RE: New M3 V8: listen to it here
Friday 23rd March 2007
The new V8The web is alive at the moment with technical details of the new M3 V8 engine, and we know many of you already have much of the details. If you don't, this is the full set of information released by BMW. To hear the engine being worked hard, click on the links below to hear what our man came back from BMW with...
New M3 V8: listen to it here
PH obtains exclusive sound files!
The new V8
Sound file 1 (MP3) Test bed 0-200km/H
Sound file 2 (MP3) Nurburgring
The key details are:
- 3999cc
- 414bhp @ 8,300rpm
- 295lb ft @ 3,900rpm (251lb ft available from 2,000rpm)
- 8,400 max engine speed
- Engine weighs 202kg – 15kg lighter than old ‘six’
- Aluminium silicon alloy crankcase, iron-coated pistons run directly in the bores of hard silicon crystals
- Bedplate structure
- Crankshaft weighs 20kg – 5 main bearings
- Oil cooled pistons
- High-strength steel magnesium alloy connecting rods weighing 623g each
- Single piece alloy cylinder heads with 4 valves per cylinder
- Double Vanos variable camshaft control
- Double chain-driven cams
- Oil system works to 1.4G with 2 pumps
- 8 individual throttle bodies. Accelerator pedal position monitored 200 times per second. Takes 120 milliseconds to reach maximum opening point.
- No air mass sensor – ecu does the calculations from the range of data available to it
- Two, 4-1 ‘fan type’ exhaust manifolds
- 4 cats
- MSS60 ecu – development of the one found in the V10 M engine. Three 32bit processors. Can handle more then 200 million individual operations per second.
New M3 V8 engine specs
| Fuel | RON 98 (95) |
| Max output bhp | 414 at 8,300rpm |
| Max torque lb ft | 295 at 3,900rpm |
| Max engine speed | 8,400rpm |
| Stroke mm | 75.2 |
| Bore mm | 92.0 |
| Displacement cm3 | 3,999 |
| Distance between cylinders mm | 98 |
| Cylinder arrangement | 8-cylinder V-engine |
| Valve plate diameter, intake mm | 35.0 |
| Valve plate diameter, outlet mm | 30.5 |
| Compression ratio | 12.0:1 |
| Fuel injection | Intake pipe fuel injection |
| Fuel injection pressure bar | 3–6 |
| Average combustion chamber pressure bar | 12.6 |
| Maximum combustion chamber pressure bar | 100 |
| Engine weight to BMW standard kg | 202 |
| Output per litre bhp/litre | 103.5 |
| Crankcase | Aluminium |
| Valvetrain | Infinite camshaft adjustment and hydraulic valve clearance adjustment for intake and outlet (double VANOS) |
Discussion
waynepixel said:
Interesting, No air mass sensor – ecu does the calculations from the range of data available to it.
At last I always thought that MAF are more hassle then they are worth, and there must be a better solution to doing the job.
At last I always thought that MAF are more hassle then they are worth, and there must be a better solution to doing the job.
Here you go, straight from Munich...
Flow-optimised air intake.
To give the engine an instantaneous, immediate response, the air volume on
the intake side of the throttle butterfly must be reduced to an absolute
minimum. The problem in this case, however, is the large intake cross-section
and air collector volume required by a high-performance power unit of this
calibre. So to meet both of these requirements, the throttle butterflies in the
intake manifolds are positioned right in front of the intake valves.
From front to rear, the entire flow of intake air in the new eight-cylinder power
unit does not require the usual hot-film air mass flow meter with its obligatory
sensors. Instead of determining engine load by means of such elaborate
sensors, therefore, which would also create disadvantages in air guidance due
to the geometry of the components involved, the V8 power unit of the new
BMW M3 uses the engine control unit to perform this function. To do this,
the system determines engine load under current driving conditions by taking
the position of the throttle butterfly and idle adjuster, the position of
the VANOS control unit, engine speed, air temperature and air pressure into
account. This, in turn, gives the engineers at BMW M GmbH new freedom
in the configuration and optimisation of the engine air intake process. And at
the same time this management concept operates with maximum reliability. The length and diameter of the eight intake funnels also helps to ensure an
optimum charge effect in the oscillating tube. Like the single-piece, extra-large
air collector, the funnels are made of a light composite material with a
30 per cent share of glass fibre. The air filter cartridge in the air collector,
in turn, uses the maximum filter area possible, the air collector being supplied
with air by an extra-large intake air silencer with three intake air openings.
nick young said:
Interestingly, less available torque than my lowly ZT V8 (although lots more power!). Would have expected more torque from a new BMW v8 to be honest...
(gets coat)
That said, I'm sure it's a fire breather with those revs!
(gets coat)
That said, I'm sure it's a fire breather with those revs!
Can someone explain why BMW would have designed it to be a higher reving, lower torque engine? Thanks!
Merefield said:
Can someone explain why BMW would have designed it to be a higher reving, lower torque engine? Thanks!
That seems to be BMW's prefered way. High-revving racy engines rather than grunty agricultural units. Most of their cars, if not all of them, have a relatively high red line and relatively low torque alongside their competitors' comparitive models.
MitchT said:
Merefield said:
Can someone explain why BMW would have designed it to be a higher reving, lower torque engine? Thanks!
That seems to be BMW's prefered way. High-revving racy engines rather than grunty agricultural units. Most of their cars, if not all of them, have a relatively high red line and relatively low torque alongside their competitors' comparitive models.
Sorry to be a dunce, but is that just tradition? Why are "racing" engines high-reving? What advantage does that give an engine/BMW engine?
flexibility, cheapness of components, character, responsiveness?
adam towler said:
waynepixel said:
Interesting, No air mass sensor – ecu does the calculations from the range of data available to it.
At last I always thought that MAF are more hassle then they are worth, and there must be a better solution to doing the job.
At last I always thought that MAF are more hassle then they are worth, and there must be a better solution to doing the job.
Here you go, straight from Munich...
Flow-optimised air intake.
To give the engine an instantaneous, immediate response, the air volume on
the intake side of the throttle butterfly must be reduced to an absolute
minimum. The problem in this case, however, is the large intake cross-section
and air collector volume required by a high-performance power unit of this
calibre. So to meet both of these requirements, the throttle butterflies in the
intake manifolds are positioned right in front of the intake valves.
From front to rear, the entire flow of intake air in the new eight-cylinder power
unit does not require the usual hot-film air mass flow meter with its obligatory
sensors. Instead of determining engine load by means of such elaborate
sensors, therefore, which would also create disadvantages in air guidance due
to the geometry of the components involved, the V8 power unit of the new
BMW M3 uses the engine control unit to perform this function. To do this,
the system determines engine load under current driving conditions by taking
the position of the throttle butterfly and idle adjuster, the position of
the VANOS control unit, engine speed, air temperature and air pressure into
account. This, in turn, gives the engineers at BMW M GmbH new freedom
in the configuration and optimisation of the engine air intake process. And at
the same time this management concept operates with maximum reliability. The length and diameter of the eight intake funnels also helps to ensure an
optimum charge effect in the oscillating tube. Like the single-piece, extra-large
air collector, the funnels are made of a light composite material with a
30 per cent share of glass fibre. The air filter cartridge in the air collector,
in turn, uses the maximum filter area possible, the air collector being supplied
with air by an extra-large intake air silencer with three intake air openings.
Dam that is clever
Merefield said:
Sorry to be a dunce, but is that just tradition? Why are "racing" engines high-reving? What advantage does that give an engine/BMW engine?
More bangs = more power
If you want to get an engine of a specific size (possibly due to packaging/model range constraints/wanting to show off to Audi that you can produce the same power with 200cc's less) to produce more power, then it has to rev higher, which tends to mean sacrificing some low down torque due to cam profile/flow/fuel mixing characteristics. Although thats not necessarily a rule.
Its possible that BMW wanted to stick to using revs rather than capacity for emmissions/fuel economy, but you tend to knacker that by losing low rev range torque. So probably they did it for the character aspect, and perhaps to use a little bit of their F1 'heritage'
Exactly, imagine the engine as an air pump. The faster it revs the more air it will flow, air and fuel make the bang so therefore more bangs = more power. Pretty much the reason why F1 engines of late have been revving to 19k+. Once you have made the engine as thermally efficient as possible, the only way to make more power is to get it to run faster. Which also why the FIA are now limiting engine speed in an effort to reduce power.
Merefield said:
Sorry to be a dunce, but is that just tradition? Why are "racing" engines high-reving?
In racing terms, torque wins. Power = revs x torque. in F1 Renault had the highest torque engine last year which is one of the reasons they get away from the line so well. Also, higher revs usually means more cost and/or less reliability. F1 are now limited to 19,000rpm for cost reasons.
IMH 295 lb ft is pretty weedy for 4L. The Honda S2000 & RX8 have high revving, high power, low displacement engines and some complain about the lack of torque but they have way less to play with.
Also, with this engines torque peaking at a pretty high 3,900rpm it sounds like you will be stirring the pudding to get the best out of it.
I am sure the press and BMW fans will love it to bits.
oj said:
Quite possibly...
Bet the 335i feels at least as quick too
Bet the 335i feels at least as quick too
On the road I bet it does too. Peak torque (300ft/lbs) from about 1300rpm to the redline. Amazing and effortless delivery. Peak power is about 300bhp.
I sat behind one (nice looking machine - don't believe the doubters) and followed it as it launched with ease, very quickly.
WOT above say 5,000rpm is where the M3 would see off the 335i. It will have more reach with higher revs and obviously an extra 100bhp+ of power at the top end.
I thought 'M' division would have looked for at least 450 horses from their bent 8? V8 EOL said:
In racing terms, torque wins. Power = revs x torque. in F1 Renault had the highest torque engine last year which is one of the reasons they get away from the line so well...
...The Honda S2000 & RX8 have high revving, high power, low displacement engines and some complain about the lack of torque but they have way less to play with.
Torque wins versus less torque, all other things being equal (as they are in F1). But if you add in variables such as the weight of the engine block then it's less clear cut. ...The Honda S2000 & RX8 have high revving, high power, low displacement engines and some complain about the lack of torque but they have way less to play with.
Higher revs mean shorter gearing, so the tractive effort (force of the wheel turning) is higher than the crank torque figure suggests. An S2000 has approximately 20% shorter gearing than a Z4 3.0i, so even though it's down on peak torque by about 30%, the tractive effort is only down by about 15%. So once you factor in the significantly lower weight of the engine, which has benefits for both handling and power-to-weight, it's pretty close.
The primary problems with high-rev-based power versus torque-based power are reliability (more stress on the motor) and the fact that you need to keep the motor screaming to extract the power, which doesn't really lend itself to road use.
V8 EOL said:
In racing terms, torque wins. Power = revs x torque.
My understanding is that higher engine speeds are more important than torque in racing as it allows the use of shorter gearing which multiplies the engine's torque more than a lower revving engine. This can result in more torque at the wheels even if the engine itself produces less torque, implying that power figures are a better indication of a vehicle's straight line performance. Obviously the more torque the better, but I would think that revs are more important.
The torque figure isn't as important as the width of the torque band. The BMW 330d will produce plenty more torque than the M3, but it will do it between say 2000rpm and 4000rpm, so double the engine speed. The M3 will do 85% of its max torque between 2000rpm and 8000rpm, which is quadrupling its engine speed. This a truer indication of how the car will feel to drive.
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff