Replacing my economical run about car??

Herzlos

There are also supermini's putting out over 100bhp/l, it's not a major achievement these days. You could get nearly 100bhp/l out of a Rover K series nearly 20 years ago.

It's nothing special for a road car to rev higher either. It's just a balance between performance, tolerance and maintenance. Most cars tend to go for lower power and higher tolerances (in terms of fuel quality and abuse) and longer service intervals, others go for more power with lower tolerances (in terms of fuel quality and abuse) with shorter service intervals. That's why the service interval on a Mitsubishi Evo is 4k miles but 20k miles on a Vauxhall Insignia.

I also don't see how you claim that motorbike engines don't count; the are both technological approaches to power, bikes just have less space to work with. I've heard of cars powered by bike engines too.

We're not saying an M3 is a bad car - indeed it's a pretty good car - good power, well balanced, great fun to drive. But from a technological point of view it's evolution and not revolution, it's a great driving saloon and not a sports or supercar.

darkmatter101

Herzlos wrote: »

There are also supermini's putting out over 100bhp/l, it's not a major achievement these days. You could get nearly 100bhp/l out of a Rover K series 1.4 nearly 20 years ago.

It's nothing special for a road car to rev higher either. It's just a balance between performance, tolerance and maintenance. Most cars tend to go for lower power and higher tolerances and longer service intervals.

I also don't see how you claim that motorbike engines don't count.

Yeh and the Superminis you are talking about are turbo charged. I'm only talking about naturally aspirated engines putting out 100 plus a litre. Not many cars can do that, only ones that come to mind are the M cars, Ferrari and S2000 and few others.

JustinR1979

The pistons in the E36, although not revving as quick, travel further per minute than in the F1 engines of the same time.
At the time it came out, the E39 M5 engine was most advanced car engine. That is a lovely engine, shame about the exhaust, 40bhp lost in that.
They do make some great engines, or used to anyway...

darkmatter101

JustinR1979 wrote: »

The pistons in the E36, although not revving as quick, travel further per minute than in the F1 engines of the same time.
At the time it came out, the E39 M5 engine was most advanced car engine. That is a lovely engine, shame about the exhaust, 40bhp lost in that.
They do make some great engines, or used to anyway...

When the E39 M5 came out it was the most advanced and FASTEST saloon car ever. That car is now regarded as a classic and I can guarantee, despite its age, that it is WAY more advanced than a commuter bike

JustinR1979

Is a great car, I do miss mine. Did get compliments on it.
When I sold it the petrol prices were going mental, it went way too cheap.
Been looking again, see their prices are creeping up.

Herzlos

darkmatter101 wrote: »

Yeh and the Superminis you are talking about are turbo charged. I'm only talking about naturally aspirated engines putting out 100 plus a litre. Not many cars can do that, only ones that come to mind are the M cars, Ferrari and S2000 and few others.

Many cars beat 100bhp/l without forced induction, a quick google shows the record goes to the Ariel Atom at 167bhp/l, and with at turbo the Evo X gets up to 220bhp/l.

Many fairly unexciting production (the MG ZR 105, for instance) cars are sitting around the 80bhp/litre NASP without modification.

darkmatter101

JustinR1979 wrote: »

Is a great car, I do miss mine. Did get compliments on it.
When I sold it the petrol prices were going mental, it went way too cheap.
Been looking again, see their prices are creeping up.

Me and my fellow BMW M comrades over at the M3 Cutters forums and few others (e90 post/m3 forums) think of the E90/E92 M3 engine as the newer version of the E39 M5's engine as they both are on V8 platforms.

Indeed, any M car holds their value well. I was looking at s2000 prices for the last few years and they haven't dropped at all, still miss mine.

BeenThroughItAll

darkmatter101 wrote: »

Yeh and the Superminis you are talking about are turbo charged. I'm only talking about naturally aspirated engines putting out 100 plus a litre. Not many cars can do that, only ones that come to mind are the M cars, Ferrari and S2000 and few others.

Wrong. It's perfectly possible to get 200+bhp out of a Rover 1.8VVC K Series on standard internals. I should know, I've built one.

BeenThroughItAll

darkmatter101 wrote: »

How can you compare motorcycle engines to car engines? The 2014 Formula 1 engines *only* rev to a maximum of 15k rpm. Does that mean the Yahama R6 which can rev to around the same limit if not more, is technically superior to F1 engines? BIG FAT NO!

Just exactly how do you figure that? What EXACTLY is more advanced about your engine? Give us engineering details of just what is so clever about it.

As I've already explained once to you, 4 stroke fossil fuelled engines all work in the same way. My GSXR750's engine is no less or more advanced than your car's engine. And what's an F1 engine got to do with it? You proposed that your M3 engine was special because it's got 100BHP/L. Several people have pointed out that's rubbish.

darkmatter101

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Just exactly how do you figure that? What EXACTLY is more advanced about your engine? Give us engineering details of just what is so clever about it.

yes many cars before the M3 had achieved 100 plus hp/litre. The s2000 which came out in 2000 (of course) is still considered as one of the highest hp naturally aspirated engines per litre, at around 120hp/litre.

The M3's V8 as well as its suspension and chassis clearly has superior technology and engineering to a lot of other cars that makes it grip so well and rev very quickly to redline.