Official: 2011 BMW M5 powered by turbo V8

HSE2 · 09-07-2010, 03:40 PM

BMW’s M Division has finally confirmed that the new generation BMW M5 will be powered by a turbocharged V8 engine in lieu of the current V10 powerplant.

Full article here

chevypower · 09-07-2010, 03:45 PM

Then that's what the GTHO needs. 5.0L V8 EcoBoost.

tweeked · 09-07-2010, 04:38 PM

Sad day.

Unfortunately High performance N/A V8's are becoming very rare.

Beautiful spine tingling noise replaced by a pack of dull hoovers on steroids.

Oh well, faster and more economical i suppose

Nikked · 09-07-2010, 06:52 PM

Why is it a sad day? Turbo V8, enough said..

**Falcon Coupe** · 09-07-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

Why is it a sad day? Turbo V8, enough said..

Agreed, at least the forced V8 will have some good torque down low.

4Vman · 09-07-2010, 07:07 PM

Would prefer a SC over snails on a V8.... it leaves that glorious sound uninterrupted.

smoo · 09-07-2010, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweeked

Sad day.

Unfortunately High performance N/A V8's are becoming very rare.

Beautiful spine tingling noise replaced by a pack of dull hoovers on steroids.

Agreed, can't beat a 100hp/litre naturally aspirated bmw screamer, especially for novelty value.

Sprint347 · 09-07-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoo

Agreed, can't beat a 100hp/litre naturally aspirated bmw screamer, especially for novelty value.

Then buy the M3

4Vman · 09-07-2010, 07:29 PM

C63 > M3...

FPV8U · 09-07-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sprint347

Then buy the M3

For now anyways...

Shame both BMW & Mercedes are heading down this road, don't get me wrong the huge power and torque demands respect but it almost seems like Lazy engineering really 100Hp/L with todays emissions standards brings large challenges in a N/A application.

In a round about way.. thank the Greenies as TT V8's are on the way to save the Trees & Icecaps

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

C63 > M3...

+1

HSE2 · 09-07-2010, 07:36 PM

I will miss N/A but what future is there in denying the efforts of prolonging our beloved combustion engine. I can think of worse.

Sprint347 · 09-07-2010, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

C63 > M3...

If you like open diffs and auto gearboxes sure

**DJM83** · 09-07-2010, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

C63 > M3...

Ditto, also on the Supercharger on the V8 is a must

Nikked · 09-07-2010, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Would prefer a SC over snails on a V8.... it leaves that glorious sound uninterrupted.

True, with included supercharger whine. :-)

But...

An external waste gate and screamer pipe fixes the lack of note on a turbo...

4Vman · 09-07-2010, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikked

True, with included supercharger whine. :-)

But...

An external waste gate and screamer pipe fixes the lack of note on a turbo...

Not very practical on a 150+K sophisticated production vehicle though...

Im sure it will be an awesome car with TT.. i just prefer S/C's on V engines.

Falc'man · 09-07-2010, 09:31 PM

Hmm with that power output the posts have certainly moved, and the bar raised for the super saloons... I can guess they will have a larger capacity to combat AMG's M157.

Romulus · 10-07-2010, 12:32 AM

Is it petrol or diesel? I hope it is the latter

Nikked · 10-07-2010, 12:45 AM

I'ld say petrol.

chevypower · 10-07-2010, 12:51 AM

Supercharger over turbo? That's an old school way of thinking before direct injection came along on petrol engines. Superchargers have zero advantage now. Not even for low end torque. Give me DI turbo! And just a thought here, I think BMW has a clue about engines. They used to be advocates for natural aspiration.

Iggypoppin' · 10-07-2010, 10:44 PM

Words famously spoken: the times they are a-changin'. The world moves into turbocharging more and more to help torque/power outputs and improve fuel efficiency, I guess this is a sign of the times.
Would love a V8 turbo BMW though.

Eaturbo · 11-07-2010, 09:11 PM

You must remember the basics, turbo's use wasted energy of the exhaust and heat. Supercharging takes power to make power. If you had 2 identical engines running the same boost, the turbo engine will make more power. Now with the better turbo tech and direct injection, turbo's are making alot of sense.

4Vman · 11-07-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

You must remember the basics, turbo's use wasted energy of the exhaust and heat. Supercharging takes power to make power. If you had 2 identical engines running the same boost, the turbo engine will make more power. Now with the better turbo tech and direct injection, turbo's are making alot of sense.

A turbo will also need energy from the engine to pump the exhaust through the turbine... A turbo creates an exhaust restriction which robs power too..

Falc'man · 11-07-2010, 09:54 PM

But it's still more efficient.

BOSHOG · 11-07-2010, 10:44 PM

turbos are more efficent yes, but give me a blown V8 any day

the worst power adder of them all is the centrifugal blower, they have all the downsides of both torbo and supercharger, lag AND belt driven.

4Vman · 11-07-2010, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falc'man

But it's still more efficient.

Agree.. but in an ADR complient environment id say they're both pretty close..

On "V" config engines a SC is far less complicated and on inline set-ups a turbo is the simplest choice.

So both have their place.

WASP · 11-07-2010, 10:50 PM

Finally an M5 can get into!

chevypower · 12-07-2010, 02:10 AM

Turbos should not have lag anymore. If it does, it is old tech. When I drove the Flex EcoBoost, I just tapped the throttle and got instant response. I thought it's either zero lag, or just a sensitive throttle. So I gave it more, and I went deeper in to the seat. It just kept accelerating. The more I gave it, the more g force I got. There was zero lag, and incredible amounts of torque all through the rev range. Now if it were supercharged, I promise it would not have been that good!

Bad Bird · 12-07-2010, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Agree.. but in an ADR complient environment id say they're both pretty close..

On "V" config engines a SC is far less complicated and on inline set-ups a turbo is the simplest choice.

So both have their place.

Also less weight, never a bad thing.

Boosh Brus · 12-07-2010, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Agree.. but in an ADR complient environment id say they're both pretty close..

On "V" config engines a SC is far less complicated and on inline set-ups a turbo is the simplest choice.

So both have their place.

SC setup on a BMW V engine would be pretty complicated if they are using those crazy reverse heads. i.e. where the intakes are on the outside of the V and the exhaust is in the center.

Boosh Brus · 12-07-2010, 12:42 PM

This is what I was getting at: