[han405]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Yep. But then, you didn't mention that in your original request, and I am unable to read minds (well, actually I can, just not over the internet).


Nope - you are mistaken.

I thought the entire basis of this discussion is to find a more efficient engine that has the same performance, the category S65 engine is in..

locomotive engines have a lot more displacement and hp than the S65 engine. how come I don't see those in your list? huh?
locomotive engines perhaps are more efficient when you look at fuel consumption to engine displacement ratio or fuel consumption to engine hp ratio.
just like all the other engines you quoted, -> not in the same league (category) the s65 engine is in.



then perhaps you can educate me, you are saying ALL of the engines you quoted are rated over 400 stock? is that correct?

[eMvy]

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

S65 engine "amazing efficiency?" Clearly this discredits this jury pool. It has among the worst efficiency in its class and of any engine!

No, they are referring to volumetric efficiency and under that context it's one of the BEST in its class.

[MaxL]

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

What are you talking about? n54/55 gets 30mpg on the highway and 20 around the city without even being a granny. S65 is 12 around city and 20 at the most on the highway. 10mpg is HUGE.

A corvette has more HP, more displacement and gets around 28mpg.

I am nto saying the engine is not great but it sure is not for its efficiency

I had both 335i and M3 for years and the difference in consumption with exactly the same driving patterns was 25%, which is about the same as difference in power. It was less than 25% in the city and more on the highway. On the track, 335i actually consumed about the same as M3 or more.

What kills the mileage for M3 is not the engine efficiency but rather it's gearing. The engine itself is reasonably efficient. GT3 gives you the same mileage in a smaller car...

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by han405

I thought the entire basis of this discussion is to find a more efficient engine that has the same performance, the category S65 engine is in.

It might be, but your question was more general than that, so I took it at face value. I didn't make the assumption that the context fit precisely within the confines of the thread since only about 50% of the posts I read on this forum fall into that category.

locomotive engines have a lot more displacement and hp than the S65 engine. how come I don't see those in your list? huh?

Two reasons: a) because a train isn't a car (I had to ask my three year old that to be sure - yep its true)) b) because I just wanted to see if you would get all huffy and start being deliberately obtuse after getting properly schooled.

then perhaps you can educate me, you are saying ALL of the engines you quoted are rated over 400 stock? is that correct?

All you have to remember is that I know more than you. That'll keep it simple.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by CAPSGOD

LS3

Better read the rest of the thread - he's gonna expect you to read his mind, then get all loud with you when you don't.

[CAPSGOD]

Originally Posted by han405

nice list of engines..
However, ALL of them are over 4-liter displacement engines, which made them officially invalid to be compared in the 3 - 4 liter capacity class category by default.
and if I'm not mistaken, many of engines you listed are rated UNDER 400 hp, right?

They are all over 400 hp except the Hyundai.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by CAPSGOD

They are all over 400 hp except the Hyundai.

Say hello to my little buddy Ron. Ron Gancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Tau_engine

The newer 5L is 429hp.

[CAPSGOD]

Didn't know they updated it. I'd like to see that in the coupe.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by CAPSGOD

Finished reading it- think I better leave now!

No no, please, you are quite welcome. Grab some some and relax.

BTW, sorry I quoted a post that you intended to delete. It happens.

[CAPSGOD]

It's ok, I only deleted it because I saw your list response. For the record I think the S65 is an amazing engine.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by CAPSGOD

It's ok, I only deleted it because I saw your list response. For the record I think the S65 is an amazing engine.

Unquestionably. It completely deserves the accolades it receives. It is sad that it will soon be put out to pasture. Truly the pinacle of BMW naturally aspirated motors and a fitting end to an era.

But if we are being honest - an efficient engine it is not. Not that I care one iota about that, but still, gotta keep it real.

[jlspeed29]

Originally Posted by Jake C

Here is a hint BMWNA we Americans want more Diesel options.

- J

[gN]

S65 best since 2008 : amazing.

[Elie335]

V8

[Thud]

Originally Posted by han405

I thought the entire basis of this discussion is to find a more efficient engine that has the same performance, the category S65 engine is in..

locomotive engines have a lot more displacement and hp than the S65 engine. how come I don't see those in your list? huh?
locomotive engines perhaps are more efficient when you look at fuel consumption to engine displacement ratio or fuel consumption to engine hp ratio.
just like all the other engines you quoted, -> not in the same league (category) the s65 engine is in.



then perhaps you can educate me, you are saying ALL of the engines you quoted are rated over 400 stock? is that correct?

It's seems pretty arbitrary to classify engines based on their displacement. Why not classify based on weight or overall size? I guess that's because the government does-- which is probably a result of clueless politicians.

Yeah, an LS3 motor displaces more than an S65. But the LS3 weighs less (415lbs vs 445lbs).

So the LS3 is a lower-weight engine, with fewer moving parts, more HP, more torque, and better fuel economy.

And before somebody says something about antiquated pushrod designs, just remember that overhead cam designs pre-date pushrod designs by several decades.

Anyway that's the former vette owner in me coming out... I do love the S65 sound at 8000rpm. And I love BMW straight sixes (particularly the diesel!)

[tscdennab]

Originally Posted by Ilma

Funny no one seems to mention the negative long-term effects of direct injection engines

C A R B O N B U I L D U P on the intake valves.

They just keep awarding that technology in spite of the well documented gremlins which continue to plague it.

So what's the problem ? You clean it and that's it.

[footie]

Very good result for BMW as per usual. Though I could think of several engines that in each of these categories are superior, with the possible exception being the 23d, that engine is a little fire cracker.

[RBinDC]

Originally Posted by han405

why not? the fuel consumption is not much lower when compared to say, N54's and it has 120 bhp more than it.

"...NOT MUCH WORSE...."? Are you joking? It uses 50% more fuel than the N54 for the same EPA trip profile. That's about $1000 a year more for fuel at today's gas prices.

[RBinDC]

Originally Posted by Thud

It's seems pretty arbitrary to classify engines based on their displacement. Why not classify based on weight or overall size? I guess that's because the government does-- which is probably a result of clueless politicians.

Yeah, an LS3 motor displaces more than an S65. But the LS3 weighs less (415lbs vs 445lbs).

So the LS3 is a lower-weight engine, with fewer moving parts, more HP, more torque, and better fuel economy.

And before somebody says something about antiquated pushrod designs, just remember that overhead cam designs pre-date pushrod designs by several decades.

Anyway that's the former vette owner in me coming out... I do love the S65 sound at 8000rpm. And I love BMW straight sixes (particularly the diesel!)

That's an interesting - no startling - little known fact. Go Corvette; go GM; go USA!

[RBinDC]

Originally Posted by han405

you get 30 hwy and 20 city with an N54?? are you pulling my leg?
two and half years ago I got a loaner 335i (n54) with 4000 miles for a week when my e46 M3 was in for service. i was only able to get about 22 mpg combined..(daily driving, with the same route and behavior when compared to driving my m3s)
considering it's a FI engine, it's not that different from my S54 engine (avg. 19 combined). My S65 engine averages about 17 mpg combined.

I have an new 335is (2000 miles on it). One the highway I consistently about 27 mpg driving around 75 mph. In the city I consistently get 18 mpg. That's very similar to what you got with the loaner, assuming a 50/50 mileage profile. However, you have to admit it's substantially better than what your M3 gets.

I suspect that my car will do better as the engine loosens up further. I got almost 28 mpg on the Autobahn (did ED) but that was on 100 octane fuel with no methanol blended in.

[shiggy]

Originally Posted by footie

Very good result for BMW as per usual. Though I could think of several engines that in each of these categories are superior, with the possible exception being the 23d, that engine is a little fire cracker.

of course you could footie....but the reality is.....your opinion...in most cases are wrong!

[vereak82]

cant wait for a factory boosted e92 m3