International Engine of the Year Award **2010 Results (page 2)**
#1
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
International Engine of the Year Award **2010 Results (page 2)**
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
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
#2
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,427
Received 5,087 Likes
on
2,700 Posts
fawk, bimmer mopped the floor with everyone.
#3
The sizzle in the Steak
BMW owns!
#6
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#7
Senior Moderator
BMW pwned the competition
Trending Topics
#8
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by 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.
#9
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
#12
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by av6ent
Hmm, the title says INTERNATIONAL what US made LS7 has to do with it?
Last time I checked the US was a nation on the planet earth.
#13
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by Maximized
The LS7 is a more powerful engine using inferior technology. That's damn good engineering to me.
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.
#16
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
I guess you guys are impressed by the M5's "F1 technology"...
#17
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by 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"...
I guess you guys are impressed by the M5's "F1 technology"...
http://www.gizmag.com/go/4101/
Originally Posted by Gizmag
The bottom line is that this Best New Engine 2005 weighs just 240kg – that’s almost exactly the same figure as its predecessor, a V8.
Originally Posted by Best performance engine standings
1. BMW 5-litre V10 (M5, M6) 294 points
2. Ferrari 4.3-litre V8 (F430) 203 points
3. Mercedes-AMG 6-litre bi-turbo (SL65, CL65) 126 points
4. Porsche 3.8-litre (911) 105 points
5. Chevrolet 6-litre V8 (Corvette, Pontiac GTO) 60 points
6. Chrysler/Dodge 6.1-litre V8 (300C SRT-8, Magnum) 59 points
2. Ferrari 4.3-litre V8 (F430) 203 points
3. Mercedes-AMG 6-litre bi-turbo (SL65, CL65) 126 points
4. Porsche 3.8-litre (911) 105 points
5. Chevrolet 6-litre V8 (Corvette, Pontiac GTO) 60 points
6. Chrysler/Dodge 6.1-litre V8 (300C SRT-8, Magnum) 59 points
#18
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
#19
Photography Nerd
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.
Based on the criteria of the contest, it's a clear choice.
Originally Posted by IEOTY Criteria
The International Engine of the Year Awards competition, now in its seventh year, is organized by Engine Technology International, a British-based publication that contains no advertising and receives no financial support from automakers or distributors.
These independent awards have now attained full international recognition, and their results are typically promoted and publicized by the winning carmakers planet-wide.
The IEOTY jury now has 56 members, 5 more than last year. These journalists hail from a list of 26 countries, on all five continents, the newest being Austria and Slovenia. None of them are paid or compensated in any way for their participation in the awards program.
Four jury members are Canadian: David Booth, from AutoVision and the National Post, and from the Sympatico / MSN Autos team: reviewers Jim Kenzie and Gerry Malloy (who both write for the Toronto Star's Wheels section), and Editor Marc Lachapelle.
The awards are decided by secret ballot. For the first round, each jury member must allot 25 points to his (or her) five favourite engines, with a maximum of 15 points and a minimum of 1 point for any single entry. There can be no tie for first position in each category.
Points are awarded by the judges based on both their driving impressions and their assessment of an engine's overall technical merits. Other factors such as fuel economy, noise, smoothness, performance and driveability are also considered, beyond an engine's technical sophistication.
The overall 'International Engine of the Year' winner is picked in a second-round ballot, from a short list made up of the winners in the eight individual displacement categories.
These independent awards have now attained full international recognition, and their results are typically promoted and publicized by the winning carmakers planet-wide.
The IEOTY jury now has 56 members, 5 more than last year. These journalists hail from a list of 26 countries, on all five continents, the newest being Austria and Slovenia. None of them are paid or compensated in any way for their participation in the awards program.
Four jury members are Canadian: David Booth, from AutoVision and the National Post, and from the Sympatico / MSN Autos team: reviewers Jim Kenzie and Gerry Malloy (who both write for the Toronto Star's Wheels section), and Editor Marc Lachapelle.
The awards are decided by secret ballot. For the first round, each jury member must allot 25 points to his (or her) five favourite engines, with a maximum of 15 points and a minimum of 1 point for any single entry. There can be no tie for first position in each category.
Points are awarded by the judges based on both their driving impressions and their assessment of an engine's overall technical merits. Other factors such as fuel economy, noise, smoothness, performance and driveability are also considered, beyond an engine's technical sophistication.
The overall 'International Engine of the Year' winner is picked in a second-round ballot, from a short list made up of the winners in the eight individual displacement categories.
#20
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
Specific displacement is just one thing that makes a great engine...great. There are a number of other factors.
#21
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by av6ent
Hmm, the title says INTERNATIONAL what US made LS7 has to do with it?
I would think that the USA falls under the...international notion. No?
#22
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by 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.
Specific displacement is just one thing that makes a great engine...great. There are a number of other factors.
#23
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
#25
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by 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"...
I guess you guys are impressed by the M5's "F1 technology"...
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.
#26
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#27
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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...
#28
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Of course, which is why I highlighted the criteria in the post above you.
#29
Drifting
Join Date: May 2004
Location: D.C. area
Age: 46
Posts: 3,457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#30
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#31
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
IMO all engines eligable for this award shuuld produce 100hp/L or better.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
How that power is delivered is also important. But not in the sense of how it's related to displacement.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
#32
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by 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.
Originally Posted by gavriil
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.
Originally Posted by gavriil
In the end a great engine is a great engine cos it fells and sounds like one.
Most judges have probably been equally impressed by the unit’s first-class refinement and its intoxicating bark when under full load.
Originally Posted by gavriil
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
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway) for 2005 M3
Manual: 16 mpg / 24 mpg Automatic: : 16 mpg / 23 mpg
Such technical know-how from the talented men at Munich helps the M3 record fuel consumption figures of 8.5L/100km (33.6mpg) on the EC extra-urban cycle.
Originally Posted by gavriil
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.
Originally Posted by gavriil
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".
Originally Posted by gavriil
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.
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.
Originally Posted by gavriil
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.
How that power is delivered is also important. But not in the sense of how it's related to displacement.
Originally Posted by gavriil
We dont know much about NVH, drivability and gas consumption for this new V10 engine yet. Unless if you have a source for it.
#33
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
#34
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#35
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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:
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
At it's most efficient point, the LS7 produces 71hp/L.
Let's go further on your point...
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
The S2000 reaches the same efficiency at 6,000rpm and has another 3,000rpm of headroom over that.
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?
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Unless the LS7 can reach 500hp at 4000rpm, I'd argue all day long that the F20C1 is a more efficient engine.
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?
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
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
The absolute pinnacle in Sports Sedan motoring has a name: BMW M5. Relatively reserved in its looks, this super-sport sedan is the most sophisticated and powerful 5 Series ever – five liter capacity, 10 cylinders, 500 hp (SAE net) output, 383 lb-ft maximum torque, and engine speeds in excess of 8,000 rpm.
...
BMW’s V10 is the only high-speed engine currently available in a production sedan, making the M5 BMW’s most powerful production model. Running at engine speeds of up to 8,250 rpm and with specific output of 100 hp/liter aluminum engine in bedplate design and with double-VANOS is comparable to a racing engine in every respect.
...
BMW’s V10 is the only high-speed engine currently available in a production sedan, making the M5 BMW’s most powerful production model. Running at engine speeds of up to 8,250 rpm and with specific output of 100 hp/liter aluminum engine in bedplate design and with double-VANOS is comparable to a racing engine in every respect.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
In a contest such as the IEOTY, I give more credit to high-end power and efficiency than low end grunt.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I believe my previous statements should clear my position on this point.
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?
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
. I haven't seen fuel economy specs for the LS7 or the V10 but generally smaller displacement engines get better economy.
What you wrote above
"generally smaller displacement engines get better economy"
is true because smaller engines, generally make less power.
#36
Photography Nerd
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.
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.
#37
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
The BMW V10 in a Z4 would be interesting.......
#38
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by 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.......
The BMW V10 in a Z4 would be interesting.......
#39
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I'm getting tired of this arguement,
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
I've already stated why I would pick the M5 V10 over the LS7.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
If lower revs make a better engine, then the LS7 is for you.
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Personally, I think the engine has to be matched to the car.
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
There's just something to be said about a high revving lightweight engine that makes me smile.
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
People that complain about having to rev-out an engine go get power are buying the wrong car.
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
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.
#40
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
So I dont think that's a fair comparison. I think a fair comparison would be an S2000 vs a Boxster (base car).