Bimmer32

I am not comparing apples to apples in terms of "factory built." Rather, I am comparing "boost methodology," NOS at 40% or TT (if BMW gets around to it) will put the M5 over the 09 supercharged CTS-V. You can't extract the ZR-1 numbers and assume that the CTS-V will fair just as well. By the time Chevy tunes the CTS-V to ZR-1 specs, BMW may have already TT or supercharge the V10.

The point is that a boost (NOS or TT) on the M5 will output stronger numbers than a "supercharged" CTS-V. That's the closest apples to apples in regards to "boost methodology" without bringing in a complete different class of chassis (ZR-1) and its performance.

JetBlack5OC

I believe in your little equation, your forgetting BMW is using two extra cylinders.

swajames

So what it the CTS-V owner added NOS? Or upgraded the pulley? What if the factory were to add them to the stock vehicle? What about the fact you're talking V10 vs V8? There's just so many variables that could come in to play.

More to the point, whilst forced induction is a legitimate consideration, nothing leaves the factory with NOS already installed so I'm not sure NOS is really a reasonable point of discussion. If we're bringing "fast and furious" type mods into a discussion like this it's ultimately redundant as *any* car can, in principle, be modified to out perform any other given enough $ and enough lunacy. We're simply talking factory numbers and there the CTS-V doesn't disappoint, most particularly in relation to what will likely be a very competitive price. The thread as a whole is just acknowledging that other manufacturers can turn out decent product, ultimately that's the only thing that keeps BMW on its toes.

Bimmer32

You're missing the point. The 6.2 NA still does not pass the 100 hp/liter mark. GM had to supercharge it. And with a detuned supercharged v8 in the CTS-V outputing 556 hp, that's only 89.67 hp/liter. There is NOTHING impressive about it regarding engine performance. The M5 (2004) v10 NA (without force induction) has already pass the 100 hp/liter mark. If BMW gets around to turbocharging the V10 (you can get your factory warranty), even a full tuned supercharged 6.2 LSA engine won't come close to BMW TT V10.

In the meantime, we can assume that a NOS (which is not strictly for the "fast and furious" crowd) has been engineered for the BMW V10 and tuned to produce higher hp/liter numbers without harming the engine no more than what a factory supercharger will do to another engine (GM supercharged LSA).

While the 2009 LSA CTS-V does produce more HP than the current BMW v10 (2004), putting the two engines on the force induction plane (whether it's NOS, turbocharged, or supercharged) still puts the BMW V10 on top. It's more about product life cycle and timing.

The CTS-V is NOT so impressive with regards to engine performance if you break it down. Regarding price, well, it's so subjective depending on what you look at. But for Bang for the Buck, the 09 CTS-V may well be, "impressive."

JetBlack50c, there are many features in engine performance that just because one has more cylinders than the other doesn't mean you can't compare them. Think of it in terms of using 10 smaller horses compared to 8 larger horses. The LSA is a supercharged 6.2 liter while the M v10 is a NA 5 liter.

The old adage that ?there?s no replacement for displacement? is simply that ? old. BMW?s smaller displacement and higher reving engine is as competitive, if not better, than the American ?big blocks.?

i<3e60

i hate all caddy's since they compare themselves with bmw (particularly the e60 ), obviously we are the more superior

JetBlack5OC

Please, this is why some people think BMW owners are snobs.

Bimmer32

You're right, they're two different philosophies. Personally, I think BMW's engineering philosophy has a greater advantage for mid to high speed acceleration (where HP matters more than torque) compared to the "big block" camp. The technical explanation is beyond this thread and beyond just engine power (and probably more than what I already know). In short, it's the physics if high reving and transmission design that I think gives the high reving engine a leg up.

I remember when I had my Mustang GT. It peaked out at 4200 rpm (redline was further up), but those TT 300z and Supra TT would just pass me up after 100 mph.

Back to the CTS-V. Good for Cadillac, but I think a TT V10 from BMW in the future will force Cadillac to "tune up" instead of detuning the 6.2 LSA.

swajames

The bottom line is that Cadillac doesn't *need* to tune up the CTS-V engine right now - at 556 bhp it's already enough for its specific application in the CTS-V. If GM wants to offer it in a higher state of tune, they could and it wouldn't require much re-engineering. The power plant will be available in its unadulterated form in the ZR-1, but for the CTS-V Cadillac believes that 556 bhp is more than enough. What GM are doing, and a point you seem to be missing, is leaving room for a higher end model above the CTS-V with the unrestricted power plant if the market will support it. As for your comments on a manufacturer is being "forced" to add additional power, increasingly it seems that it's BMW that is the one finding itself in this position. As technically impressive as the M5 V10 is, other manufacturers such as Audi as GM have the 500 bhp number in their sights.

Bimmer32

Typical GM marketing strategy . . . which is a bunch of bull. You market, "Oh we detuned the engine 'cause it's good enough for the CTS-V, but wait, we can retune it if competition comes along, or put it in the STS or some different model later on." Come on GM, you don't have enough R&D $$ that you have to "retract and stretch" your innovation like a rubberband?

Theoretically, a force induction V10 will produce over 700 HP; and yeah, I think Audi is doing it. Isn't GM "forced" to supercharge the LSA (LS9) to get 556 and 638 HP respectively? They plan to use the 7.0 liter, but per Corvette Chief Engineer, they decide to supercharge the 6.2 liter to the achieve (go above) the 100 hp/liter magical mark. It's GM, not BMW that's in the position of having to "forced" induct. So, what is your point?

If the CTS-V is in the same class as the M5, why detune it? Do you see BMW detuning a v10 in an M6 for an M5? The M3 has the same v10 technology in a v8 format and it's a different platform for a different (smaller) car. You may have a point only if the CTS-V is in the class of the M3 sedan instead of the M5.

As a side note, I'm not impress with BMW's TT of the i6 since Toyota beat them to it back in 1997 with the Supra TT v6. The only advantage 10+ later is the extra few mpg on highway. And yeah, in the i6 category, BMW is doing the GM thing.

BetterMakeWay

I agree fully with what you say. From what i've read i agree there is nothing so spectacular (except of course the output) of the GM engines and Mercedes engines. Everybody, and i really mean everybody can get lots of power and plenty of torque if the engine is big enough, the trick question is to make it smaller in displacement and capacity to make it as balanced as possible and to allow for a lower, further from the front engine position (for front engined cars). Also to keep it NA and moderate in size you need revs to get you the hp. Then you need a proper gearbox that can tolerate the excess of 8000+ rpm of the engine. Also proper gearing is needed to reduce the "handicap" of low torque and act, in fact, as a torque multiplier. A NA engine like this has the best response in the world, nothing comes close....and has alot of advantages, like not needing a tremendous intercooler like the turbo engines need, not having to withstand those high temperatures, and in the end weighing alot less than a supercharger of turbocharged engine of same size/displacement.

That being said it's truly remarkable what BMW M achieves with their engines. That's the art and craftsmanship of building racing engines, visceral and hardcore for true enthusiasts and at the same time make them as reliable as their lazier brothers.

Also i agree with your last statement regarding the BMW strategy of the I6 turbo engines. As solid as they are they aren't really the result of pure passion like the NA M engines are, but more the result of marketing. In this case it's hard to believe BMW was able to provide with only 20 more bhp for the x35i engines compared to their NA brothers from where they were derived. Adding two turbos and getting only 20 more hp is just in-your-face obviously. I mean what only 10 hp per turbo ? despite the fact that it got 100 more NM.
So to conclude IMHO neither the BMW I6 TT isn't so astonishing, compared to the BMW M engines. The marketing people knew that if they let the engineers work on that engines without restraints they would have a serious competitor to the M3 and they clearly didn't want that...that's why a pretty much tuned 335i can be almost on par with the M3.