S65 M3 engine

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
S2000 (actually 9k)

I'll throw you a bone here and add in the other I4s Honda made with over 100 hp/L and redlines near or beyond 8k RPM. Si, Type R, etc.

Dang solid engines. Not quite bulletproof though. Very high oil consumption is common. The F2xC sometimes has rod bearing issues, oddly enough. Some of them have timing chain issues. All of them need valve adjustments, which the S65 doesn't.

Even ignoring that, being made by Honda and having such small displacements, they're almost exceptions that prove the rule for the kinds of engines we're talking about here.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
RS4 Sedan

Less than 100 hp/L but we'll go with it.

This car was the poster child for DI deposit issues. Some examples fuel diluted badly enough to rip Motul 300V apart in like 3k miles. It helped put Renewable Lubricants, Inc. on the map for those reasons.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Lambo/Audi V10
Multiple Ferraris (granted they never see high mileage)

I'm assuming the parenthesis applies to both of these items. If so, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Lambo and Audi V10s also suffer from carbon deposits like other VAG DI cars.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
People want to talk about revs and pistons speeds and blah blah, who cares if it is not long term reliable.

Barring abuse or extreme bad luck, the S65 will need rod bearings and throttle actuators like once in its life, and basically nothing else. So really, we could rephrase your rhetorical question as "who'd want to spend an extra $5k over 200,000 miles to have an 8400 RPM redline and razor-sharp throttle response?" I'm sure not everyone, but not no one, either.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by oghl
I wonder what speeds turbo diesels in locomotives and cruise ship/oil tankers run at.

Under 1000 AFAIK. The biggest don't go far above 100.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
S2000 (actually 9k)

I'll throw you a bone here and add in the other I4s Honda made with over 100 hp/L and redlines near or beyond 8k RPM. Si, Type R, etc.

Dang solid engines. Not quite bulletproof though. Very high oil consumption is common. The F2xC sometimes has rod bearing issues, oddly enough. Some of them have timing chain issues. All of them need valve adjustments, which the S65 doesn't.

Even ignoring that, being made by Honda and having such small displacements, they're almost exceptions that prove the rule for the kinds of engines we're talking about here.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
RS4 Sedan

Less than 100 hp/L but we'll go with it.

This car was the poster child for DI deposit issues. Some examples fuel diluted badly enough to rip Motul 300V apart in like 3k miles. It helped put Renewable Lubricants, Inc. on the map for those reasons.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Lambo/Audi V10
Multiple Ferraris (granted they never see high mileage)

I'm assuming the parenthesis applies to both of these items. If so, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Lambo and Audi V10s also suffer from carbon deposits like other VAG DI cars.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
People want to talk about revs and pistons speeds and blah blah, who cares if it is not long term reliable.

Barring abuse or extreme bad luck, the S65 will need rod bearings and throttle actuators like once in its life, and basically nothing else. So really, we could rephrase your rhetorical question as "who'd want to spend an extra $5k over 200,000 miles to have an 8400 RPM redline and razor-sharp throttle response?" I'm sure not everyone, but not no one, either.


LOL at caring about valve adjustments (a long time Honda trait) but not caring about rod bearings. That's hilarious.

RS4 sedan made 420 hp and was 4.2 litres. The carbon buildup is a different argument and moving the goalposts from your original claim. Yes it had carbon buildup issues but it was also one of the very first DI cars to market, especially for engines that weren't turbocharged. People like to bring up the problems with things like this, or early DSG transmissions, but that is the price of pushing the envelope with development and being first to market with those things. The newer engines (including mine) use both port and direct injection.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
LOL at caring about valve adjustments (a long time Honda trait) but not caring about rod bearings. That's hilarious.

RS4 sedan made 420 hp and was 4.2 litres. The carbon buildup is a different argument and moving the goalposts from your original claim. Yes it had carbon buildup issues but it was also one of the very first DI cars to market, especially for engines that weren't turbocharged. People like to bring up the problems with things like this, or early DSG transmissions, but that is the price of pushing the envelope with development and being first to market with those things. The newer engines (including mine) use both port and direct injection.




Audi did not move any posts with RS4 or S4.
Direct Injection was long available in Volvo/Mitsubishi in Europe in 1990's. BMW had robotic manual transmission in E36 M3 in 1996.
CBU more or less, but chain tensioners are not any less or even more work than rod bearings on S65.
Audi's never had such high rpms as BMW, nor they were ever balanced vehicle as BMW. Argument now is that it is "all weather" car. They are really good in snow, as is expected when engine sits between headlights. Actually, most Audi's in Europe are FWD and they are still really, really good in snow.
Audi suppose to stay with 5cyl that is probably be new high performance option in Audi since V6 will not offer modularity (and Audi V6 were never anything but average). Problem with 5cyl was ignition timing as it was a [censored] to do it right. But now since modularity is trendy due to cutting costs, Audi will probably go for 3,4 and 5 cyl family.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
LOL at caring about valve adjustments (a long time Honda trait) but not caring about rod bearings.

I care about expected net expenditure of time, effort, and money over the long term.

0-2 rod bearing replacements in 200k miles, predictable via oil analysis, vs. 3-4 mandatory valve adjustments in the same time... Not so big a difference as it might seem.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
RS4 sedan made 420 hp and was 4.2 litres.

420 ps. That's 414 hp.

But yeah, fair enough. That was petty on my part.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
The carbon buildup is a different argument and moving the goalposts from your original claim.

This all started with your response to my question about >100 hp/L >8000 RPM engines being "trouble-free". Significant carbon buildup is troublesome, no?


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Yes it had carbon buildup issues but it was also one of the very first DI cars to market, especially for engines that weren't turbocharged. People like to bring up the problems with things like this, or early DSG transmissions, but that is the price of pushing the envelope with development and being first to market with those things. The newer engines (including mine) use both port and direct injection.

People want to talk about pushing the envelope with development and being first to market and blah blah, who cares if it's not long-term reliable.

...Or even short-term reliable, if we're honest. Some of those engines needed carbon removal at intervals less than the factory OCI.

The engine in the B7 RS4 was a development of Audi's existing 4.2L V8 workhorse. Can't blame them as that had proven to be a VERY good engine. The fact that the RS4 version still had major problems that (rightly IMO) need to be understood in terms of "pushing the envelope" should tell us something about how to approach an engine with a vastly shorter lineage that makes the same power with less displacement and a higher redline.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Less displacement and higher redline to make the same power all kind of go hand in hand. I get the appeal of those types of engines on track or on unrestricted Autobahn but they're kind of doggy on the street. Not only not much home down low but also (depending on gearing of course) by the time you wring our second gear you're going like 80 mph. A GT3 will do something like 84 mph in second gear. Liter bikes are the same thing they'll go over 100 in first gear. So you redline once and then go to jail, lol.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Less displacement and higher redline to make the same power all kind of go hand in hand. I get the appeal of those types of engines on track or on unrestricted Autobahn but they're kind of doggy on the street. Not only not much home down low but also (depending on gearing of course) by the time you wring our second gear you're going like 80 mph. A GT3 will do something like 84 mph in second gear. Liter bikes are the same thing they'll go over 100 in first gear. So you redline once and then go to jail, lol.

I feel like you obviously know enough to know why none of this makes sense in context, so I have to say I have no idea what to make of it.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
BMW made another engine with rod bearing issues?

I figured they had learned everything they needed to about high revving V8s from the E39 M5.


Also the first couple years of the E46 M3 had issues too. I have no idea why they can't figure it out, the design of these things hasn't changed in like 100 years. It's weird.

Every time there's a thread like this, people come out of the woodwork to talk like everyone knows how to make a >100 hp/L NA >8000 RPM engine as trouble-free as a Corolla.

I must be living under a rock. Where are these engines?


S2000 (actually 9k)
RS4 Sedan
Lambo/Audi V10
Multiple Ferraris (granted they never see high mileage)

That's just off the top of my head. People want to talk about revs and pistons speeds and blah blah, who cares if it is not long term reliable.



Originally Posted by oghl
They are all over the place in the motorcycle world. Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Yamaha, Ducati, Aprilia, Triumph, BMW, just off the top of my head, all have bikes exceeding 100HP/L at much greater than 8k rpm. I think they are closer to 200hp/L actually. And these are street legal, run on pump gas, off the shelf peoducts that you can buy from a regular dealership.


This is true but it's easier to make that much power per liter with a smaller engine and none of those engines are going much past 50k miles before needing a rebuild.

There is no Lambo/Audi V10, there is only Lambo V10. It was easier way for VW to acquire Lambo than to develop supercar on their own.
VW truly introduced something new with Audi Quattro and than RS2, but later, it was just purchasing spree and technology transfer.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by oghl
[/quote]
Every time there's a thread like this, people come out of the woodwork to talk like everyone knows how to make a >100 hp/L NA >8000 RPM engine as trouble-free as a Corolla.

I must be living under a rock. Where are these engines?



Quote
hey are all over the place in the motorcycle world. Honda, Suzuki, Kawasaki, Yamaha, Ducati, Aprilia, Triumph, BMW, just off the top of my head, all have bikes exceeding 100HP/L at much greater than 8k rpm. I think they are closer to 200hp/L actually. And these are street legal, run on pump gas, off the shelf peoducts that you can buy from a regular dealership.

They move 3,800lbs? V8?

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Less displacement and higher redline to make the same power all kind of go hand in hand. I get the appeal of those types of engines on track or on unrestricted Autobahn but they're kind of doggy on the street. Not only not much home down low but also (depending on gearing of course) by the time you wring our second gear you're going like 80 mph. A GT3 will do something like 84 mph in second gear. Liter bikes are the same thing they'll go over 100 in first gear. So you redline once and then go to jail, lol.






VW TDI engines got super popular in Europe not because of good MPG, as fuel was still cheap back than in 1991, but torque. Although FIAT was the one that introduced to personal vehicles first that technology, VW managed to pack it properly in Audi 80. It was torque and that daily usage that pushed TDI.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Less displacement and higher redline to make the same power all kind of go hand in hand. I get the appeal of those types of engines on track or on unrestricted Autobahn but they're kind of doggy on the street. Not only not much home down low but also (depending on gearing of course) by the time you wring our second gear you're going like 80 mph. A GT3 will do something like 84 mph in second gear. Liter bikes are the same thing they'll go over 100 in first gear. So you redline once and then go to jail, lol.

I feel like you obviously know enough to know why none of this makes sense in context, so I have to say I have no idea what to make of it.


What doesn't make sense about it? High strung, high revving engines are typically not as much fun on the street as torquier, lower revving ones... To a point of course.

 

[d00df00d]

Tell you what: if anyone else in this thread thinks any of that is relevant and/or interesting, I'll pick it up. Until then, I'll have to pass.

Glad to see we've move past the prior disagreements, though. That's something.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Relevant to what? You seem to think the engine in your car is God's gift to engines and have made several snide remarks alluding to that fact. I seem to think it's a good engine design for its intended purpose but hilarious that BMW M Division seems to believe rod bearings are general maintenance items. You somehow think carbon cleaning and valve adjustments are a bigger deal than replacing rod bearings. The bias is very real.

 

[Gokhan]

I just passed by this on the street. Is this the car under discussion in this thread? I should get me one of these.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Internal engine work should not be a given on a street car, unless it's one seriously mean car.

A car like an M3 should be a bite at those cars; taunting the exotics for achieving much of what they have done, while keeping the drivability and reliability.

Since it appears BMW never took an official position on this matter, it's hard to know the actual scope of the matter.

 

[330indy]

The bottom line is this, the S65 is an exotic engine and you need to treat it appropriately with premium oil like Redline. Do a cocktail with 5W50 and 10W60 and get it just right! Change the oil often and treat those rod bearings to what race cars get with maintenance! I have the luxury of having bought my M3 new, so I feel for the guys who are second and third owners! Without history on oil changes and the quality of oil used, you guys are rolling the dice obviously. My car will last a long time because of my extreme maintenance on this extreme engine.
Anybody who thinks they can treat an M3 like a Honda Civic in maintenance needs their head examined!

 

[dblshock]

you could hire a pit crew.

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted by dblshock
you could hire a pit crew.

I'd end up with these guys...

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
I just passed by this on the street. Is this the car under discussion in this thread? I should get me one of these.

I had a 1975 2002. Not anywhere close to quick- but it was a ball to drive; it wound up being my son's first car.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Less displacement and higher redline to make the same power all kind of go hand in hand. I get the appeal of those types of engines on track or on unrestricted Autobahn but they're kind of doggy on the street. Not only not much home down low but also (depending on gearing of course) by the time you wring our second gear you're going like 80 mph. A GT3 will do something like 84 mph in second gear. Liter bikes are the same thing they'll go over 100 in first gear. So you redline once and then go to jail, lol.

I feel like you obviously know enough to know why none of this makes sense in context, so I have to say I have no idea what to make of it.


What doesn't make sense about it? High strung, high revving engines are typically not as much fun on the street as torquier, lower revving ones... To a point of course.

I am not sure fun is the right word.
Usability would be better word. It is a tool, daily tool.