E55 vs M5! (oh no...)

[Thunf]

I just had a big conversation with some guys in another forum who obviously did not understand much about engines! Some was Mercedes bashers and laughed about E55 when comparing it to the M5. They bashed MB when they "couldn't produce more hp/litre than BMW comparing E55 and M5" even as E55 uses a kompressor. Then I heard that, "lets put a kompressor on a M5 and then we see".

I hope that you guys, if you even stand reading another AMG vs M thread, knows better.
In case someone thinks what power you are able to get out of a certain engine volume means everything, you should read this.

I told them that BMW actually made an engine for E46 316i that was 1.9 litres with 105 hp when it arrived. That was intentionally an engine made to last, it was about 55 hp/litre. Not like near 70 hp/litre.

MB engine takes a little space even if it is 5.5 litres and BMW is 5 litres. The total pistonlength in a row is for M5 460 mm and E55 388 mm. Compact engines for different designed purposes. M5 is a sporty car and has less stroke, built intentionally for lower point of gravity but looses in other areas such as length.

Looking at what you feed to the engines (E55 V8 Kompressor vs M5 V10 NA), this is the result of the efficiency between MB and BMW (fuel consumption).

M5 V10 NA: 19.0 mpg
CO2 emissions (g/km): 357

E55 V8 Kompressor: 24.6 mpg
CO2 emissions: 276g/km

Both understandably finds customers. People would choose an M5 over E55 because of what they desire, and people would choose an E55 over M5 to fulfill their needs and desires.

Finally, bashing MB and BMW for what they do is pretty useless...

[LateNightCable]

Originally Posted by Thunf Finally, bashing MB and BMW for what they do is pretty useless...

Agreed, in fact they should be praised for doing what they do. They help make the car world fun, and provide diversity. Civilized and somewhat attainable cars for everyone to dream about.

But people being people, and starved for entertainment - they love the pride and drama of a good rivalry. M and AMG are premium automobiles, and only fools take it to the point of saying one of them sucks. Especially when they don't even share the same fundamental priorities.

[bleh]

Originally Posted by Thunf MB engine takes a little space even if it is 5.5 litres and BMW is 5 litres. The total pistonlength in a row is for M5 460 mm and E55 388 mm. Compact engines for different designed purposes. M5 is a sporty car and has less stroke, built intentionally for lower point of gravity but looses in other areas such as length.

um... the bore and stroke are not designed to keep a lower center of gravity at all. its all about revability and a usable torque curve, then when you throw in rod length, also reliability. if they wanted a lower center of gravity they wouldve gone for a more open angle vee.

lnc is right. one shouldnt compare them.

[Thunf]

Originally Posted by bleh um... the bore and stroke are not designed to keep a lower center of gravity at all. its all about revability and a usable torque curve, then when you throw in rod length, also reliability. if they wanted a lower center of gravity they wouldve gone for a more open angle vee. lnc is right. one shouldnt compare them.

Right, ofcourse that is correct - but you certainly don't get, as a bonus, lower point of gravity with a longer stroke compared to short.

[reggid]

Originally Posted by bleh Originally Posted by Thunf MB engine takes a little space even if it is 5.5 litres and BMW is 5 litres. The total pistonlength in a row is for M5 460 mm and E55 388 mm. Compact engines for different designed purposes. M5 is a sporty car and has less stroke, built intentionally for lower point of gravity but looses in other areas such as length. um... the bore and stroke are not designed to keep a lower center of gravity at all. its all about revability and a usable torque curve, then when you throw in rod length, also reliability. if they wanted a lower center of gravity they wouldve gone for a more open angle vee. lnc is right. one shouldnt compare them.

wouldn't the big bore make the torque less usable i.e at high rpms. And i would think that a longer stroke would give marginally more torque. The main reason is less inertia loads at high rpm's.

[LateNightCable]

Revability in this instance meaning the bore and stroke pertain more to the engine's performace charictoristics through the rev range, and not so much the center of gravity.

In the grand scheme of lower gravity, your piston stroke isn't going to amount to a hill of beans, it's such a small factor. V angle of course would play a larger roll.

[Thunf]

It's correct that the center of gravity have little to do with stroke, I also didn't mean short stroke as the main reason for low point of gravity.

I remember MB and BMW in LeMans at the same time - BMW screamed at high revs and MB sounded like a 4 stroke crosscycle, not as sharp as a cross motorcycle, but there was clearly a difference between the engines of BMW and MB.

[bleh]

the real key to revability as in the rod to stroke ratio. man i definitely dont feel like explaining this. but either way both ends of the ratio account for usuable torque range and although marginal, the deck height.

[Thunf]

Originally Posted by bleh the real key to revability as in the rod to stroke ratio. man i definitely dont feel like explaining this. but either way both ends of the ratio account for usuable torque range and although marginal, the deck height.

I understand, I'm talking swedish so I don't understand all the words you say like deck height and rod and some other things. I don't say my thought as free in english as in swedish and finnish.

[bleh]

alright. ill remember that. sorry if it seems like i shot you down hard or something.