Bmw M5 V-10......wow!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 3,252
From: Knoxville, TN
Originally posted by Chris 96 WS6
They key is not how much peak tq...because at low RPMs it doesn't help acceleration much. Where in the RPM band the Tq peak occurs is much more important.
An engine making 300ft-lbs at 4000 rpm will out accelerate an engine making 400 ft lbs at 2000 rpm.
That's why an LT1 car will out accelerate a TPI car even though peak TQ is lower.....Peak numbers can be very misleading.
They key is not how much peak tq...because at low RPMs it doesn't help acceleration much. Where in the RPM band the Tq peak occurs is much more important.
An engine making 300ft-lbs at 4000 rpm will out accelerate an engine making 400 ft lbs at 2000 rpm.
That's why an LT1 car will out accelerate a TPI car even though peak TQ is lower.....Peak numbers can be very misleading.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Originally posted by morb|d
DAYAM, those headers are rediculous.
and peak torque only seems "small" because peak HP is so damn "BIG".
You are right - they are small relative to HP numbers. However, they are small also becuase peak HP arrives at a very high RPM. You take small amounts of torque and spin it at high RPMs and you will get high HP. Limit the RPM to only 6200 or so and you will see a dramatic decrease in HP.
why does everyone assume that torque and HP number, the digits themselves have to be close to square?
Probably because most cars have these numbers within a much closer range of each other.
it just happens to work out this way in the American measuring system. look at the metrics. kW are usually 1/2 the Nm numbers where they would be square in the American system. but they're just numbers.
We are just accusomed here to small block V8 numbers, that's all
Things to keep in mind:
* 5L of displacement is still 5L despite 10 cylinders
* 5L mustang made under 300lb-ft torque, BMW V10 makes 365
And a Peterbilt HD tow truck makes 2000+ lbs/ft. Your move, Sherlock. Just kidding, couldn't resist inserting this line from Family Guy. Anyhow. You made a comparison to Ford. Well here's one for you. Chrysler's "low-tech" HEMI makes 390 lbs/ft with 5.7L, in a car that costs 35K. With .7L more displacement, but 2 fewer cylinders.
Something more "in the league" for comparison purposes would be Ferrari / Lamborghini engines. Lamborghini has a very similarly "spec'ed" engine, with 5.0 L of displacement, V10, 500 HP (at 7800 RPM) and 369 lbs/ft of torque in their Gallardo. A nice match for the M5, but it weighs a bit less I think. I would like to see comparisons between these two cars.
Ferrari has them beat, in terms of HP per liter. Their 3.6L V8 makes 400 HP. Not bad. GTC version of the Modena makes 445 HP at 8750 RPM with the same displacement. Only 3.6 L
* I want to have the new M5's babies.
DAYAM, those headers are rediculous.
and peak torque only seems "small" because peak HP is so damn "BIG".
You are right - they are small relative to HP numbers. However, they are small also becuase peak HP arrives at a very high RPM. You take small amounts of torque and spin it at high RPMs and you will get high HP. Limit the RPM to only 6200 or so and you will see a dramatic decrease in HP.
why does everyone assume that torque and HP number, the digits themselves have to be close to square?
Probably because most cars have these numbers within a much closer range of each other.
it just happens to work out this way in the American measuring system. look at the metrics. kW are usually 1/2 the Nm numbers where they would be square in the American system. but they're just numbers.
We are just accusomed here to small block V8 numbers, that's all
Things to keep in mind:
* 5L of displacement is still 5L despite 10 cylinders
* 5L mustang made under 300lb-ft torque, BMW V10 makes 365
And a Peterbilt HD tow truck makes 2000+ lbs/ft. Your move, Sherlock. Just kidding
, couldn't resist inserting this line from Family Guy. Anyhow. You made a comparison to Ford. Well here's one for you. Chrysler's "low-tech" HEMI makes 390 lbs/ft with 5.7L, in a car that costs 35K. With .7L more displacement, but 2 fewer cylinders.Something more "in the league" for comparison purposes would be Ferrari / Lamborghini engines. Lamborghini has a very similarly "spec'ed" engine, with 5.0 L of displacement, V10, 500 HP (at 7800 RPM) and 369 lbs/ft of torque in their Gallardo. A nice match for the M5, but it weighs a bit less I think. I would like to see comparisons between these two cars.
Ferrari has them beat, in terms of HP per liter. Their 3.6L V8 makes 400 HP. Not bad. GTC version of the Modena makes 445 HP at 8750 RPM with the same displacement. Only 3.6 L
* I want to have the new M5's babies.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,440
From: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
Originally posted by muckz
You want to make love to a car? Sheesh, now I heard everything on this board!
You want to make love to a car? Sheesh, now I heard everything on this board!
oh, and if you want to play numbers, i just have one question to ask. you like apples?
5.7L/5.0L = 1.14 or 14% increase in displacement.
390lb-ft/365lb-ft ~= 1.07 or ~7% increase in peak torque.
now that you have all of that info, here's what it means. if the BMW V10 were 5.7L big, it would make 1.14 * 365lb-ft = 416lb-ft of peak torque. not too shabby for a high strung screamer i'd say. outmuscles even the LS6 by 10lb-ft.
well? how you like them apples? *
*(obviously "borrowed" from good will hunting)
Last edited by morb|d; Jul 13, 2004 at 12:31 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Originally posted by morb|d
if that last one shocks you, then you obviously never even took a peek at the lounge. let alone read anything in there.
Oh yeah, the lounge area.... No, I was just emphasizing for shock value, only humourous intentions.
oh, and if you want to play numbers, i just have one question to ask. you like apples?
5.7L/5.0L = 1.14 or 14% increase in displacement.
390lb-ft/365lb-ft ~= 1.07 or ~7% increase in peak torque.
I like apples, you like oranges. I'll go a different route. V8 has 20% less cylinders than V10. Yet it makes 7 % more peak torque. And is mass produced. Is not hand built. Costs thousands less to make.
now that you have all of that info, here's what it means. if the BMW V10 were 5.7L big, it would make 1.14 * 365lb-ft = 416lb-ft of peak torque. not too shabby for a high strung screamer i'd say. outmuscles even the LS6 by 10lb-ft.
I wonder why the Europeans try to keep displacement so low? I know that their fuel economy is horrible. LSx puts out better power figures (compared to their V8 found in regular 5 and 7-series) and has much better fuel economy. As it is, though, the engine at stake is NOT 5.7L, and so any theoretical guesses are just those - theoretical guesses. Let's not bring watermelons into this fruity discussion.
well? how you like them apples? *
Indeed, very much. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
*(obviously "borrowed" from good will hunting) [/B]
Great movie, probably my favourite movie with Matt Daemon.
if that last one shocks you, then you obviously never even took a peek at the lounge. let alone read anything in there.
Oh yeah, the lounge area.... No, I was just emphasizing for
shock value, only humourous intentions.oh, and if you want to play numbers, i just have one question to ask. you like apples?
5.7L/5.0L = 1.14 or 14% increase in displacement.
390lb-ft/365lb-ft ~= 1.07 or ~7% increase in peak torque.
I like apples, you like oranges. I'll go a different route. V8 has 20% less cylinders than V10. Yet it makes 7 % more peak torque. And is mass produced. Is not hand built. Costs thousands less to make.
now that you have all of that info, here's what it means. if the BMW V10 were 5.7L big, it would make 1.14 * 365lb-ft = 416lb-ft of peak torque. not too shabby for a high strung screamer i'd say. outmuscles even the LS6 by 10lb-ft.
I wonder why the Europeans try to keep displacement so low? I know that their fuel economy is horrible. LSx puts out better power figures (compared to their V8 found in regular 5 and 7-series) and has much better fuel economy. As it is, though, the engine at stake is NOT 5.7L, and so any theoretical guesses are just those - theoretical guesses. Let's not bring watermelons into this fruity discussion.
well? how you like them apples? *
Indeed, very much. An apple a day keeps the doctor away.
*(obviously "borrowed" from good will hunting) [/B]
Great movie, probably my favourite movie with Matt Daemon.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,440
From: five-one-oh/nine-oh-nine
Originally posted by muckz
Originally posted by morb|d
I like apples, you like oranges. I'll go a different route. V8 has 20% less cylinders than V10. Yet it makes 7 % more peak torque. And is mass produced. Is not hand built. Costs thousands less to make.
Originally posted by morb|d
I like apples, you like oranges. I'll go a different route. V8 has 20% less cylinders than V10. Yet it makes 7 % more peak torque. And is mass produced. Is not hand built. Costs thousands less to make.
As it is, though, the engine at stake is NOT 5.7L, and so any theoretical guesses are just those - theoretical guesses. Let's not bring watermelons into this fruity discussion.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 163
From: Dallas, TX
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
[Exterior] BMW & Mercedes can look like 5th gen Camaro
Husbarn
2010 - 2015 Camaro Interior, Exterior, Paint & Body, Electronics/Car Audio
3
Mar 30, 2015 11:45 AM
guionM
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
12
Dec 10, 2002 07:24 PM