Close

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 34 of 34
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,832
    Rep Points
    31,568.8
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    All these turbo motors are monsters. The m5 advantage lies on its top mount turbos and manifold along with transmission. The m157 has the displacement advatage. Both seem to be close to maxing the stock turbos which are for response it seems instead of max power.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Interesting answers from Albert Biermann - the current head of BMW M - to questions asked in this months Road & Track:Q - "Is turbocharging the future of M?"A - "At least for the point where we are today. Already the M5 will be the 4th turbocharged M model. We are convinced that this is the way to go, to bring the best results for the customer."Q - "What would you rather drive around the Nurburgring: an M3 or an M5?"A - "The M3 GTS! It is much better to drive. It is very close to a race car. The new M5 is very close to the regular M3, but we aren't ready to tell you which is quicker."Q - "Why not 600 horsepower for the M5?"A - Enough is enough. Compared to the V-10, our new engine's peak torque begins just above 1500 rpm and holds it to 6000 rpm, so unlike other turbo cars our new M5 surges forward all the way to it's 7250 rpm redline."I personally thought that the 2nd question/answer was the most remarkable. It's almost marketing AGAINST the M5 in my opinion. It's almost unbelievable that he said this - but is nice to hear an honest answer to a question.Pretty cool car nonetheless. I am sure we all know what's quicker - the M5... I find it pretty interesting that he finds the M3 (GTS) to be a better car for the Nurburgring and/or that the new M5 is "very close to a regular M3". Cheers.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,832
    Rep Points
    31,568.8
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    Interesting answers from Albert Biermann - the current head of BMW M - to questions asked in this months Road & Track:Q - "Is turbocharging the future of M?"A - "At least for the point where we are today. Already the M5 will be the 4th turbocharged M model. We are convinced that this is the way to go, to bring the best results for the customer."Q - "What would you rather drive around the Nurburgring: an M3 or an M5?"A - "The M3 GTS! It is much better to drive. It is very close to a race car. The new M5 is very close to the regular M3, but we aren't ready to tell you which is quicker."Q - "Why not 600 horsepower for the M5?"A - Enough is enough. Compared to the V-10, our new engine's peak torque begins just above 1500 rpm and holds it to 6000 rpm, so unlike other turbo cars our new M5 surges forward all the way to it's 7250 rpm redline."I personally thought that the 2nd question/answer was the most remarkable. It's almost marketing AGAINST the M5 in my opinion. It's almost unbelievable that he said this - but is nice to hear an honest answer to a question.Pretty cool car nonetheless. I am sure we all know what's quicker - the M5... I find it pretty interesting that he finds the M3 (GTS) to be a better car for the Nurburgring and/or that the new M5 is "very close to a regular M3". Cheers.
    BMW kind of is making some statements against their new motors. I'll have an article up that discusses this in more details later in the week.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    108
    Rep Points
    146.8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Does anyone have compressor maps for the F10 M5? This (along with an answer to the question below) will tell how much more they'll flow without falling off the efficiency island.I read somewhere that peak boost is 1.8 bar. This must be at low rpm's - otherwise peak power would be insane. Does anyone have a boost vs rpm profile at WOT?

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    380
    Rep Points
    672.5
    Mentioned
    67 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Matt@Camber-Toe Click here to enlarge
    The M157 should be a formidable opponent. I witnessed [email]Jeremy@OE Tuning wring out 508whp with just some minor reflashing on a CLS....what a freakin monster.
    As far as I know, the no replacement for displacement rule still applies...

    M157 5.5l 10:1cr @ 1.3bar~18.85psi PP 571ps/900Nm
    M157 5.5l 10:1cr @ 1.0bar~14.5psi Standard 544ps/800Nm
    S63B44tu 4.4l 10:1cr @ 1.5bar~21.75psi 565hp/680Nm

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    284
    Rep Points
    0.8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by FR305 Click here to enlarge
    You can turn it off
    Man i would just cut the wire to that sh@t. Wouldnt even want it available.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    284
    Rep Points
    0.8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by m54b25 Click here to enlarge
    As far as I know, the no replacement for displacement rule still applies...

    M157 5.5l 10:1cr @ 1.3bar~18.85psi PP 571ps/900Nm
    M157 5.5l 10:1cr @ 1.0bar~14.5psi Standard 544ps/800Nm
    S63B44tu 4.4l 10:1cr @ 1.5bar~21.75psi 565hp/680Nm
    It always applies when all other things are equal.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    505
    Rep Points
    326.7
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
    Tune and meth and 11.0.
    If methanol is the answer, why is it that not one OEM engineer hears the question? Hmmmm.......Click here to enlarge

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,832
    Rep Points
    31,568.8
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
    If methanol is the answer, why is it that not one OEM engineer hears the question? Hmmmm.......Click here to enlarge
    Probably for the same reason they don't use nitrous.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •