[FogCityM3]

The great technological leaps occurred with the E39/E46 in both engine and chassis design and pinnacle engine was achieved with the M3/M5. These were some of the most sophisticated engines ever produced at any price point and resulted from direct investment in McLaren, Williams, Sauber F1 and LMR prototype race cars, when BMW supported motorsports much more strongly than today. There was direct technology transfer from these racing programs into the cars that were leaps and bounds above the sedan/coupe competition and as good or better than many sports cars, including Porsche.

When you think about the major innovation in today's M-cars is really the electronic differential, which really isn't an industry first. Everything else is actually pretty much used by all performance auto manufacturers, whom admittedly ended up copying a lot of BMW's chassis/suspension approaches. BMW ended up further developing some of the forced induction approaches long used by other manufacturers who were bigger innovators in turbocharging technology.

When you compare the current models innovations to the suspension, chassis, and engine innovations of the E46 M3, E60 M5 and E92 M3, one can easily see that there is no comparison. ITBs, very high volumetric efficiency, ECU processing power, power/torque curves, transmissions (DCT), unique multilink suspensions, ionic sensing, carbon fiber roofs/parts were leaps and bounds over anyone else, at any price point short of Ferraris.

Lots of this stuff did get carried over to the current generation plus the addition of the e-diff and CF driveshafts but nothing really earth shattering and industry defining as in years past.

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Good point. My memory is pretty good and although the internet wasn't around, there have been plenty of negative comments for each generation.

BTW, for those with issues with BMW, which generation was the pinnacle, from which BMW have lost their way?

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

There is nothing wrong with the steering feel on my M4 - enjoy canyon carving with it as much as my E46 M3.

The throttle response in my M4 is excellent and with the torque, when you touch the throttle something happens - best of any BMW that I have owned.

I really don't care about working on it - I don't do my own work, but in 2 years it hasn't required any work.

I bet you are a lot of fun at car club events.

3 out of 3 very specific questions dodged

Canyon carving enjoyment is not a measurement of steering feel. Steering feel is significantly worse (barely exists) in the f8x-- it's just a reality/limitation of current (not to say it will get better, but certainly current) eps technology.

Torque is not a measure of throttle response. E.g. My m3 has better throttle response than my m5 at 3000 rpm, even though it's making less than half the torque... And the M5 still has better throttle response than the f8X. It's just a physical reality/limitation of turbos-- they must have some period of time to spool.

Not working on your own car is not a measurement of serviceability.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by Obioban

3 out of 3 very specific questions dodged

Canyon carving enjoyment is not a measurement of steering feel. Steering feel is significantly worse (barely exists) in the f8x-- it's just a reality/limitation of current (not to say it will get better, but certainly current) eps technology.

Torque is not a measure of throttle response. E.g. My m3 has better throttle response than my m5 at 3000 rpm, even though it's making less than half the torque... And the M5 still has better throttle response than the f8X. It's just a physical reality/limitation of turbos-- they must have some period of time to spool.

Not working on your own car is not a measurement of serviceability.

The steering feel is your opinion - not mine.

I didn't say that torque was a measure of throttle response. I said the throttle response was fine AND with the torque, it does something when I step on the pedal.

I said I didn't care about it being harder to work on, because I don't do my own work. Didn't say it was a measure od serviceability.

With all the mods on your E46 M3, how can it even be considered a BMW or be compared to a stock F8X?

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...21&postcount=2

I'm done - enjoy your sad life.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

Good point. My memory is pretty good and although the internet wasn't around, there have been plenty of negative comments for each generation.

BTW, for those with issues with BMW, which generation was the pinnacle, from which BMW have lost their way?

Pete, I've been around BMWs since 1971, and I would definitely agree that there have been generational arguments all along the way. The transition to fuel injection was painful for enthusiasts since the 1st gen electronic system (L-jet on the M30 in the later E3 and E12 here in the USA) was analog and not able to be tuned/flow enough fuel nor air for performance mods, etc. The first thing you did was pull it all off, and ditch the thermal reactors, and put on triple sidedraft Webers, etc.

The 2002 to E21 was painful (and for many good reasons!), and when the E28 was introduced here in the USA in 1982 it only came in the form of the 528e with 120hp and a 4500rpm redline, and was substantially slower than the outgoing E12 528i and was viewed as a decidedly non-enthusiast car. I remember being at Ray Korman's open house (Korman Autoworks) in February 1982 when a BMWNA rep drove down special to show off the 528e, and being attended by a rabid bunch of enthusiasts, the rep heard many opinions he didn't seem to have expected. The E28 situation was remedied a year later with the 533i. The list like this goes on and on...

Overall, I'd say the biggest shift came within the past 5-6 years with BMW since there is a huge internal thrust to monetize the long-term earned goodwill wealth of the brand reputation as fast as possible. This is what is being rewarded internally by the board. It's sort of like "let's get while the getting's good" type of plan, and it's not just BMW, but that's the topic here. The way to achieve that monetization the fastest is to create product that will sell to the masses at the highest possible rate over the short term --- that is the result of what we see today in the product line up. All executive rewards are short-term in nature and hence we see short term results -- what gets rewarded is what gets done. Whether or not this has been the best path to follow for the long term health of the brand is highly debatable of course; the market has already spoken to some extent by the stock losing 48% in 15 months albeit slightly rebounding at the moment.

Their biggest challenge is that the rest of the automotive world has caught to and in many cases surpassed BMW's former advantages, and they've chosen to leave the somewhat niche market existence behind and to become a monster corporation that is trying to be almost everything to almost everyone. By design, that path is profoundly divergent from the path that led and created those decades of customer goodwill.

Regards,
Chuck

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

The steering feel is your opinion - not mine.

I didn't say that torque was a measure of throttle response. I said the throttle response was fine AND with the torque, it does something when I step on the pedal.

I said I didn't care about it being harder to work on, because I don't do my own work. Didn't say it was a measure od serviceability.

With all the mods on your E46 M3, how can it even be considered a BMW or be compared to a stock F8X?

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...21&postcount=2

I'm done - enjoy your sad life.

At no point have I mentioned anything about my car. I only brought up (stock) e46s when asked which generation I liked best.
(and I have no shortage of stock e46 M3 experience-- 8 of my close friends have e46 M3s, and most projects on them happen on my lift)

I mentioned steering feel, throttle response, and serviceability because you said, "The M4 is just so superior to the E46 M3 in every aspect, except maybe size.". I gave three additional aspects where it's objectively worse. You replied with... well, essentially nothing, you replied with other facets of driving (canyon carving, torque, neglect).

My life is sad because I don't like modern BMWs? Not like I'm just randomly bashing here-- the topic of this thread is "Automotive Enthusiasts vs. BMW". Seems like an apt place to post such things, eh? Explaining why some people, who value certain things that BMW used to be, no longer have any interest in their products. Or would you just rather people didn't actually post opinions contrary to your own?

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by Obioban

I mentioned steering feel, throttle response, and serviceability because you said, "The M4 is just so superior to the E46 M3 in every aspect, except maybe size.". I gave three additional aspects where it's objectively worse. You replied with... well, essentially nothing, you replied with other facets of driving (canyon carving, torque, neglect).

I don't agree that your opinion of the steering and throttle response is objective.

Picture from my driveway, since you claim that nobody wants to talk to me at meets (mature debating approach, btw) and don't know what a stock e46 M3 drives like:

You don't read well. I said that I bet you are a lot of fun - never said nobody wants to talk to you.

Not my driveway, but I have a few friends, too. Unfortunately, according to you, some of them drive very crappy cars.



Out of here.

[Law]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

The great technological leaps occurred with the E39/E46 in both engine and chassis design and pinnacle engine was achieved with the M3/M5. These were some of the most sophisticated engines ever produced at any price point and resulted from direct investment in McLaren, Williams, Sauber F1 and LMR prototype race cars, when BMW supported motorsports much more strongly than today. There was direct technology transfer from these racing programs into the cars that were leaps and bounds above the sedan/coupe competition and as good or better than many sports cars, including Porsche.

When you think about the major innovation in today's M-cars is really the electronic differential, which really isn't an industry first. Everything else is actually pretty much used by all performance auto manufacturers, whom admittedly ended up copying a lot of BMW's chassis/suspension approaches. BMW ended up further developing some of the forced induction approaches long used by other manufacturers who were bigger innovators in turbocharging technology.

When you compare the current models innovations to the suspension, chassis, and engine innovations of the E46 M3, E60 M5 and E92 M3, one can easily see that there is no comparison. ITBs, very high volumetric efficiency, ECU processing power, power/torque curves, transmissions (DCT), unique multilink suspensions, ionic sensing, carbon fiber roofs/parts were leaps and bounds over anyone else, at any price point short of Ferraris.

Lots of this stuff did get carried over to the current generation plus the addition of the e-diff and CF driveshafts but nothing really earth shattering and industry defining as in years past.

This.
Everything pumped out by BMW M during this period had parallels to and were concrete reflections of BMW Motorsport's then involvement and prowess in racing development. Although by then, M-cars were mass produced, they were still engineered with a very clear vision: To take a "normal" series BMW that can be daily driven and give it the heart and soul of a race car, while maintaining daily driveability.
The very high engine RPMs, complex ECUs, and high specific output combined with individual throttles without forced induction were hallmarks of racing engines that BMW M managed to package into street-legal, daily-driveable machines.

BMW's own documentation notes that the velocity stacks of the intakes leading to the ITBs were calibrated in conjunction with the BMW F1 engineers. And Biermann himself stated that the same people who worked on the F1, Le Mans, etc., were provided the expertise and brainpower in the engineering and development of M-cars during this time.

The engineering, passion, and the motorsport bloodline of these cars were things that were seldom seen in mass-produced cars and unparalleled at the same price point. Even when competitors have similar numbers, they can't replicate the passion of a full-fledged motorsport division with decades of expertise at its best.

That is until this full-fledged motorsport division ceases to become autonomous, its well-experienced engineers replaced, and its passion replaced by an obsession with numbers. Sure on paper everything is better now, but there is absolutely no doubt that trend of BMW in general has been moving toward genericism.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

I don't agree that your opinion of the steering and throttle response is objective.



You don't read well. I said that I bet you are a lot of fun - never said nobody wants to talk to you.

Not my driveway, but I have a few friends, too. Unfortunately, according to you, some of them drive very crappy cars.

Attachment 1457461

Out of here.

Lol, okay. If you want to think the steering feel and throttle response on the F8X and as good/better as any other generation M3, more power to you. I get the feeling you're not going to be convinced otherwise, given any physical reality...

I met my wife at a local BMW gathering, so feel like I'm at least okay at those types of events.

Are we posting pictures of local meet ups as some sort of competition now? Feels irrelevant to the topic at hand, though I have some awesome pictures I could post if we're going down that rabbit hole

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

The great technological leaps occurred with the E39/E46 in both engine and chassis design and pinnacle engine was achieved with the M3/M5. These were some of the most sophisticated engines ever produced at any price point and resulted from direct investment in McLaren, Williams, Sauber F1 and LMR prototype race cars, when BMW supported motorsports much more strongly than today. There was direct technology transfer from these racing programs into the cars that were leaps and bounds above the sedan/coupe competition and as good or better than many sports cars, including Porsche.

Actually the s54 from the e46 was based on a much much older engine, namely the S50 (that is the euro spec s50). That was first introduced way back in '92 so way before the era you're talking about. In 1995 they cranked the hp up to 321hp.
Can you imagine, in 1995 a car with a 3 liter engine and 321HP? That was some achievement! Look at where audi and merc where back then!

BMW ended up further developing some of the forced induction approaches long used by other manufacturers who were bigger innovators in turbocharging technology.

TBH bmw is THE innovator on turbo technology. In fact, they had the first turbocharged production car, even before porsche (a name that is among laymen synonomous with turbo). Even now they are at the edge of turbo tech, with their triple turbo setup, another first already in 2012 never seen before (can you imagine, 381hp from a 3L diesel engine back in 2012...).
And bmw was of course the brand that introduced turbo's in F1 in the early 80's resulting in such ridiculous horsepower numbers that it became illegal after a few years for decades up to recently.
So if there's one brand that can be named as THE big innovator in turbo tech....its surely BMW

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

TBH bmw is THE innovator on turbo technology. In fact, they had the first turbocharged production car, even before porsche (a name that is among laymen synonomous with turbo).

That's not correct; perhaps the first German turbocharged production car but definitely not the first production car, nor the first mass produced one. That mark was crossed over a decade prior to the 2002 turbo by Detroit (GM) with more than one car line and engine design that was turbocharged, one of which had methanol/water injection too.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Actually the s54 from the e46 was based on a much much older engine, namely the S50 (that is the euro spec s50). That was first introduced way back in '92 so way before the era you're talking about. In 1995 they cranked the hp up to 321hp.
Can you imagine, in 1995 a car with a 3 liter engine and 321HP? That was some achievement! Look at where audi and merc where back then!

But the S50B32 was just a worked over S50B30! But the S50B30 was just a modified M50! But the M50 was just an updated M20! Etc.

He probably meant the intake runners on the s54 and the airbox on the CSL, both of which were developed by BMW's F1 team. The S54 was certainly an evolved S50B32 concept, but had about as many shared parts as the S54 did with the S65. None of which is intended as a knock against the S50B32-- I only ever enjoyed mine, and it was AWESOME in its day (and today)! But, the S54 is only better (outside of looks, which is a weird engine criteria), and is impressive in any era-- highest hp/L of any NA BMW engine, highest ft lb/hp of any BMW NA engine (still near the top of the list of all engines, including exotics like the GT3 RS 4.0 and 458 Speciale (that don't have to deal with the rigors of daily/winter driving), highest piston speeds of any BMW engine (near the top of that list across all brands including exotics as well), etc.

The S54 was certainly the result of a long period of I6 development/evolution. But, being able to pull 360hp out of a NA 3.2 in a reliable package was a hell of an achievement, and, in many ways (see above), the most exotic engine BMW has offered.
(which really makes it all the crazier how much additional, track reliable, NA hp you can add to it these days via the aftermarket)

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by CSBM5

That's not correct; perhaps the first German turbocharged production car but definitely not the first production car, nor the first mass produced one. That mark was crossed over a decade prior to the 2002 turbo by Detroit (GM) with more than one car line and engine design that was turbocharged, one of which had methanol/water injection too.

Ok, I dont know if that oldsmobile/corvair was produced in significant numbers but I obviously ment mass produced production car (although 'mass' is very relative). But my point stands, there is probably no marque thàt innovative on turboapplications as bmw whereas the person I quoted stated the opposite, that bmw was very much behind on turbo technique compared to other manufacturers. Being the marque introducing it in F1 and as a result making it forbidden within a few seasons says enough dont you think? And that was not the only example to prove my point.
And that early 2002 turbo has an impressive race pedigree too. In fact, if you could point out a 'first' bmw M3, prior to when the name or M as a 'Motorsport devision' was created (or '3 series' lol), the 2002 turbo was the one that started it imho. (I dont know where to put the e9 3.0csl, that was technically a predecessor of the 6 series which was also extensively raced by bmw of course, 3.0csl, m635csi etc)

Originally Posted by Obioban

But the S50B32 was just a worked over S50B30! But the S50B30 was just a modified M50! But the M50 was just an updated M20! Etc.

I definately dont agree to that.
If you look closely to how the head is constructed, it has nothing in common with either the m50 or the m20.
I mean even the s50b30 already had vanos (single).
And the s54b32 shares much much more parts with the s50b32 than with the s65 lol did you even count?!?
Only the csl airbox is was based on the style what F1 uses, but in the post I quoted I didnt read anything about CSL. It was about e46m3 and e39M5.
And in that scope the s54 is more of a TU of the s50b32, they are really very similar in design, sizing of the parts and construction. You can probably even swap the crank....although the s50 has stronger rodbearings...). Even the HP gain was only 22hp. And in that perspective, the s50b32 was way more ahead of its then competition as the s54 was, like I wrote. If you looked at audi or mercedes at the time, they could only rivel that with a very big V8 (merc) or go to porsche at the time for a very very limited (less than 3000) production run (audi rs2) whereas the m3 sold by the 10k's.
By the time bmw came with the e46 m3 (343HP) audi had an rs4 with 380hp (with a v8, but in a similar sized car, sold also in large numbers so no special limited edition tuner model).
My point is that it was more of an accomplishment to have 321hp in 1995 in a 3.0 than to have 343hp in 2000.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I definately dont agree to that.
If you look closely to how the head is constructed, it has nothing in common with either the m50 or the m20.
I mean even the s50b30 already had vanos (single).
And the s54b32 shares much much more parts with the s50b32 than with the s65 lol did you even count?!?
Only the csl airbox is was based on the style what F1 uses, but in the post I quoted I didnt read anything about CSL. It was about e46m3 and e39M5.
And in that scope the s54 is more of a TU of the s50b32. You can probably even swap the crank..... Even the HP gain was only 22hp. And in that perspective, the s50b32 was way more ahead of its then competition as the s54 was, like I wrote. If you looked at audi or mercedes at the time, they could only rivel that with a very big V8 (merc) or go to porsche at the time for a very very limited (less than 3000) production run (audi rs2) whereas the m3 sold by the 10k's

Lol, no I didn't count-- did you? I'm not entire in the mood to spend hours pouring over parts diagrams to find a shared bolt. My point was that, though they share very similar concepts, every aspect was updated/improved on the S54. Though many of the parts are similar in concept (and design), almost none of them are carried over, unchanged between the two (and none of the important bits are). TUs are small changes/updates, not... every major component being updated.

The intake runners on the S54 (non CSL) and S62 were both developed by BMW F1 team.

I owned the S50B32 and S54 simultaneously for a long period of time, and am a huge fan of the S50B32! But, the S54 is just only better-- it makes more power across the entire powerband, making it more tractable, it's a more linear powerband, it's easier to work on, it feels more powerful than the power difference implies, and the redline is higher. I'd agree the S50B32 was impressive when it came out 21 years ago, but the (only 5 years newer) S54 remains an NA engine high water mark today (unlikely to be surpassed, the way things are going).

In fact, the s54 thing is very analogous to the e36 vs e46 situation as a whole-- the e46 is very much just a worked over/improved e36. Suspension design on the e46 is every bit as similar, but improved, compared to the e36 as the s54/s50b32 situation. Size is almost identical, other than the e46 being wider. It's the only time in BMW's history that I can think of that they did that (compared to porche, which did that for decades with the 911, until the 996).

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Obioban

Lol, no I didn't count-- did you? I'm not entire in the mood to spend hours pouring over parts diagrams to find a shared bolt. My point was that, though they share very similar concepts, every aspect was updated/improved on the S54. Though many of the parts are similar in concept (and design), almost none of them are carried over, unchanged between the two (and none of the important bits are). TUs are small changes/updates, not... every major component being updated.

If I read correctly your statement was that the s54 has as much in common with the s65 as with the s50b32. Which it HAS NOT...And as I said, a lot of components are directly swappable, despite different part numbers (crank, cams probably too, vanos is of similar construction etc etc).
The ones that have the same numbers (oil filter housing etc) are obviously identical...
Try that with the s65....

As for performance you should look at the Z3, that is the only car that has been given both the s50b32 and s54, and their performance is extremely similar. The s54 has maybe some more grunt down low, but on the autobahn they both top out at 273 or 274kph (yes, we've tested that simultaniously hooning on the 31 on sundaymornings....). There is not that much difference between them amaizingly enough once they sit in the same car . That way you exclude the whole e36 vs e46 thing, as this discussion is about the engines, not the car.
And as I said, a lot of components are directly swappable, despite different part numbers.
So the equal commenness between s50b32 and s54 as with s54 and s65 isnt there... really.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Ok, I dont know if that oldsmobile/corvair was produced in significant numbers but I obviously ment mass produced production car (although 'mass' is very relative).

Both the Olds Jetfire and the Corvair turbo were produced in much greater volume than the 2002 turbo (and of course more than 10 years earlier). The Jetfire totaled 9607 cars and the Corvair turbo totaled 9157 cars. The 2002 turbo, by contrast, was an extremely limited production car with only 1660 production cars produced (plus 12 pre-production), less than 1/5th the Jetfire production volume.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

If I read correctly your statement was that the s54 has as much in common with the s65 as with the s50b32. Which it HAS NOT...And as I said, a lot of components are directly swappable, despite different part numbers (crank, cams probably too, vanos is of similar construction etc etc).
The ones that have the same numbers (oil filter housing etc) are obviously identical...
Try that with the s65....

As for performance you should look at the Z3, that is the only car that has been given both the s50b32 and s54, and their performance is extremely similar. The s54 has maybe some more grunt down low, but on the autobahn they both top out at 273 or 274kph (yes, we've tested that simultaniously hooning on the 31 on sundaymornings....). There is not that much difference between them amaizingly enough once they sit in the same car . That way you exclude the whole e36 vs e46 thing, as this discussion is about the engines, not the car.
And as I said, a lot of components are directly swappable, despite different part numbers.
So the equal commenness between s50b32 and s54 as with s54 and s65 isnt there... really.

At no point did I mean to imply it has more in common with the S65, in terms of design philosophy! Absolutely it does not. The s65 was a clean slate design (well, the s85 was a clean slate design, really, and the s65 was derived from it)-- for better or worse. I meant quantity of shared parts (which was limited to inconsequential nuts/bolts), to emphasize how few parts were carried over from the s50b32 to the s54.

The s54 in the Z3M was a lower power, lower redline S54 than the S54 in the e46/Z4, which was a lower power S54 than the S54 in the CSL. But, I do agree that performance at redline isn't far off. If a z3m is your S54 basis of comparison, I can see why you'd think it wasn't an improvement. In Z3M guise, the s54 made the same peak power at the same redline as the s50b32, so similar performance... not a surprise. :P

[Bbb34]

Originally Posted by Kyle B

Tesla.

Based on what criteria ?
More "involving" driving experience than current BMW ?

I get most of the "usual" reasons, green technology, acceleration and looks (subjective). I haven't driven one, so I'm just curious, tech features aside, do you feel it's actually more rewarding driving experience for car enthusiasts?

[GuidoK]

Flashed s54's in those z3's.... so up to power. but the 20hp doesnt give a lot at those speeds. We even had an s50b32 with reduced final drive ratio that was just as fast on top speed (probably not a big reduction but drive ratios can have an effect..)
I see the same similarities in s50b32 and s54 as I see them in m52b28TU and m54B30.
They are also brother and sister.
So parts have different numbers and have small different details, but you can swap them over if you have the technical understanding in what is different.
Thats why I said an s50b32 crank goes into the s54. it is a stronger crank (wider rod bearings) and a common mod
Just as I use one cam from an m52Tu and one cam from an m54.... You see differences... .I see similarities.... and use them
Engines have to be matched pretty closely to do that you know...

Originally Posted by CSBM5

less than 1/5th the Jetfire production volume.

thats a big differnce indeed. My point still stands though looking at what bmw has accomplished with turbo's, performance and racing them. both in diesel and petrol.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Flashed s54's in those z3's.... so up to power. but the 20hp doesnt give a lot at those speeds. We even had an s50b32 with reduced final drive ratio that was just as fast on top speed (probably not a big reduction)
I see the same similarities in s50b32 and s54 as I see them in m52b28TU and m54B30.
They are also brother and sister.
So parts have different numbers and have small different details, but you can swap them over if you have the technical understanding in what is different.
Thats why I said an s50b32 crank goes into the s54. it is a stronger crank (wider rod bearings) and a common mod
Just as I use one cam from an m52Tu and one cam from an m54.... You see differences... .I see similarities.... and use them
Engines have to be matched pretty closely to do that you know...

thats a big differnce indeed. My point still stands though looking at what bmw has accomplished with turbo's, performance and racing them. both in diesel and petrol.

To be clear, again, I'm not saying they're not similar engine designs, nor that parts aren't swapable-- I'm saying all aspects (parts) were updated.

... though, yes, I did chose to put Schrick cams in my S54-- not a different BMW cam. Actually, I didn't go for BMW cams in my s50b32, either

I think you think I'm attacking the S50B32-- I'm not, I love it! Absolutely one of the greats. I just think the S54 is a better version of it. Not overwhelmingly better in any aspect (especially peak power), but overall improved. All I was trying to say is that it's a thorough going over of the same concept-- overwhelmingly, all parts updated/changed. But, yes, similar enough that they are still swapable into the older engines, in many cases.

[GuidoK]

My cams are also schrick, but one is for the m52tu and one for the m54 to get a more suitable overlap. Thats what I ment with interchangability. similar fit with different spec, sometimes even using the older parts as hop up part (like that s50 crank with stronger bearings, a modification some machinists also do, grinding the crank)

But when its updated as you say, doesnt that sound eerily similar to TU (technical Update)
In my book an m54 is an m52TUTU
Both the s54 as the m54 are both the end if their lineage and imho changes got smaller and smaller in each generation step.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

My cams are also schrick, but one is for the m52tu and one for the m54 to get a more suitable overlap. Thats what I ment with interchangability. similar fit with different spec, sometimes even using the older parts as hop up part (like that s50 crank with stronger bearings, a modification some machinists also do, grinding the crank)

But when its updated as you say, doesnt that sound eerily similar to TU (technical Update)
In my book an m54 is an m52TUTU
Both the s54 as the m54 are both the end if their lineage and imho changes got smaller and smaller in each generation step.

IIRC the "TU" updates were to signify they added VANOS, on both the M52 and M62. Seems like a different sort of change than updating every part of the engine.

Perhaps if they had added valvetronic to the S54 (:cough: better 1M :cough: ), that would be deserving of being a "S54B32TU"

Absolutely the improvements got less with each generation! That's just the nature of the beast, as physical limits are reached. And with the S50B32 already at 100 hp/L as the starting point for the S54, it's shouldn't be at all surprising that peak hp didn't go up drastically!

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by Obioban

IIRC the "TU" updates were to signify they added VANOS, on both the M52 and M62. Seems like a different sort of change than updating every part of the engine.

Different intake manifold, throttle body, oil filter housing, thermostat..
I think that even block and cylinder head are different. Look at partnumbers and they say 'up to sept98' or 'from sept98' and thats quite a few. not 'just a vanos unit'
Basically the bottom end is the same (and that probably defines if its a TU or new code) but a lot of things around it is different.

'adding vanos' is adding a new feature, a new regulative system to the workings of the engine. What new regulative system did the s54 get? the only thing that comes to mind is drive by wire. s50b32 already had dual vanos, itb's etc.

So you can put everything into perspective. As I said before, I see similarities (in order to exploit them), you see differences.