S65 M3 engine

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by shDK
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by shDK
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Don't forget that Toyota needed BMW to make them their most recent sports car.


If we should use that logic.. BMW needed Peugeot to help them develop a simple 4 cyl turbo petrol. ( n12 n13 n14 n16 n18 Prince engines ) I am pretty sure though that BMW buyers prefer to say it is a BMW engine.

No it did not.
BMW did not have 4cyl engine that was readily available for transverse application. I owned BMW with an M10 engine in 1989 E30, so BMW had 4 cyl engines always in stable, but ready for longitudinal only application.
When BMW decided to develop new Mini that is when Peugeot engines came in, and last time I checked there were cars like Peugeot M16, 205 GTI etc. which had legendary 4cyl engines.


We agree. I still believe the majority of BMW/mini buyers would be said the hear they share engine with a Peugeot or Citroen

Well, I owned two Skoda's with Audi engine

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edyvw
That is like when people compare S4 or RS4 to BMW's. Yes, handling for idiots, they pull numbers, they are really fast 0-60 until you experience "Audisteer" and you than figure out why Audi is not BMW.

Yup, not BMW, which experiences "BMW steer" (oversteer) at 25 MPH on a mild curve.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
That is like when people compare S4 or RS4 to BMW's. Yes, handling for idiots, they pull numbers, they are really fast 0-60 until you experience "Audisteer" and you than figure out why Audi is not BMW.

Yup, not BMW, which experiences "BMW steer" (oversteer) at 25 MPH on a mild curve.


I told you already to stick to Toyota Corolla.
There is no such thing as "BMW steer." BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc. cars in that class are all RWD based cars with longitudinal engines (I do not count Acura and similar attempts).
Audi is only that has FWD base and engine so far ahead. Like always, you seriously have no idea what you talking about.
When one buys RS4, it bought underneath first and foremost FWD car.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Yeah, that's just totally wrong.

The 3 series Audis (and under in Europe) are FWD or haldex based quattro with transverse engine mounting, based on the MQB chassis. Everything 4 and higher that is awd is (and always has been) RWD biased quattro with a center diff and longitudinal engine mounting. The fwd 4 and higher are also longitudinal, that is WHY the engines are far forward, to allow room for the diff and axles.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted by edyvw
I told you already to stick to Toyota Corolla.
There is no such thing as "BMW steer." BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc. cars in that class are all RWD based cars with longitudinal engines (I do not count Acura and similar attempts).
Audi is only that has FWD base and engine so far ahead. Like always, you seriously have no idea what you talking about.
When one buys RS4, it bought underneath first and foremost FWD car.

I do know what I'm talking about and I know a FWD car can understeer and a RWD can oversteer. So, how is it OK to oversteer while it's not OK to understeer? Both can be dangerous. That BMW M3 in the video handled that turn very poorly. You seem to have a double standard.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Yeah, that's just totally wrong.

The 3 series Audis (and under in Europe) are FWD or haldex based quattro with transverse engine mounting, based on the MQB chassis. Everything 4 and higher that is awd is (and always has been) RWD biased quattro with a center diff and longitudinal engine mounting. The fwd 4 and higher are also longitudinal, that is WHY the engines are far forward, to allow room for the diff and axles.

Audi (really VAG) is the ONLY major company in this space that puts the whole engine ahead of the front axle. Everyone else manages to package the front diff under and/or beside the engine so that the engine can be farther back.

Regardless of whether any given Audi comes in FWD, regardless of its torque split, it's as though the platforms were designed to have either FWD or AWD, whereas other platforms look like they were designed with RWD and AWD as the options. That's what's meant by "FWD layout".

The only other reason to do it that way is cost. Which makes sense, because the whole point of Audi as a brand is to be "close enough" to BMW and Mercedes-Benz for less money.

And regardless of the reasons, the fact is you are left with the biggest possible polar moment of inertia. Handling-wise, vs. a comparably well engineered RWD-style platform with the engine farther back, the best you can hope for is to be taken seriously.

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Yeah, that's just totally wrong.

The 3 series Audis (and under in Europe) are FWD or haldex based quattro with transverse engine mounting, based on the MQB chassis. Everything 4 and higher that is awd is (and always has been) RWD biased quattro with a center diff and longitudinal engine mounting. The fwd 4 and higher are also longitudinal, that is WHY the engines are far forward, to allow room for the diff and axles.

Audi (really VAG) is the ONLY major company in this space that puts the whole engine ahead of the front axle. Everyone else manages to package the front diff under and/or beside the engine so that the engine can be farther back.

Regardless of whether any given Audi comes in FWD, regardless of its torque split, it's as though the platforms were designed to have either FWD or AWD, whereas other platforms look like they were designed with RWD and AWD as the options. That's what's meant by "FWD layout".

The only other reason to do it that way is cost. Which makes sense, because the whole point of Audi as a brand is to be "close enough" to BMW and Mercedes-Benz for less money.

And regardless of the reasons, the fact is you are left with the biggest possible polar moment of inertia. Handling-wise, vs. a comparably well engineered RWD-style platform with the engine farther back, the best you can hope for is to be taken seriously.



Again, the philosophy is totally different. It's like earlier edy said Audi "can't" compete with BMW after I said they choose not to. Yeah right, the company that won thirteen out of fifteen LeMans 24h (with a diesel no less) can't compete? If they want to have a little fun they build something like the R8 RWS. Your little jab about "luxury light" or whatever is cute since Audi has been setting interior benchmarks in design, materials and build quality now for fifteen plus years.

The reason I drive an RS3 instead of an M2 is pretty simple. The car kicks the crap out of anything in the segment as a daily driver. For me the M2 is really stuck in the middle where it's not a great daily but it also misses the other way in that if I was mainly concerned about track work or if it was a weekend only car I would buy a 981 Cayman instead.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Again, the philosophy is totally different.

Dude I'm really sorry about this but there really is no functional benefit to having the entire engine ahead of the front axle. It's not like engineers ever sit there saying "we need the engine to completely overhang the front axle so that the car drives better in XYZ way." That's not a thing. That amount of front overhang in the powertrain is a compromise that is adopted for expedience, and then coped with by the ride and handling engineers.

Audi happens to be able to cope with it brilliantly. No one would ever say the B7 RS4 couldn't handle, for example. That's just a fact. But it did so at the cost of a spine-breaking ride and an active suspension system that fails if you look at it wrong. And even with all that, it never handled better than the M3. Nor has any production Audi in at least the past few decades ever handled better than almost-as-well-as-the-BMW. And most of them (mainly the A models, not S or RS) handle much, much worse.

That's not an accident. As you pointed out, Audi isn't less competent than BMW overall, so it's not that they wouldn't know how to do it. They're just starting with a foundation that makes it harder. It's that simple.


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
It's like earlier edy said Audi "can't" compete with BMW after I said they choose not to. Yeah right, the company that won thirteen out of fifteen LeMans 24h (with a diesel no less) can't compete?

Completely agree in theory.

In practice, "never has, doesn't now, and gives no indication that it ever will" isn't much different from "can't".


Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
The reason I drive an RS3 instead of an M2 is pretty simple. The car kicks the crap out of anything in the segment as a daily driver. For me the M2 is really stuck in the middle where it's not a great daily but it also misses the other way in that if I was mainly concerned about track work or if it was a weekend only car I would buy a 981 Cayman instead.

I'm glad you like your RS3. Really.

You seem to be fully aware that it doesn't handle as well as an M2. You know that's okay, right? Like, the fact that another car has one particular advantage doesn't mean you made a bad choice overall.

 

[4WD]

I'm seeing V6/V8/RWD with motors pushed so deep into the firewall that we should get oil fill caps on the dash soon …
not sure why any front engines should be moved forward … rear/mid maybe … not front

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Yeah, that's just totally wrong.

The 3 series Audis (and under in Europe) are FWD or haldex based quattro with transverse engine mounting, based on the MQB chassis. Everything 4 and higher that is awd is (and always has been) RWD biased quattro with a center diff and longitudinal engine mounting. The fwd 4 and higher are also longitudinal, that is WHY the engines are far forward, to allow room for the diff and axles.

Nope, all Audi's are first and foremost FWD platforms. More Audi A4's and A6's are sold FWD than Quattro (European markets are not that fast to buy bunch of S4's or 2.0T, most are diesels and FWD). You are confusing power distribution in Quattro models with RWD platform. Just because car has AWD and sends more power back does not mean it exerts RWD biased behavior. Yes, Audi sends back 60% in normal circumstances, but it is still rolling on FWD platform.
And yes, Torsen is big thing why Audi cannot move engine back (well in B9 they moved back 3mm, which apparently is achievement for them considering how much they emphasized that). When BMW was seriously developing xDrive they immediately gave up on Torsen like concept due to the fact that a. they would have to move engine forward, which would affect weight balance, and b. that would be really, really hard with inline six engines.
However, Audi had far forward engine even before Torsen system found its way to their cars.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
I told you already to stick to Toyota Corolla.
There is no such thing as "BMW steer." BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc. cars in that class are all RWD based cars with longitudinal engines (I do not count Acura and similar attempts).
Audi is only that has FWD base and engine so far ahead. Like always, you seriously have no idea what you talking about.
When one buys RS4, it bought underneath first and foremost FWD car.

I do know what I'm talking about and I know a FWD car can understeer and a RWD can oversteer. So, how is it OK to oversteer while it's not OK to understeer? Both can be dangerous. That BMW M3 in the video handled that turn very poorly. You seem to have a double standard.



Why are you trying to compare an inherent compromise of a FWD platform to the driver of this particular RWD vehicle? The Nordschleife, the track in your video, is as smooth as glass and there's a right and wrong way to drive the course. Spin outs are common and it's worth mentioning on this track when it comes to track-prepped vehicles the overwhelming majority are RWD.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
I told you already to stick to Toyota Corolla.
There is no such thing as "BMW steer." BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc. cars in that class are all RWD based cars with longitudinal engines (I do not count Acura and similar attempts).
Audi is only that has FWD base and engine so far ahead. Like always, you seriously have no idea what you talking about.
When one buys RS4, it bought underneath first and foremost FWD car.

I do know what I'm talking about and I know a FWD car can understeer and a RWD can oversteer. So, how is it OK to oversteer while it's not OK to understeer? Both can be dangerous. That BMW M3 in the video handled that turn very poorly. You seem to have a double standard.

No I do not have double standard. I always base my opinion on my own experience, and I highly doubt that video is indicative of what M3 can do. So please!
Oversteer is much easier to control if you know what you doing. Oversteer is more natural phenomenon. Remember when in rally they enter curve and lift hand brake to rotate back end? That is forced oversteer. If you are on the track or pushing those limits, a little bit of oversteer is ALWAYS better than understeer. A little bit, not too much, that is where perfect weight distribution comes into play.
WHen you do something with wheel-barrel, do you pull after you or you push it? What is easier for you?

 

[RooflessVW]

That video shows driver incompetence, not some failure of the car itself.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Yeah, that's just totally wrong.

The 3 series Audis (and under in Europe) are FWD or haldex based quattro with transverse engine mounting, based on the MQB chassis. Everything 4 and higher that is awd is (and always has been) RWD biased quattro with a center diff and longitudinal engine mounting. The fwd 4 and higher are also longitudinal, that is WHY the engines are far forward, to allow room for the diff and axles.

Audi (really VAG) is the ONLY major company in this space that puts the whole engine ahead of the front axle. Everyone else manages to package the front diff under and/or beside the engine so that the engine can be farther back.

Regardless of whether any given Audi comes in FWD, regardless of its torque split, it's as though the platforms were designed to have either FWD or AWD, whereas other platforms look like they were designed with RWD and AWD as the options. That's what's meant by "FWD layout".

The only other reason to do it that way is cost. Which makes sense, because the whole point of Audi as a brand is to be "close enough" to BMW and Mercedes-Benz for less money.

And regardless of the reasons, the fact is you are left with the biggest possible polar moment of inertia. Handling-wise, vs. a comparably well engineered RWD-style platform with the engine farther back, the best you can hope for is to be taken seriously.



Again, the philosophy is totally different. It's like earlier edy said Audi "can't" compete with BMW after I said they choose not to. Yeah right, the company that won thirteen out of fifteen LeMans 24h (with a diesel no less) can't compete? If they want to have a little fun they build something like the R8 RWS. Your little jab about "luxury light" or whatever is cute since Audi has been setting interior benchmarks in design, materials and build quality now for fifteen plus years.

The reason I drive an RS3 instead of an M2 is pretty simple. The car kicks the crap out of anything in the segment as a daily driver. For me the M2 is really stuck in the middle where it's not a great daily but it also misses the other way in that if I was mainly concerned about track work or if it was a weekend only car I would buy a 981 Cayman instead.

Yes they won Le Mans with diesel, is that why they had to cheat? VW/Audi absolutely ruled European market in diesel segment in 90's, BMW is beating them in every aspect in luxury segment last two decades when it comes to diesels and gas. So, yes they won, but never been able to transfer that to real world.
R8? BMW long before had cars that were top notch sport products , Mclaren F1, M1, . let's not forget, R8 would never exist without purchase of Lambo.
M2 compared to RS3 is much more serious platform. Let's not forget, RS3 is rolling on MQB platform, same as Golf, Polo, Atlas, Skoda Octavia, Fabia, Seat Leon etc, etc. That is problem, to develop RS3, Audi started with Golf, BMW to develop M2 started with F30 platform.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted by rooflessVW
That video shows driver incompetence, not some failure of the car itself.


+1

 

[Jimmy_Russells]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by edyvw
I told you already to stick to Toyota Corolla.
There is no such thing as "BMW steer." BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar etc. cars in that class are all RWD based cars with longitudinal engines (I do not count Acura and similar attempts).
Audi is only that has FWD base and engine so far ahead. Like always, you seriously have no idea what you talking about.
When one buys RS4, it bought underneath first and foremost FWD car.

I do know what I'm talking about and I know a FWD car can understeer and a RWD can oversteer. So, how is it OK to oversteer while it's not OK to understeer? Both can be dangerous. That BMW M3 in the video handled that turn very poorly. You seem to have a double standard.



Why are you trying to compare an inherent compromise of a FWD platform to the driver of this particular RWD vehicle? The Nordschleife, the track in your video, is as smooth as glass and there's a right and wrong way to drive the course. Spin outs are common and it's worth mentioning on this track when it comes to track-prepped vehicles the overwhelming majority are RWD.

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
Yeah, that's just totally wrong.

The 3 series Audis (and under in Europe) are FWD or haldex based quattro with transverse engine mounting, based on the MQB chassis. Everything 4 and higher that is awd is (and always has been) RWD biased quattro with a center diff and longitudinal engine mounting. The fwd 4 and higher are also longitudinal, that is WHY the engines are far forward, to allow room for the diff and axles.

Audi (really VAG) is the ONLY major company in this space that puts the whole engine ahead of the front axle. Everyone else manages to package the front diff under and/or beside the engine so that the engine can be farther back.

Regardless of whether any given Audi comes in FWD, regardless of its torque split, it's as though the platforms were designed to have either FWD or AWD, whereas other platforms look like they were designed with RWD and AWD as the options. That's what's meant by "FWD layout".

The only other reason to do it that way is cost. Which makes sense, because the whole point of Audi as a brand is to be "close enough" to BMW and Mercedes-Benz for less money.

And regardless of the reasons, the fact is you are left with the biggest possible polar moment of inertia. Handling-wise, vs. a comparably well engineered RWD-style platform with the engine farther back, the best you can hope for is to be taken seriously.



Again, the philosophy is totally different. It's like earlier edy said Audi "can't" compete with BMW after I said they choose not to. Yeah right, the company that won thirteen out of fifteen LeMans 24h (with a diesel no less) can't compete? If they want to have a little fun they build something like the R8 RWS. Your little jab about "luxury light" or whatever is cute since Audi has been setting interior benchmarks in design, materials and build quality now for fifteen plus years.

The reason I drive an RS3 instead of an M2 is pretty simple. The car kicks the crap out of anything in the segment as a daily driver. For me the M2 is really stuck in the middle where it's not a great daily but it also misses the other way in that if I was mainly concerned about track work or if it was a weekend only car I would buy a 981 Cayman instead.

Yes they won Le Mans with diesel, is that why they had to cheat? VW/Audi absolutely ruled European market in diesel segment in 90's, BMW is beating them in every aspect in luxury segment last two decades when it comes to diesels and gas. So, yes they won, but never been able to transfer that to real world.
R8? BMW long before had cars that were top notch sport products , Mclaren F1, M1, . let's not forget, R8 would never exist without purchase of Lambo.
M2 compared to RS3 is much more serious platform. Let's not forget, RS3 is rolling on MQB platform, same as Golf, Polo, Atlas, Skoda Octavia, Fabia, Seat Leon etc, etc. That is problem, to develop RS3, Audi started with Golf, BMW to develop M2 started with F30 platform.



Now we're talking about dieselgate and how it relates to LeMans prototype cars?

And once again edy you are incorrect, the M2, a "much more serious platform" is not based on the F30 platform, it is based on the F22 platform which was updated from the previous 1 series platform the F20. An RS3 is as much of a Golf as much as an M2 is a 120d. The best part is RS3 weighing 150+ lbs less than M2 Competition despite four doors, awd, dsg and having mag-ride. The engineering behind the BMW just falls short at this point.

'BMW beating them at every aspect in luxury segment' I seriously have no idea how to respond to that. That is completely off base. The absolute minimum argument is interior quality and design and I would heavily argue engine development and AWD systems are definitely superior as well .

I have been trying to stay partial during this discussion, I have no problem at all with BMW but I do see some flaws in their products (which is true of most manufacturers). The statements above are just blind loyalty. I've had enough of this one guys. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted by rooflessVW
That video shows driver incompetence, not some failure of the car itself.


Exactly.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted by Jimmy_Russells
The best part is RS3 weighing 150+ lbs less than M2 Competition despite four doors, awd, dsg and having mag-ride. The engineering behind the BMW just falls short at this point.

More like 60 lbs, auto-vs.-auto. Seems perfectly reasonable for a transverse platform vs. a longitudinal platform of comparable size.

https://www.audiusa.com/models/audi-rs3/2019/trims-and-specs

https://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/m-models/m2/m2-competition-coupe/specifications.html

BTW, can't help but notice that you came into this thread to crap on BMW and then acted like people were crapping on your Audi until it became true. It didn't have to go that way, man.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
Now we're talking about dieselgate and how it relates to LeMans prototype cars?

And once again edy you are incorrect, the M2, a "much more serious platform" is not based on the F30 platform, it is based on the F22 platform which was updated from the previous 1 series platform the F20. An RS3 is as much of a Golf as much as an M2 is a 120d. The best part is RS3 weighing 150+ lbs less than M2 Competition despite four doors, awd, dsg and having mag-ride. The engineering behind the BMW just falls short at this point.

'BMW beating them at every aspect in luxury segment' I seriously have no idea how to respond to that. That is completely off base. The absolute minimum argument is interior quality and design and I would heavily argue engine development and AWD systems are definitely superior as well .

I have been trying to stay partial during this discussion, I have no problem at all with BMW but I do see some flaws in their products (which is true of most manufacturers). The statements above are just blind loyalty. I've had enough of this one guys. Thanks for the discussion.

Wait, M2 is based on previous 1 series platform? That is even better. I seriously thought it is based on F30, now I might actually go for M235i instead of E90 335i next year. That platform is developed from E90, which is much better to drive than F30.
Yeah, RS3 is still Golf (or one could argue, Fabia) underneath, anyway you turn, and yes, F22, or E82 or E90, are much, much better platforms. You know, they have engine position right way, not wrong way

.
On Le Mans issue, prototype cars are used to gain knowledge for real world application. Le Mans is costly, and BMW was winning there too. But, if one cannot trickle down that to real world application, it is absolute waste of money. VW bet in the end of 1990's on wrong technology (PD) and had to catch up with rest (primary BMW and FIAT) in CR technology. That led to cheating since they lost some 7 years of development, development that Le Mans could help them with.
And yes, BMW has its flaws, like you said, every manufacturer does, but, problem with Audi is that it is still big compromise, once developed from much, much cheaper cars.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted by d00df00d

BTW, can't help but notice that you came into this thread to crap on BMW and then acted like people were crapping on your Audi until it became true. It didn't have to go that way, man.


History repeats itself; only the names of the brands change...