[keanu1]

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/lis...SjreHBUnIrc#10

[RM7]

Originally Posted by keanu1

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/lis...SjreHBUnIrc#10

Not so sure about these.

Rotary? That's never worked right.

Even the M3 V8, only 295lb of torque. While not totally pathetic, it's definitely not very impressive either. Area below the torque curve is low due to peak torque being low. I guess it's "notable", but it's not much more than that. I think Ferrari and other V8s, hell, Coyotes with their far greater torque...I'd put the venerable 335 twin turbo I-6 in there over that.

[No Boost]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Even the M3 V8, only 295lb of torque. While not totally pathetic, it's definitely not very impressive either. Area below the torque curve is low due to peak torque being low. I guess it's "notable", but it's not much more than that.

I don't have firsthand experience with the E9x M3 but I have to think that the car's weight is the hindrance, not necessarily its engine. S65 is similar to a GT3 power plant with high Hp and lower peak Tq with free/high revving ability. I think if the M3 were closer to 3000 lbs, it's perceived lethargic low end wouldn't be as noticeable. Additionally, like the GT3, the S65 is better suited for the track where a driver can wind it out and really enjoy what the engine offers.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Even the M3 V8, only 295lb of torque. While not totally pathetic, it's definitely not very impressive either.

It's a high revving 100hp/L engine and makes about 100Nm/L torque at 3900rpm which is quite low for such an engine. This means it has, for a high revving NA engine with 100hp/L, a pretty linear and wide torque curve.
I wonder if there are better NA performing engines of that era regarding to this. (and not fitted to cars costing 2 or 3 times obviously)

I mean, the 997 gt3 rs engine, which of course is a great engine in a great car (in the same era, so the PH1), has similar power and torque, but gives peak torque at 5500rpm, so thats a 1600rpm difference. The torque band in the m3 v8 is much wider (so therefore also a more practical engine)

The contemporary Audi RS4 B7, with it's high revving 4,2L V8 had similar power at similar rev (420Hp at 7800rpm), but that engine also had its peak torque at 5500rpm (430Nm). Don't know what the torque is at 3900rpm. Based on the construction one'd expect this engine would make more torque down low because afaik this is an oversquare engine and the 2 above aren't.

But then again, why mention the s65 v8 when bmw had similar power and torque per litre 10 years earlier in the s50B32. That engine was back then so far ahead of the competition, having 320Hp from a NA 3,2L engine in 1995!
Back then you had to buy a Ferrari to top that.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

It's a high revving 100hp/L engine and makes about 100Nm torque at 3900rpm which is quite low for such an engine. This means it has, for a high revving NA engine with 100hp/L, a pretty linear and wide torque curve.
I wonder if there are better NA performing engines of that era regarding to this. (and not fitted to cars costing 2 or 3 times obviously)

I mean, the 997 gt3 rs engine, which of course is a great engine in a great car (in the same era, so the PH1), has similar power and torque, but gives peak torque at 5500rpm, so thats a 1600rpm difference. The torque band in the m3 v8 is much wider (so therefore also a more practical engine)

Well, yeah, but I would also argue that it hinges on how much torque there is. No matter how linear, low torque is low torque and won't blow anyone's socks off. Obviously no one wants to have to rev to 6K to make "decent" torque, but in the realm of V8s, that's almost never the case. I was definitely expecting to see something like the 4.0 GT3 engine too, as it is pushing so many different areas of what a NA engine is and can be.

[brad850csi]

That's a fairly generic we did a google and got some results article. The 1UZ, rotary and Barra in particular are very weak for that list and the Rover V8 is a very British selection

The S54 and S65 are quite special and the M156 is insane, the rest are fairly generic engines that were well received due to their parent car's cost.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes

Well, yeah, but I would also argue that it hinges on how much torque there is.

How much engine torque there is, is not really important. How much wheel torque there is, is what is important. Because that is what gets you going, not engine torque.
A high revving engine has a different gear ratio and therefore needs less engine torque to get the same wheel torque.
And like I showed in the specs I listed, the s65 is a very very good performer compared to it's rivals in the same class&era.
Not much NA 4L V8's perform better. And I think the engine torque by itself for a NA 4L V8 is also pretty good.
Unless you know of another NA 4L V8 in 2007 that does way more...
Even the ferrari F430 engine (same era) produces about the same specific torque (465Nm from 4.3L) but also only at 5250rpm.
So that torque spec from the s65 is actually quite impressive for a NA 4L V8

I don't think it's the best BMW engine (I always take the age into account and then for me it's probably the s50b32, which was at least 5 years ahead of the competition), but in 2007, the s65 was pretty much at the top of its class.
That there were other manufacturers fitting 6L FI V8's into their cars with more power and torque has no relevance to that as you can't compare those. It's apples vs apples and oranges vs oranges.