fdl

http://en.autos.sympatico.msn.ca/adv...e&pos=editlead

Summary of the IEOTY winners for 2005
For the overall award and eleven individual categories:

International Engine of the Year
BMW 5-litre V10 (M5 - M6)

Best Performance Engine
BMW 5-litre V10 (M5 - M6)

Best New Engine
BMW 5-litre V10 (M5 - M6)

Best Fuel Economy
Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive - Toyota Prius

Best Above 4.0-litre
BMW 5-litre V10 (M5 - M6)

Best 3.0-litre to 4.0-litre
BMW 3.2-litre - BMW M3

Best 2.5-litre to 3.0-litre
BMW 3-litre twin-turbo diesel (535d - European model)

Best 2.0-litre to 2.5-litre
Honda 2.2-litre diesel (Accord, CR-V, FR-V - European models)

Best 1.8-litre to 2.0-litre
Volkswagen 2-litre FSI Turbo - 2006 VW Golf, GTI, Jetta, Audi A3 + A4

Best 1.4-litre to 1.8-litre
Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive - Toyota Prius

Best 1-litre to 1.4-litre
Fiat-GM Multijet 1.3-litre diesel (European Fiat and Opel models)

Best Sub 1-litre
Honda hybrid 1.0-litre IMA - Honda Insight

Sarlacc

fawk, bimmer mopped the floor with everyone.

Moog-Type-S

BMW owns!

dom

Can't agrue with that 5L V10.

Python2121

that is a seriously good engine

Maximized

Yawn...The M5 engine is unproven. I would have thought that the LS7 would have at lease made best performance engine. The SBC/LS2 is a proven engine with a lot of technology built into it.

srika

BMW pwned the competition

Dan Martin

How do you figure the LS7 is a better engine than the BMW? One takes 7 litres to make 500hp, the other one does it in 5 litres. In my books that's a pretty clear victory.

Maximized

Who cares about hp/liter? Power is power. The LS7 is a more powerful engine using inferior technology. That's damn good engineering to me.

fdl

av6ent

Hmm, the title says INTERNATIONAL what US made LS7 has to do with it?

fdl

Last time I checked the US was a nation on the planet earth.

Dan Martin

+ 1

If the technology exists to make smaller, lighter engines that produce the same amount of power, why make something bigger just for the sake of using old technology?

That doesn't sound like good engineering, it sounds like laziness to me.

The LS7 is still a very impressive engine, but just not as impressive as this 5L V10.

Dan Martin

Maximized

Pushrods dummy

Maximized

I don't know the specs on the M5's weight, but traditionally a DOHC motor is heavier and larger. I would go out on a limb and say that the LS7 is smaller and lighter. Why mess with something that works?

I guess you guys are impressed by the M5's "F1 technology"...

Dan Martin

I'd take F1 technology over NASCAR technology.


http://www.gizmag.com/go/4101/

You can't honestly tell me that the LS7 is more impressive than the top three. I'm amazed that the LS2 even got on the board, but it only beat out the hemi by one point.

Maximized

The LS7 is a very impressive engine:
http://www.corvettemuseum.com/specs/2006/LS7.shtml

Will the M5's engine be reliable, time will tell. The S54 M3 motor had its share of gremlins a few years back. I would like to see a weight comparison because I am 99% sure the LS7 is lighter. I guess the M5s engine can get its praise on paper, while the LS7 will get its praise on the track and the last laugh.

Dan Martin

I'm not saying it's not impressive, I'd buy a Z06 in a heartbeat.

Based on the criteria of the contest, it's a clear choice.

gavriil

So why wasnt the 2.0L S2000 engine (still available in Europe and elsewhere) win the "Best 1.8-litre to 2.0-litre"?

Specific displacement is just one thing that makes a great engine...great. There are a number of other factors.

gavriil

I would think that the USA falls under the...international notion. No?

Dan Martin

Of course, which is why I highlighted the criteria in the post above you.

gavriil

1. Smaller displacement engine does not always mean lighter engine. I bet the LS7 is lighter than the V10 in the M5. V8 engines are inherently light. Like I4 engines are inherently heavy, when considering the number of cylinders and overall displacement.

2. The M5 may be producing the same amount of power as the V10 in the M5 (although it produces slightly less power) but it produces it in a very different way. It has to turn faster to do it. That changes the whole character of the engine and although character may be subjective, it is totally objective that it makes less power in the low rpm range than the LS7. Part of that is character, part of it is a limitation (for the V10).

3. In theory the LS7 will be more reliable than the V10. Again, in theory. Also, in theory, the LS7 will need A TON less maintenance than the V10. Actually that may be a fact and no theory at all, we have to refer to the manuals.

gavriil

I have not read that post yet. Hold on

gavriil

And the quotes should be highly...highlighted. No pun intended

In my book, the LS7 is as "high tech" as the V10 in the M5. If not more. It's more impressive to make a pushrod engine, 7 liters large, turn that fast and still be efficient, than to have a DOHC do that.

gavriil

From that list, I am guessing that the LS7 was not even considered. Probably because the car was not and still is not on sale. So...

gavriil

There will be no contenst between the M5/M6 and the Z06. On any measure. It will be an unfair comparison with the M5 as it is. It's a super heavy sedan. So...

gavriil

OK, now that I have read it...I am wondering why did you make that direct, specific displacement measure comparison. It sounded like that was the only measure for a great engine. But I guess it sounds like we agree so no worries.

sipark

Interesting...

Then again, one can claim this engine makes 500 hp with 8 cylinders, while the other achieves the same with 10 cylinders. Or, one engine makes 500 hp while having fuel efficiency of 25 mpg, while the other does the same at 20 mpg.



disclaimer: I don't actually know the fuel efficiencies of M5 or Z07.

Dan Martin

The 2L out of the S2000 uses classically proven techniques for generating horsepower but it really isn't all that innovative. It's really not too hard to spin an engine to 9,000rpm, it's been done for decades.

The S54 3.2L M3 engine is much more impressive in my book and there's a reason why it's won 5 years in a row. Graphite coated aluminum pistons, lightweight valve-drive followers, two 32-bit ECUs, all make for a fast and efficient engine while achieving 33mpg on the highway.

Displacement isn't the only thing I'm concerned with, but HP/L is still a very important metric of how efficent an engine is. IMO all engines eligable for this award shuuld produce 100hp/L or better. I know it's harder to maintain that ratio with bigger naturally aspirated engines; there's a reason why my 0.0035L engine in my R/C car produces over 800hp/L
However, 100hp/L can be done on a larger scale and it's even more impressive when it happens. The 660hp 6L F140 engine in the Enzo is a prime example of this.

Perhaps it's not fair to compare engines with different numbers of cylinders, but in a contest that puts values on technical merits, drivability, fuel economy, and N/V/H I would have to give the edge to the 5L V10.

LS7 vs 4.2L V8 from the RS4 would be a much more interesting contest.

gavriil

It may be "not too hard to spin an engine to 9K rpm" but it is hard to do it in a $30K, mass production car, with 3Y-36KM warrantee in 1999/2000.

Innovation is not what judges look for in a great engine. If they do, it's should not a primary measure. Innovation with practical results is a different story. Innovations are usually theoritical because they are "trying" to achieve better results. In the end a great engine is a great engine cos it fells and sounds like one.

I dont know where you're getting this 33mpg amount:

EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway) for 2005 M3
Manual: 16 mpg / 24 mpg Automatic: : 16 mpg / 23 mpg

The M3 is a great engine on paper, I have never driven it but it is a fact that European and Japanese journalists like this engine a lot more than American ones do. And there is a reason for that. In Europe and Japan, both the market and the press, are way more impressed by high-revving, high-specific-power engines than we do here. One of the main reasons is because engines must be smaller because of legistlation related to taxation, as well as what I call "fashion-victimism syndrom" (in the positive sense) which for some reason assumes that a when two engines make the same peak HP, the smaller engine is superior to the larger engine. There are other numerous reasons.

In the case of high-specific engines, let me correct the above. These engines are "efficient" only at the upper rev range. Unless if you mean something else with the term "efficient".

With that, I totally disagree. I am not sure why you're saying that. A great engine is not necessarily one that makes high specific power. The 225HP engine in the 330i is one example. Pretty much all of the press praises that engine. Its specific power is average at best.


It may be impressive but in reality, specific power is a theoritical notion. On the track, on the street, physics does not care about specific power. It cares about power.

How that power is delivered is also important. But not in the sense of how it's related to displacement.


We dont know much about NVH, drivability and gas consumption for this new V10 engine yet. Unless if you have a source for it.

Dan Martin

They have indeed proven to be reliable engines as with practically every engine that Honda makes.

Of course they can't just "put a clock in it" and say it's better. Everything part on this V10 has a purpose.

Undoubtedly, that's probably one of the largest metrics used to judge this competition. With that, I submit this:
I have always had a problem with the way EPA calculates fuel economy and seldom do they represent real-world results. My source came directly from the IEOTY release:

I have driven it on several occaisons and it is every bit as good as they say it is. It's a beast on the top end and at no point in the throttle band does it feel sluggish. If you're using these cars the way they're intended to be used, then low end power should never be a concern. You don't buy a thoroughbred to pull a plow.

At it's most efficient point, the LS7 produces 71hp/L. The S2000 reaches the same efficiency at 6,000rpm and has another 3,000rpm of headroom over that. Unless the LS7 can reach 500hp at 4000rpm, I'd argue all day long that the F20C1 is a more efficient engine.


The 225hp 3.0L is a great engine and I'd be happy to own one in 330i. It has been praised a lot for it's low-down grunt which is good for the cars it has been matched to. I totally agree with its third place finish this year. Both the BWM 3.5L TT diesel and the Honda 3.0L V6 with IMA are better, more technically innovative engines and the judges could see that.

High end power is not as important in these cars as it is in an S2000 or an M5.

In a contest such as the IEOTY, I give more credit to high-end power and efficiency than low end grunt.


I believe my previous statements should clear my position on this point.



The judges were quite impressed with it, that's all I have to go with. The first quote in this reply mentions that it is highly refined. I haven't seen fuel economy specs for the LS7 or the V10 but generally smaller displacement engines get better economy.

Maximized

HP/Liters is a number that makes people feel warm and fuzzy. It really means little to nothing IMO. Horsepower is Horsepower and it's the area under the curve that counts. Engines that make a lot of hp/liter are generally peaky. I just think its amazing what Chevy's engineers have done with an engine that dates back to the 1950s.

Maximized

Also I might add that the S54 engine lacks low end power(torque). You really have to rev the thing out and keep it in its powerband otherwise its not very impressive. My friend had a modded E46 and I used to drive it all the time.

Also, who cares about fuel economy when you are buying a performance car. If it gets 15 mpg its good by me. Performance cars are meant to be driven hard.

gavriil

So are you saying that the EPA's measure of gas consumption is...invalid and the IEOTY is not?

Regardless of the answer, there is something seriously wrong with one of the two above measurements of consumption for the M3. One of them is very seriously wrong about it simply because the difference is huge.

My source is edmunds.com which probably gets it from the EPA and/or BMW. What is your source for this 33mpg result? I cant imagine a 333HP engine "making" this many miles to the gallon.


I dont doubt any of these points above at all.


What do you mean by "using these cars the way they're intended to be used" ?


That's not true technically actually. The most efficient point of any engine is its peak torque. That is when the most amount of air enters the cylinders. The rest of what happens you know.

Let's go further on your point...

If that were true (meaning if we agreed on the definition of the term [engine] efficiency), I simply ask you about the above: So what? What does that do for anyone or for anything? In reality and in practice that is.

In other words, what is this craze with high revving engines with some of you fine car enthusiasts? What is it about revs that do it for ya?


I am not sure exactly how much HP the LS7 makes at 4000 rpm but according to GM, it makes 430HP at 4800 rpm. The V10 in the M5 (which makes similar peak HP) makes 446HP at 6100 rpm according to BMW. Both of these rpm points are the most efficient points for both of these engines accordingly.

So what does that mean in reality? (assuming gearing, weight, etc. kept constant)that the LS7 will feel stronger and that it will feel stronger...sooner. It makes about 100 more lb/ft of torque on the V10 in the M5.

Bottom line, what we have here is an engine (the LS7) which makes as much peak power as the one in the M5, but will also feel stronger on the buttmeter for all drivers who will drive it (and I am not even mentioning the theoritical reliability factor and the lower maintenance factor, both for the LS7). What does the V10 have on the LS7? What is its practical and realistic advantage?



Exactly. Why though? In my opinion, as I have answered already, because of this unfounded excitement about high specific power and high revving engines.

Porsche makes a high revving version of their engine variations in the GT3. Every other engine is not high revving, espcially in the case of the 996 cars and before. No one is complaining about their cars not being...sporty enough. Not having the right...sporty character. Why does the S2000 and M5 have to? Because for some reason, there is this fascination with it. And all of this fascination has been created by the marketing departments of these companies. Why? For many reasons but one of them is because of legislation as I wrote.

Example:

Check this out on bmw.com:

http://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/futur...newM5/news.htm



I simply ask...why?


Right, but can you justify your position with arguments that reflect reality?

Why does a high revving engine present a better choice on the track and street than a non-high revving engine making the same peak HP (and in most cases more peak torque at lower rpm)? Why?



The general rule actually is that "usually more power = more gas consumption". Displacement is a secondary factor. You spray gas in the intake (or cylinders in the case of DI) according to how much air enters (there are many many more parameters these days but I am trying to keep it simple in this example). So, more air entering, more gas needed and when both are increasing they translate into more power. So more power, more gas consumed.

What you wrote above

"generally smaller displacement engines get better economy"

is true because smaller engines, generally make less power.

Dan Martin

I'm getting tired of this arguement, I've already stated why I would pick the M5 V10 over the LS7. If lower revs make a better engine, then the LS7 is for you.

Personally, I think the engine has to be matched to the car. I wouldn't want an S2000 that used a 3.6L V6 based on LS7 technology that puts out the same power but revs to 6 grand. There's just something to be said about a high revving lightweight engine that makes me smile.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm a huge fan of the C6 Z06. I've got tons of pictures of it in this room i'm in right now. The V8 suits it's character beautifully.

People that complain about having to rev-out an engine go get power are buying the wrong car. I have yet to see someone say that the S2000 is an incompetent car on a track. Is it as good of a car for city driving? Probably not.

Maximized

The S2K is a good track car.....That is if you enjoy slow lap times. It may feel wonderful, but when racing it comes down to the numbers. A friend of a friend has a S2K race car which is gutted, caged, full race suspension, r compounds, etc. etc. He is a very good driver, in fact he races semi-competitively. My good friend had a stock Z06, which ran faster than the S2K on the same road course(Gingerman). When he put goodyear slicks and race pads on the Z06, he was nearly 6 seconds faster per lap. That's a huge distance on a race track.

The BMW V10 in a Z4 would be interesting.......

Dan Martin

I'm not insane. I didn't say the S2000 would beat a Z06 on a track.

gavriil

I am sorry to read you feel that way. I hope it's not because I did something wrong during the argument.

To me it's a fun argument because I used to think and feel like you until I thought of the subject in an unbiased way. Then I thought about it and realized that there is no practical reason for such a philosophy.

Sorry I missed it but I have seen no clear answer to my simple questions above. At least no answers that were clear to me. If you prefer high revving engines because you LIKE THEIR CHARACTER better, that's a totally different issue. Meaning, if you are calling this a subjective matter, then there is no place for anyone to argue with you. Taste is totally subjective and private to every one of us. Is that what you're saying?

I never said that. See it's easy to be misunderstood in this type of debate.

What I have indirectly been saying is that, there should be no fascination with high revving engines, JUST BEACAUSE they make high specific power. One cant see this as a measure of advantage for an engine during a competition. It's a non-issue in reality. As a judge, certainly you can look at other realistic factors, like it's mentioned above, but the specific power factor is completely unfounded. It simply does not make an engine a "better engine" in any realistic way.

If taste is what you're calling upon, then have at it. High revving engines are for ya.

That's what I have been trying to say. I have certainly not been trying to say that the LS7 and pushrod, low revving engines, are better than high revving engines.

If the judges or a member here said the opposite, meaning that low end torque is better than high end power (one simple way to put it), I'd be having the same type of argument with them. Hope I am clear on this.

No doubt, but in many cases that can be subjective. Here is an example:

Can you not imagine a 4L V8 making 400HP at 7700 rpm in the C6? If I had to envision this example in the most unbiased way possible, I TOTALLY can imagine such a combination as making sense. The car is 3150 pounds, it can certainly receive a smaller engine that makes a lot less torque down low and the same peak power up high.

What you should have written is that the character of a car is defined ALSO by its engine (also means, among other factors).

But certainly there are examples where what you said above is correct. Meaning, one cant have a V8 in a Solstice (although it sounds like it's done already). At least one cant have a V8 in a Solstice with the stock tires, among other things. The Solstice's character is to be an affordable roadster so a V8 would probably not make sense in it. So in the case of the Solstice a V8 does not make sense, not for mechanical/physics-related reasons, but for cost reasons which are part of the reasons that form the complete character of this vehicle.

Another example that will make the same principle argument but in a totally difference way and for totally different reasons is, one cant have a CL Type S with an LS7 in it. That engine totally does not "match the character of the car" as you elluded. You'd be spinning the front wheels in 1 through 4th gear So we got engineering-limitations-related reasons here for the same argument.

So yes and no to the above.

The only reason such a combination would not make sense is due to the nature and character of Honda vehicles. Meaning, there would be no engineering limitation related reason for such a combination above. But there would be a huge problem with the marketing department at Honda. "That's not who we are!" I can hear them calling...no not calling but rather yelling at the top of their lungs, at the engineers that suggested such a possibility


With the above, I am guessing that I would be correct to assume that to you, a high revving engine is a personal matter, it's a matter of taste and a totally subjective matter. As I wrote to the above basically. If that's the case then we have been arguing different arguments.

I think we agree in the end more than disagree if that's the case.

I find beauty to both the LS7 and the V10 in the M5. Beauty of similar intensity. But no one can come and convince anyone that one is better in reality than the other. At least I do not think so.


See, there is more proof of you seeing this matter from a totally subjective standpoint. Nothing wrong with that but that's not what I am trying to argue.

No doubt.

gavriil

I would totally expect a slicked Z06 be faster than a caged S2000 on pretty much any track (and the more straights it has the better for the Z06 not that it would have issues on the twisies either).

So I dont think that's a fair comparison. I think a fair comparison would be an S2000 vs a Boxster (base car).