1M is out... How does it compare to our cars?

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by SSKE92

I'd just like to point out that no matter how much we love it and admire it...the S54 is a heavy, old engine... The newer engines are much more physically and economically efficient, S65 is smaller and 30lbs lighter. The S54 is a godly engine but it has it's flaws.

I think we can all agree here that for an "M" Car, the S54>N54.

As does the N54 have it's flaws too.

Everything in life has limitations if you look hard enough.

Still nobody has been able to answer me why the S54 HAD to be axed.

Someone made a comment that it produced too much emissions.

Well I ask you... compared to what?

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by ga41

Mate, when were all those engines that you mentioned put into production? The S54 was introduced in 2001 and it takes at least 3 years to design and finalise an engine, it's now more than 10 years old. I dont think they couldnt make it comply with current regulations but it wouldnt be very cost effective for such a niche engine...

The 6.2 litre M156 AMG V8 was put into production in 2006 but is already being replaced with the 5.5l M278 twin turbo V8 for the same reasons. All the other engines you mentioned are also much newer than the S54...

If all of the other engines are newer than the S54 and we agree that they DO produce more emissions than the S54 how come they are still ABLE to be used?

By that reasoning then it should be possible for BMW to still use the S54 if it wanted to.

Correct?

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

That still goes not way at all in explaining how Lamborghini, Ferrari, Porsche, Mercedes and Audi can continue to get away with what they are doing in terms of producing wonderful high revving naturally aspirated motors and BMW somehow cannot.

Fuel economy is directly related to emissions. The less fuel you burn per 100km the less emissions will be produced as a consequence.

Do you really think the Mercedes 6.2L - V8 produces less emission per 100km then the BMW S54...

No, they don't produce more emissions than the S54. Maybe in terms of CO2 given the displacement and fuel consumption, but that has little to to with CO, NO, and HC.

Now I'll agree there is some correlation between fuel consumption and emissions. But it's not a direct correlation. For example, run a bit on the lean side and NO goes up and while fuel economy goes up as well this will not get an engine past the emissions bureaucrats. How cleanly an engine burns fuel is not directly related to consumption rates. Again, CO2 is another story---but I'm talking about NO and CO and HC. CO2 has become an issue for regulators more in the past few years--and we're now seeing that too in the regulations.

I don't know the emissions specs of the Merc engine. Do you? I do know that the S65 which is higher displacement is cleaner than the S54. And I know that some modern engines run so cleanly now that the air coming out is actually cleaner than the air going in (Toyota has a couple in production now; others may have these as well). So it's technically possible to have an engine that produces very little by way of CO, NO, and HC. Here are the US standards. You can see how they've become much more harsh over time--especially since the design date of the S54 to the Merc engine you're comparing it to.

So, how do they get away with it? Technology and design. For example, the S65 is a much cleaner engine than the S54 due to, for example, advanced ionic current based knock detection and other design improvements. The other manufacturers have probably gone a similar route. I don't know that much about their powerplants but I suspect they weren't designed in the late 90s like the S54. They're more modern designs. The S54 was and still is a great engine, but it's well over 10 years old in terms of design. That doesn't make it any less magnificent in our eyes, but in the eyes of some soul-less bureaucrats it makes it "non-compliant".

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by SSKE92

I'd just like to point out that no matter how much we love it and admire it...the S54 is a heavy, old engine... The newer engines are much more physically and economically efficient, S65 is smaller and 30lbs lighter. The S54 is a godly engine but it has it's flaws.

I think we can all agree here that for an "M" Car, the S54>N54.

+1

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Nonsense.

Someone tell me how the following current naturally aspirated high revving engines do not have a problem meeting tight Euro emission standards.

• Mercedes 6.2L - V8
• Lamborghini 5.2L - V10
• Ferrari 4.5L - V8
• Audi 5.2L - V10
• Porsche 3.8L - F6

Engine displacement is a factor. The S54 engine is quoted by BMW has putting out 292g of CO2/km. Current 6 cylinder performance cars:

Porsche 3.8L - 242g
Porsche 3.4L - 223g
Nissane 370z - 220g

The S65 in the current M3 does 290g/km (yep, better than the S54!), while the E39's motor did 336g/km. Other current performance 8s:

Ferrari 458 - 307g
Corvette C6 - 316
Merc 6.8L AMG - 330

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by epbrown

Engine displacement is a factor. The S54 engine is quoted by BMW has putting out 292g of CO2/km. Current 6 cylinder performance cars:

Porsche 3.8L - 242g
Porsche 3.4L - 223g
Nissane 370z - 220g

The S65 in the current M3 does 290g/km (yep, better than the S54!), while the E39's motor did 336g/km. Other current performance 8s:

Ferrari 458 - 307g
Corvette C6 - 316
Merc 6.8L AMG - 330

Thank you for that excellent information.

Now we are finally making some progress, I appreciate your efforts.

So from epbrown's post we can see that the above V8's produce more CO2 than the S54 but the 6 cylinder models produce less.

Is there a separate rule for 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 cylinder vehicles in regard to emission standards?

I would have thought it would have been standardised.

[Finnegan]

But guys, CO2 isn't the only emission that counts. What about carbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide (NO), and hydrocarbons (HC)? Emissions rules are very strict about these as well--CO2 is only part of it and only recently since the others have been increasingly regulated for years.

[Serious]

The s54 is way too heavy, fuel inefficient, costly, and emissions producing to be put in the newest BMW's. You have the choice of the s54 in any of 6 different cars, it really shouldn't be a complaint.

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Nonsense.

Someone tell me how the following current naturally aspirated high revving engines do not have a problem meeting tight Euro emission standards.

• Mercedes 6.2L - V8
• Lamborghini 5.2L - V10
• Ferrari 4.5L - V8
• Audi 5.2L - V10
• Porsche 3.8L - F6

7 speed DCT gearboxes with a really tall overdrive highway gear helps alot, sadly the weight & relatively small displacement of modern BMW's doesn't allow them to use this as an advantage as the car would be completely gutless on the highway.

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by Serious

The s54 is way too heavy, fuel inefficient, costly, and emissions producing to be put in the newest BMW's. You have the choice of the s54 in any of 6 different cars, it really shouldn't be a complaint.

Too heavy?
It is around the same weight as the S65.

Fuel Inefficient?
I would be surprised if it was less fuel efficient than the X5-M/X6-M engine.

Costly?
Can you provide the manufacture costs of the engines BMW produces to quantify your statement?

High Emissions?
It produces less emissions than many other engines still in current production.

No sorry, I am not convinced that the S54 had to be axed for the reasons you stated.

So far everyone is just posting hear-say and word-of-mouth speculation of the worst kind as to why BMW discontinued the S54.

I require someone much wiser than me to please produce some factual environmental legislation or legal manufacturer requirements that would mandate the demise of the S54 in it's current form and thus exclude it from further production.

I am not trying to provoke an argument and I appreciate the responses but I would like a factual answer from someone who actually knows, not that is guessing with evidence to support why the S54 production was axed.

[AWM3]

I don't have a factual answer. I do know that it was handbuilt and expensive to produce, it had an iron block and BMW moved on to aluminum or aluminum/magnesium blocks, and it was no longer a standard or optional engine for any of their current models. So those seem like valid reasons to discontinue it from a manufacturer's perspective.

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by car62

I don't have a factual answer. I do know that it was handbuilt and expensive to produce, it had an iron block and BMW moved on to aluminum or aluminum/magnesium blocks, and it was no longer a standard or optional engine for any of their current models. So those seem like valid reasons to discontinue it from a manufacturer's perspective.

Thank you.

Maybe I am looking for an answer or a definitive reason that does not exist.

It could have just been time for BMW to drop the S54. After all, manufacturers do change engine and development does continue.

The S54 could have been discontinued not because of emissions, fuel economy, cost or weight as others have speculated but just because it was time.

I am just disappointed that BMW have not made a replacement and upgraded the S54 with an engine that has the same character and design criteria. They are moving in a totally different direction and it is not to the satisfaction of many.

At the same time Porsche, Lamborghini and Ferrari have not abandoned traditional naturally aspirated high revving engine design so even though I will pay more that is not the most important thing for me and when I have to upgrade my vehicle I will be voting with my money and leaving the BMW camp if they fail to deliver what I want.

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

So far everyone is just posting hear-say and word-of-mouth speculation of the worst kind as to why BMW discontinued the S54.

Why is it so difficult to believe that BMW replaced an older, heavier, less efficient, more polluting engine with newer, better ones? The S54 was based on the M50 line of engines and by 2008 no other car in the BMW line-up was still using an M5* engine besides the Z4M. The N5* series had debuted 2 years before, the S65 was already out. This discussion is the equivalent of someone wondering why BMW wasn't using the S14 engine from the E30 M3 in the year 2000. Every M engine ever built has been replaced at some point - why would the S54 get a repreive?

Both Car and Evo magazines have printed the S54 wasn't used in certain applications because of tighter emissions targets in Europe, which mandated a fleet average of 140g/km for CO2 by 2009 fo car manufacturers as early as 2005. Technology had also moved on in terms of weight, as the S65 is actually a bit lighter and the S85 is only slightly heavier, and neither of those engines require the periodic valve adjustments of the S54 as hydraulic valve adjustment technology had caught up with M-division's high rpm rates.

[esqu1re]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Too heavy?
It is around the same weight as the S65.

Fuel Inefficient?
I would be surprised if it was less fuel efficient than the X5-M/X6-M engine.

Costly?
Can you provide the manufacture costs of the engines BMW produces to quantify your statement?

High Emissions?
It produces less emissions than many other engines still in current production.

No sorry, I am not convinced that the S54 had to be axed for the reasons you stated.

Weight: You're comparing it to a V8 with more displacement. The 6.2 (pushrod) in the Corvette weighs less than the S54. Our S54 weighs a fair bit for a 3.2 L engine.

Fuel Inefficient: Again, you're comparing it to turbocharged V8's, producing 200+ more hp than the S54.

High emissions: I don't know much about this, but I think you really have to compare it to current engines producing similar hp / tq figures. You'll probably find that most produce less emissions.

Anyway, if it were up to me, I would have liked to see the S54 stay around just a bit longer, with some updates (perhaps with direct injection), but oh well...

[Serious]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Too heavy?
It is around the same weight as the S65.

Fuel Inefficient?
I would be surprised if it was less fuel efficient than the X5-M/X6-M engine.

Costly?
Can you provide the manufacture costs of the engines BMW produces to quantify your statement?

High Emissions?
It produces less emissions than many other engines still in current production.

No sorry, I am not convinced that the S54 had to be axed for the reasons you stated.

So far everyone is just posting hear-say and word-of-mouth speculation of the worst kind as to why BMW discontinued the S54.

I require someone much wiser than me to please produce some factual environmental legislation or legal manufacturer requirements that would mandate the demise of the S54 in it's current form and thus exclude it from further production.

I am not trying to provoke an argument and I appreciate the responses but I would like a factual answer from someone who actually knows, not that is guessing with evidence to support why the S54 production was axed.

It's 33lbs heavier and makes 77 less HP, and has worse packaging restraints and a rougher maintenance schedule than the s65.
Even in the mz4 the s54 has roughly the same fuel efficiency as the s55 in the x6m. Yet it's in a car that is a full ton lighter and makes an additional 212bhp and DOUBLE the torque.
As for cost, it isn't efficient for BMW to produce 3 completely different M engines. Should be fairly straight forward.
The s54 may have less emissions than a few other engines but so what, that's like saying a scion xb is a fast car because it's faster that 3 kia's. While the modern BMW powerplants may lack character they are far more efficient.

The other reason is that the m50 family of engines was at it's design limit, there was no room left for increased displacement due to cylinder spacing and maximum piston speed. BMW had massaged and squeezed the m50 block as tightly as they dared; the s54 is the result and it is the peak performance and absolute limit of what was possible... which is one reason why it is so highly revered among enthusiasts. It's time has come and gone though, from a purely engineering point of view it really is a dinosaur when compared with the modern BMW engines.

[johanness]

So turf the S54 and move up to newer tech etc.

But BMW... DON'T call the car a 1M. It is only a 135is in reality.

[doozyj]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Sorry, I do not understand the first half of that sentence.

What does 'pretty' have to do with things?

Excuse my typos, let me rephrase.

"Not to mention having the S65 in the 1M would pretty MUCH be the final nail in the coffin for M3 sales, I agree they should have waited till after the end of the e92 production before producing the 1M with a S65. Then giving the next generation M3 a totally new motor. Regardless, I think the 1M will be fine in representing the M badge."

[Serious]

Originally Posted by johanness

So turf the S54 and move up to newer tech etc.

But BMW... DON'T call the car a 1M. It is only a 135is in reality.

The only part of the car that you can argue isn't 100% M (as most of the other stuff is directly taken off the m3) is the engine.

Engines don't make M cars. M cars are about balancing power, control, handling, comfort, braking, and driving sensation into one harmonious package.If you want to just break an M car down to whether or not it's engine is up to snuff, well then maybe something more along the lines of a challenger srt8 is more up your alley.

[Rick Hunter]

The engine IS an integral part of the package. When BMW uses what is for all intents and purposes a 35is remapped engine, THEN slaps an M badge then it is tantamount to a 135i owner replacing non-engine parts with M parts, chips their car, and then calls their ride an M.

Looking at the big picture, my qualm is not the fact that they put an M54 engine in but that they didn't put an S65 engine instead. There's no such thing as too much power, and arguing cannibalism against M3 sales is rubbish. Combined sales and the option of having either car will blow the competition away which is what they should be thinking about anyway.

They should have called it a tii...

[johanness]

Originally Posted by Serious

The only part of the car that you can argue isn't 100% M (as most of the other stuff is directly taken off the m3) is the engine.

Engines don't make M cars. M cars are about balancing power, control, handling, comfort, braking, and driving sensation into one harmonious package.If you want to just break an M car down to whether or not it's engine is up to snuff, well then maybe something more along the lines of a challenger srt8 is more up your alley.

Are u serious Serious? Maybe a VW Passat is more up YOUR alley. What a dipshit comment.

But back on point... "Engines don't make M cars"??? I guess you're right. Not anymore they don't.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by Rick Hunter

The engine IS an integral part of the package. When BMW uses what is for all intents and purposes a 35is remapped engine, THEN slaps an M badge then it is tantamount to a 135i owner replacing non-engine parts with M parts, chips their car, and then calls their ride an M.

Looking at the big picture, my qualm is not the fact that they put an M54 engine in but that they didn't put an S65 engine instead. There's no such thing as too much power, and arguing cannibalism against M3 sales is rubbish. Combined sales and the option of having either car will blow the competition away which is what they should be thinking about anyway.

They should have called it a tii...

If BMW had put the s65 in, the car would been at least $5k higher.

Engines have never defined M cars, they have simply reflected the atmosphere at BMW... Hell you could argue the s14 isn't a real M engine because it was only a hacked up version of the M10 & M88.

You are way underestimating the amount of change BMW performed on this car to turn it into an M car, I actually have taken a non-M car (an e36 325i) and tried to turn it into an M3... it's beyond belief how many small intricate things are changed to create an M3. It isn't just down to buying a software download and some different dampers.

IMO the 1M deserves it's M badge more than even the upcoming m5 which will be a 7 series based 600hp 2.3 ton pig only available with an automatic box... tell me how that resembles an e21 or e34 m5 more so than the 1M relates to an e30 or e36 m3.

[esqu1re]

The engine is pretty big part of it--that I agree, but the overall car is pretty bada**, and at a projected pricepoint that's not wholly unreasonable.

It's got different fenders and mirror---our M coupe didn't even get unique fenders and mirrors, and I would argue that it's still just as ///M as any other car. Sure, the z4m's got a screaming engine, but the N54 isn't too bad when it's making 335hp and more torque than the M3. Sure, it's a derivative engine, but so is the Z4m's. Just MHO.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by johanness

Are u serious Serious? Maybe a VW Passat is more up YOUR alley. What a dipshit comment.

Go read Ricks post above and shove it where the sun don't shine. We're all entitled to our own opinions, and your derogatory bullshit is getting old. Grow up

But back on point... "Engines don't make M cars"??? I guess you're right. Not anymore they don't.

Go off the deep end more please. Post wasn't meant to be derogatory in anyway. All I meant was is that if the engine is all you really care about than something like an srt8 should satisfy that.