[Porsche Guy]

Originally Posted by bmer

Good post, Porsche Guy. Nice to see you posting. Do you happen to know of any site where they have the engine weights of M3 V8/M5 V10, AMG's 6.2-liter V8 and other engines measured using the same exact standard?

I am guessing that these weights are SAE net but I'm not sure on that.
Chevy LS7 458lbs
AMG 6.2 438lbs
BMW V10 529lbs
BMW V8 445lbs

Here are my sources:

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

[The Artist]

Huuuge big up to porsche guy´s post..

[Monster]

As I have said before, weight loss in the car is a good thing, but weight loss in some areas are more important than weight loss in other areas. I am sure you konw, these are the 3 equations, or reasons why the higher the mass reduction takes place, the more beneficial it is.

F= mass x acceleration
Moment = Force x distance (between 2 centre of mass)
Mass Moment of Inertial = Inertia of the object + mass of object x (the offset distance between the centre of mass relative to the reference point)^2

Originally Posted by Porsche Guy

Glass is heavier than steel by volume so replacing the glass windows with polycarbonate is going to produce a relatively substantial weight loss. Glass sits very high in cars, 1 or 2 inches below the roof and there is a substantial amount of it, by area is close to 2x that of the roof alone. Think about how large and thick your front (especially) and rear windows are..

1st of all, what is the density of the glass used in cars ? I seriously doubt the glass used in cars have a higher density than steel, however glass windows can be heavier than steel panels because of the thickness of the glass, and as you have mentioned, the area of the glass. Even though the area of the glass ends at 1 or 2 inches below the roof, the centre of mass of the window is much further down from the roof than that, of course that distance is determined by the shape of the glass window. Also, because the front and rear window is at an angle, the centre of mass relative to the centre of mass of the car is closer than you think.

Originally Posted by Porsche Guy

Ferrari body panels are aluminium so the transition to carbon fiber is not that substantial. CF side mirrors on the 430S are for show. The total weight savings of the M3's CF roof is roughly 11lbs according to BMW. Do you realize how heavy the power seats are in that car alone? They could have skipped the carbon fiber roof and took well over 100lbs out of the car if they just switched seats. The Gallardo SL, GT3 and 430S all replaced their power seats with lightweight manual sports seats. It's simply a much more cost-effective and dramatic weight loss plan.

The CF roof did lower the centre of gravity of the car by 2mm or something close. This might not seem much, but distances are usually squared, like the 3rd equation I have posted, so even 2mm can make a difference.

As for weight reduction between aluminium and carbon fibre, the density of Al is 2700kg/m^3 while the density of carbon fibre is 1750kg/m^3, so there is still a 35% weight reduction if both panels have the exact same dimensions, but as you know, carbon fibre panels doesn't need to be as thick as aluminium panels to achieve better mechanical properties than aluminium, so the actual weight reduction can be more than 35%.

I do realise the weight of the power seats. The light weight seats have more to do with straight line acceleration than improving the dynamics of a car. Once again the centre of mass of the seats are low when compare to the mass centre of the car so the overall dynamic effects aren't as significant as lightening the roof.

Originally Posted by Porsche Guy

Why not make all the body panels out of aluminium the M3? Why only the hood? There in lies a fact BMW doesn't brag about too much. The reason the M3's hood is the only bit of aluminium is help with weight distribution. .

The hood is aluminium, the front and rear bumpers are made from light weight plastics, and the boot is aluminium as well or light weight plastic. The 3 series coupe, which the M3 is based on, is designed to use steel body panels, and it isn't just a matter of switching from steel to aluminium because aluminium is more difficult to stamp into shape or weld together, so the machines have to be changed in the production line.

The M3 is a relatively cheap car, so the cost factor has prevent BMW from using aluminium panels. I am sure BMW will do it if the M3 cost as much as an Audi R8.

Originally Posted by Porsche Guy

You know why the e92 M3's V8 is 15lbs lighter than the e46 M3's inline 6? Because the inline 6 was CAST IRON. BMW never mentions that fact when they talk about how light the new V8 is. The sad part is, it really isn't that light. The M3's 4.0 liter V8 is close in weight to AMG's 6.2 liter V8 and the Z06's LS7 7.0 liter V8 yet those engines are over 50% larger in terms of displacement. The V10 in the M5/M6 is 100lbs heavier than any engine in its class. HP/liter doesn't mean jack. It's just a unit of measure. People seriously need to get that fact into their heads. How about we measure power output in KW/liter? The M3 now makes 78kw/liter. BMW loves to talk about HP/liter but why don't we talk about something that actually affects performance.

KW/liter is all about engine efficiency, and the optimum volume per cylinder is 500cc, hence the displacement of the V8 and V10 engines, 500cc x 8 = 4.0 L, or 500cc x 10 = 5.0 L. This specific cylinder capacity gives engineers the best volumetric efficiency (% volume of fuel and air that actually enters into the cylinder during the intake stroke to the actual capacity of the cylinder) range through out the entire rpm of the engine.

Given the short time period of the intake stroke, the incoming air fuel mixture has very little time to fill up the combustion chamber. At 500cc the cylinders are not too big so there is a relatively high volume of incoming air+fuel mixture compare to the volume of the cylinder. So even at high rpm, when there is even less time for the air fuel mixture to fill up the combustion chamber, there will still be a high % of air fuel mixture inside the cylinder for good combustion.

Of course cylinders with bigger capacity can compensate for their larger volume by improving the mass flow rate of air and exhaust gas to improve their volumetric efficiency, so engines like the 6.2 L V8 can still provide decent power and efficiency, but the fundamentals are right for the BMW engines, this is the reason why their V8 and V10 can rev that high for a road car engine. Also note that the S2000, 2.0L 4 cylinder (500cc x 4 = 2000cc) can rev up to 9000rpm, and other powerful performance engines such as the 6.0L V12 engine in the Mclaren F1 or the 8.0L W16 in the Veryon, they all have 500cc per cylinder.

Originally Posted by Porsche Guy

How much power does the engine produce relative to its weight, since we're so concerned with weight reduction. The V8 in the M3 produces 20% less power than the LS7 and AMG 6.2 and torque is down 40% also yet they all weigh about the same. Ask anybody to choose between two engines that weight the same yet one makes 20% more HP and 40% more torque and no one is going to pick the weaker one.

Using a measurement such as power vs weight might seem logical, so if every engineer use that as the standard, we will all be driving insanely high pressure turbo 4 cylinder engines.

You have to remember, the M3 produce 20% less power than the LS7 but with 43% less capacity, and the push rod engines are generally lighter and less complex than DOHC engines. As for the AMG engine, the M3 has a 35% smaller capacity but only 19% less power than the AMG engine. As for the torque issue, a high torque engine = bigger and heavier drivetrain components so they can withstand the torsional forces, so even both engines weight the same the BMW doesn't need to use heavier components elsewhere in the car.

Originally Posted by Porsche Guy

But someone is sure to scream, "But the weaker one makes over 100hp/liter!!!" Who cares? That doesn't mean anything for performance. High revving engine require heavy blocks so the engine doesn't vibrate uncontrollably and eventually grenade at high RPMs.

It is all about the vibration chrematistics of the engine and how well the engine is balanced. It isn't all about thick and heavy blocks, it is about the strategic location of mass and reinforcement to reduce the frequencies and the amplitude of the vibration of the engine block. You will be surprised how a little bit of weight at a certain position can dramatically reduce the amplitude of the vibrations.

Originally Posted by Porsche Guy

I think it's tacky that they leave the roof unpainted to brag about their weight saving when they could have selected other more effective and less costly weight reduction plans.

So do I.

It is a long post, hope it all makes sense.

[warot]

Originally Posted by monster

As I have said before, weight loss in the car is a good thing, but weight loss in some areas are more important than weight loss in other areas. I am sure you konw, these are the 3 equations, or reasons why the higher the mass reduction takes place, the more beneficial it is.

F= mass x acceleration
Moment = Force x distance (between 2 centre of mass)
Mass Moment of Inertial = Inertia of the object + mass of object x (the offset distance between the centre of mass relative to the reference point)^2



1st of all, what is the density of the glass used in cars ? I seriously doubt the glass used in cars have a higher density than steel, however glass windows can be heavier than steel panels because of the thickness of the glass, and as you have mentioned, the area of the glass. Even though the area of the glass ends at 1 or 2 inches below the roof, the centre of mass of the window is much further down from the roof than that, of course that distance is determined by the shape of the glass window. Also, because the front and rear window is at an angle, the centre of mass relative to the centre of mass of the car is closer than you think.



The CF roof did lower the centre of gravity of the car by 2mm or something close. This might not seem much, but distances are usually squared, like the 3rd equation I have posted, so even 2mm can make a difference.

As for weight reduction between aluminium and carbon fibre, the density of Al is 2700kg/m^3 while the density of carbon fibre is 1750kg/m^3, so there is still a 35% weight reduction if both panels have the exact same dimensions, but as you know, carbon fibre panels doesn't need to be as thick as aluminium panels to achieve better mechanical properties than aluminium, so the actual weight reduction can be more than 35%.

I do realise the weight of the power seats. The light weight seats have more to do with straight line acceleration than improving the dynamics of a car. Once again the centre of mass of the seats are low when compare to the mass centre of the car so the overall dynamic effects aren't as significant as lightening the roof.



The hood is aluminium, the front and rear bumpers are made from light weight plastics, and the boot is aluminium as well or light weight plastic. The 3 series coupe, which the M3 is based on, is designed to use steel body panels, and it isn't just a matter of switching from steel to aluminium because aluminium is more difficult to stamp into shape or weld together, so the machines have to be changed in the production line.

The M3 is a relatively cheap car, so the cost factor has prevent BMW from using aluminium panels. I am sure BMW will do it if the M3 cost as much as an Audi R8.




KW/liter is all about engine efficiency, and the optimum volume per cylinder is 500cc, hence the displacement of the V8 and V10 engines, 500cc x 8 = 4.0 L, or 500cc x 10 = 5.0 L. This specific cylinder capacity gives engineers the best volumetric efficiency (% volume of fuel and air that actually enters into the cylinder during the intake stroke to the actual capacity of the cylinder) range through out the entire rpm of the engine.

Given the short time period of the intake stroke, the incoming air fuel mixture has very little time to fill up the combustion chamber. At 500cc the cylinders are not too big so there is a relatively high volume of incoming air+fuel mixture compare to the volume of the cylinder. So even at high rpm, when there is even less time for the air fuel mixture to fill up the combustion chamber, there will still be a high % of air fuel mixture inside the cylinder for good combustion.

Of course cylinders with bigger capacity can compensate for their larger volume by improving the mass flow rate of air and exhaust gas to improve their volumetric efficiency, so engines like the 6.2 L V8 can still provide decent power and efficiency, but the fundamentals are right for the BMW engines, this is the reason why their V8 and V10 can rev that high for a road car engine. Also note that the S2000, 2.0L 4 cylinder (500cc x 4 = 2000cc) can rev up to 9000rpm, and other powerful performance engines such as the 6.0L V12 engine in the Mclaren F1 or the 8.0L W16 in the Veryon, they all have 500cc per cylinder.



Using a measurement such as power vs weight might seem logical, so if every engineer use that as the standard, we will all be driving insanely high pressure turbo 4 cylinder engines.

You have to remember, the M3 produce 20% less power than the LS7 but with 43% less capacity, and the push rod engines are generally lighter and less complex than DOHC engines. As for the AMG engine, the M3 has a 35% smaller capacity but only 19% less power than the AMG engine. As for the torque issue, a high torque engine = bigger and heavier drivetrain components so they can withstand the torsional forces, so even both engines weight the same the BMW doesn't need to use heavier components elsewhere in the car.



It is all about the vibration chrematistics of the engine and how well the engine is balanced. It isn't all about thick and heavy blocks, it is about the strategic location of mass and reinforcement to reduce the frequencies and the amplitude of the vibration of the engine block. You will be surprised how a little bit of weight at a certain position can dramatically reduce the amplitude of the vibrations.



So do I.

It is a long post, hope it all makes sense.

Forget your signature monster, you might as well have a degree now. Words spoken by a true mechanical engineer.

The one thing I don't really agree about though is the comment about the power seats. When taking a corner, even though the seats are lower to the ground, it will still have an impact as a lot of the forces will be lateral. I'm thinking something along a line of a pendulum.

But then again, you have look at a marketing point of view. Would it be acceptable to have a top of the line M3 without powerseats? I dont think so. All these issues will be addressed on the M3 CSL, which DID fix these problems... power seats, heavy glass windows...

[Sunny]

Originally Posted by Porsche Guy

Glass is heavier than steel by volume so replacing the glass windows with polycarbonate is going to produce a relatively substantial weight loss. Glass sits very high in cars, 1 or 2 inches below the roof and there is a substantial amount of it, by area is close to 2x that of the roof alone. Think about how large and thick your front (especially) and rear windows are. Ferrari body panels are aluminum so the transition to carbon fiber is not that substantial. CF side mirrors on the 430S are for show. The total weight savings of the M3's CF roof is roughly 11lbs according to BMW. Do you realize how heavy the power seats are in that car alone? They could have skipped the carbon fiber roof and took well over 100lbs out of the car if they just switched seats. The Gallardo SL, GT3 and 430S all replaced their power seats with lightweight manual sports seats. It's simply a much more cost-effective and dramatic weight loss plan. Why not make all the body panels out of aluminum the M3? Why only the hood? There in lies a fact BMW doesn't brag about too much. The reason the M3's hood is the only bit of aluminum is help with weight distribution. You know why the e92 M3's V8 is 15lbs lighter than the e46 M3's inline 6? Because the inline 6 was CAST IRON. BMW never mentions that fact when they talk about how light the new V8 is. The sad part is, it really isn't that light. The M3's 4.0 liter V8 is close in weight to AMG's 6.2 liter V8 and the Z06's LS7 7.0 liter V8 yet those engines are over 50% larger in terms of displacement. The V10 in the M5/M6 is 100lbs heavier than any engine in its class. HP/liter doesn't mean jack. It's just a unit of measure. People seriously need to get that fact into their heads. How about we measure power output in KW/liter? The M3 now makes 78kw/liter. BMW loves to talk about HP/liter but why don't we talk about something that actually affects performance. How much power does the engine produce relative to its weight, since we're so concerned with weight reduction. The V8 in the M3 produces 20% less power than the LS7 and AMG 6.2 and torque is down 40% also yet they all weigh about the same. Ask anybody to choose between two engines that weight the same yet one makes 20% more HP and 40% more torque and no one is going to pick the weaker one. But someone is sure to scream, "But the weaker one makes over 100hp/liter!!!" Who cares? That doesn't mean anything for performance. High revving engine require heavy blocks so the engine doesn't vibrate uncontrollably and eventually grenade at high RPMs. I could go on but I realize I don't post here very much so I'm going to seem crazy if I end up writing an essay. While I agree that lowering your cars center of gravity is always a good idea, BMW plays it up too much and I think it's tacky that they leave the roof unpainted to brag about their weight saving when they could have selected other more effective and less costly weight reduction plans.

I'm not a BMW hater, I own an e60 M5. I just think too many people can't see past BMW's marketing. BMW makes some of the best cars but they sometimes go with fashion over function.

While I agree with some of the stuff you pointed out, it is pretty lop sided to complain about M3 having power seats as against Gallardo SL, GT3 and 430 Scuderia not having it. Unlike these cars, the M3 is meant to be a mass market daily driver. A more apt comparison would have been CSL, which didn't have power seats either. The same goes for polycarbonate windows, while it would have saved a lot of weight, it would also adversely effect daily usability in terms of wind noise etc and would have relegated it to a track day special which is not what the M3 is about. But that is not to say BMW doesn't do any wrong either - like the stupid arm thing that extends the seat belt to people too lazy to turn and grab it. But all things considered, BMW did an excellent job imo with restricting the E92 M3's weight. Just look at it's other 4 seater competitors like RS4 or C63 or even S5.

[Monster]

Originally Posted by warot

Forget your signature monster, you might as well have a degree now. Words spoken by a true mechanical engineer....

Thanks mate !

Originally Posted by warot

The one thing I don't really agree about though is the comment about the power seats. When taking a corner, even though the seats are lower to the ground, it will still have an impact as a lot of the forces will be lateral. I'm thinking something along a line of a pendulum.

Very true espically when the car is cornering at speeds over 100km/h , I have forgotten to think about that, thanks for pointing that out.

[Tycoon]

Originally Posted by warot

Forget your signature monster, you might as well have a degree now. Words spoken by a true mechanical engineer.

WORD!!!

[Bartek Sikorski]

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER
Contrary to a few reports that began surfacing around the web this morning, Nissan will not be showing off a hopped-up version of the GT-R at the Geneva Motor Show next week. With all the spy shots, general speculation and history of the GT-R badge, it's just a matter of time before Nissan evolves it's super GT car into an even more competent performer, but its not bound anytime soon.

While Nissan has already confirmed that a V-Spec GT-R is coming, there are no official details about what Gozilla will be packing when it's released. Nissan officials have said that the V-Spec is definitely going to be launched in Japan, but exports outside of Nissan's home market are still undecided.

Gallery: - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

[rev]

Flagship GT-R comes to Europe



The flagship Nissan GT-R V-Spec arrives at the ‘ring!

It’s the performance car everyone’s been waiting for – the Nissan GT-R V-Spec has arrived in Europe.

As soon as Nissan’s engineers unloaded their priceless high performance flagship, our spies swooped to get these exclusive pictures. Ready to lap the Nurburgring circuit in Germany, the GT-R V-Spec is set to eclipse the performance of all rivals.

Visual clues are subtle, but enthusiasts will spot a unique rear spoiler to help to reduce lift at high speeds, while the alloy wheels have six spokes rather than the seven of the regular GT-R.

While the standard model produces 473bhp, the V-Spec range-topper is tipped to deliver up to 550bhp from its twin-turbo 3.8-litre V6. This is matched by a substantial 150kg weight reduction to make the flagship one of the most hardcore supercars on the planet.

The standard GT-R is set to cost around £55,000 when it goes on sale in the UK in March 2009, and the V-Spec will add £20,000-plus to that. It will join the range before the end of next year.

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Source: Nissan GT-R | Auto Express News | News | Auto Express