S54B32 - the best engine this side of supercar lunacy!

[BMWZ4MC]

and another thing, engines that rev higher have less torque than those that rev lower. Just think of the old F1 V8's, they couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding until they hit 16,000 rpm, which make them impossible to drive slowly.

And the problem with that, in a sports car, is what exactly . :?

Absolutely nothing if you're able to keep rev's high, it's when you're not that it's not so great and I'm not saying that the S54 is in the same category as the RX8.

My S2000 demonstrates the 'high power output through high revs and little torque, principle perfectly. It's fantastic between 6 - 9000 rpm and pulls like a train, but it accelerates like a 2l saloon car below that range. Driving it back to back with my ///M really makes me appreciate how much torque is available at low rpm from the S54. It also makes me realise how rapidly the revs rise in the S54 and how it continues to pull hard throughout the available rpm range.

 

[LeeZ4MR]

Out of interest would this lack of torque comment being nonsense also apply to the E92 M3?

If I am honest I thought both the S54 in my Z4M and S65 in my E92 M3 did lack torque but in reality they clearly don't but I was used to a TVR Cerbera that had 420 bhp and 380 ib/ft torque and it had less than 1200kg to drag around so both the Z4M/M3 didn't feel that quick to me low down whereas the Cerbera always felt quick no matter what revs and it felt ballistic if you drove it hard yet I never felt that in the M cars due to their weight.

The power to weight ratio isn't that great with BMW`s M cars compared to a plastic car built in a shed in blackpool but obviously in isolation both the Z4M and M3 are quick cars for sure but the fact is you have to thrash them hard to get the reward from them but that is what most keen drivers enjoy the most about them I think and now with all the high powered diesels and turbo petrols around the high rev N/A engine will be missed for sure.

 

[original guvnor]

Look people - we are allowed to prefer NA engines to turbo engines. We know they aren't as powerful, we know they consume more fuel, we know we'll need to change gear more often. But we also know they sound better and reward the keen driver more.

It's personal preference.

I might have a turbo in a daily driver but not in a car I want to use for pleasure.

I've been in a F40 (my Dad's mate had one from brand new) and it was awesome, especially for the late 1980's, but it had immense turbo lag. Driving it was like nothing happening....still nothing....STILL nothing.......OMG sweet jesus what the hell!!!!! The F50 is actually worth a lot more on the classic car market now Guido. I'm not saying that is because it is NA, probably more to do with rarity (after all it had a tough act to follow straight on from the F40).

But compare the noise of a 911 Turbo (dreadful to these ears) to a GT3/Carrera S or an F40 to an F12/458 Speciale for example, or even a P1 to LaFerrari. There is no comparison and noise, I'm talking real noise, not some engineer playing around with sound synthesis, is a very important part of the whole experience.

That's why we love the E60M5, the S54 engined-cars, Mclaren F1, Ferrari F12, 360 Challenge Stradale, GT3 and 3RS etc etc. They make you want to rev the nads off them in a way a turbo never will.

But if you like your turbos that's fine too. I understand their appeal. I'm not blind to why people like them.

 

[sars]

I'm not against either, both have their place in sports cars, I'm just not blinkered into preferring one over the other, after all the engine is just one ingredient among many that defines how a great sports car feels