad, we are only saying they are easier to implement. Get it? Didn't think so...
I'm not saying some turbo's AREN'T more efficient, and I never did say that. Infact, i said exactly the opposite of that, some are more fuel efficient. But I guess I was expecting a little to much from you to tell the differenc (and follow allong) between the 2 efficiencies.
What we are saying is that for one to engineer a turbocharger for a particular engine requires much less headache than engineering an ATMO engine to have a BMEP that out performs the former engine.

You're right, requires much less headache to make a turbocharged engine beat a naturally aspirated engine of the same type, capacity, cylinder count etc. I guess I'm just confusing the 'easy way out' comments with 'forced induction is cheating' comments or are they one and the same? It isn't cheating, its making use of otherwise wasted energy. But yes, naturally, most of the time, it is easier to make the turbo variant of said engine more powerful then the naturally aspirated one.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by Lawsy

[EDIT] You also don't understand the power loss caused by the backpressure when running a turbo. Energy isn't free.
I also love how you said "Not true" to my coment (the one you quoted). Everything I said in that quote is considered to be an automotive engineering fundamental... How is anything I said in that particular quote not true? I'm intregued as to why you think you can re write the physical, God placed laws that govern our physical world. Sigh.

The power loss is minimal at best, and in a properly setup turbocharged application, there will be no power loss. There will be power throughout the rev range, from the moment you hit the accelerator to the moment you shift gears.

I'm intriguied as to where you get the idea that I ever thought I could change the laws of physics? *Sigh* right back at you.