Why are TT engines viewed as "inferior"?
#1
I've always been curious why consumers view turbocharged engines as an inferior engineering achievement, while a high-revving normally aspirated engine seems to get all the acclaim. While I'm not an engineer (by degree) or mechanic (by trade), I've been modifying my own cars for some time now, mostly performance upgrades. I've blueprinted both NA and FI engines, and can honestly say that designing a turbocharged engine is orders of magnitude greater in difficulty than a normally aspirated engine. Building a high-revving engine is not difficult at all. Virtually any normally aspirated engine can be made to rev beyond 8K and put out over 100HP/liter (yes, even a meager 4cyl found in a Kia can be re-built to put out 100HP/liter). All you need are stronger connecting rods, a reinforced crank, high-compression forged pistons, more aggressive cams, a ported and built cylinder head, plus headers. These are all parts that are available "off-the-shelf" from various manufacturers (both OEM and aftermarket). The tuning is also rather straightforward and can usually be banged out in a day on a chassis dyno.
However, when it comes to designing a turbocharged engine, I can vouch that not only do you need all the parts I mentioned above, but you also need to design extra components such as an exhaust manifold, wastegate dump, plumbing for both hot/cold sections of the turbo, a heat exchanger system and an intake manifold. Then you have to deal with the tuning process, which is a complete nightmare for an engineer. Whereas a normally aspirated engine is "predictable" in the amount of airflow it sees at a given RPM, a turbocharger is variable in its boost output, which means you can see an unlimited amount of variance in airflow at a given RPM. Then you have to factor in elevation and temperature differences as well. By no means an easy feat, which is why you see tons of normally aspirated upgrades for BMWs, but rarely a solid/reliable turbocharger upgrade.
I'm truly baffled when people criticize BMW for going back to its turbo roots (yes, BMW was the first automaker to run a turbocharged engine in a mass production vehicle and managed to run them with great success in Formula 1 as well). Not only are turbocharged engines much more efficient and "fun" to drive, but they are engineering marvels that should be recognized for their complexity.
However, when it comes to designing a turbocharged engine, I can vouch that not only do you need all the parts I mentioned above, but you also need to design extra components such as an exhaust manifold, wastegate dump, plumbing for both hot/cold sections of the turbo, a heat exchanger system and an intake manifold. Then you have to deal with the tuning process, which is a complete nightmare for an engineer. Whereas a normally aspirated engine is "predictable" in the amount of airflow it sees at a given RPM, a turbocharger is variable in its boost output, which means you can see an unlimited amount of variance in airflow at a given RPM. Then you have to factor in elevation and temperature differences as well. By no means an easy feat, which is why you see tons of normally aspirated upgrades for BMWs, but rarely a solid/reliable turbocharger upgrade.
I'm truly baffled when people criticize BMW for going back to its turbo roots (yes, BMW was the first automaker to run a turbocharged engine in a mass production vehicle and managed to run them with great success in Formula 1 as well). Not only are turbocharged engines much more efficient and "fun" to drive, but they are engineering marvels that should be recognized for their complexity.
#2
Senior Members
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
From: Bahrain
My Ride: 2006 E60 M5 (Sepang Bronze/Natural Brown)
Eisenmann Exhaust with Miesterchaft Sections 1 & 2
Evosport Headers
Evosport Pulley
RPi Scoops & Block Off Plates with BMC Filters
Eibach Pro-Kit Springs
20" Breyton Race CS in Polished Silver
Because they use power adders! The engine itself thus becomes inferior.. ( but in what sense? )
#3
Senior Members
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: N Hollywood, CA
My Ride: 545i Sport Package, Black/Grey. Got it July 09.
Model Year: 2004
i thought that turbo'ed engines have easier tuning capabilities... this is the idea i'm getting from looking at performance parts for 535s vs 545/550s
but nothing appeals to me more than to know that an N/A engine is producing massive amounts of power without forced air... and the sound is just sexy on an 8+ cyl N/A but I must admit that i love the sound of turbos spooling just as equally (i've wanted an evo for the last 5 years because of its turbo setup but never bought one ) maybe i just love the sound of power
but nothing appeals to me more than to know that an N/A engine is producing massive amounts of power without forced air... and the sound is just sexy on an 8+ cyl N/A but I must admit that i love the sound of turbos spooling just as equally (i've wanted an evo for the last 5 years because of its turbo setup but never bought one ) maybe i just love the sound of power
#4
Senior Members
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 1
From: Atlanta, GA
My Ride: 2008 535i:
(8/07 Build) Metallic Bronze, Beige NASCA Leather, Ventilated Seats, Sport Pkg, Cold Wxr Pkg, Logic-7 Sound, HUD, Night Vision, PDC, Split Rear Seats, NAV, Premium Pkg, Comfort Access, HD Radio, Sport Auto Trans
Current mods: M-Aero Kit, JB4, Motorcepts 6000k HID Foglamps
Umnitza ICE-Lite 10w LED 6000k AE's
1992 Camaro RS:
Fully Restored w/Custom Interior, 5.0L V8, T-tops, OEM Z28 Foglamps, Inst Cluster, & Spoiler, Custom Sound, Too many engine mods to list
Originally Posted by rennsport99' post='1024478' date='Oct 4 2009, 06:57 PM
I've always been curious why consumers view turbocharged engines as an inferior engineering achievement, while a high-revving normally aspirated engine seems to get all the acclaim. While I'm not an engineer (by degree) or mechanic (by trade), I've been modifying my own cars for some time now, mostly performance upgrades. I've blueprinted both NA and FI engines, and can honestly say that designing a turbocharged engine is orders of magnitude greater in difficulty than a normally aspirated engine. Building a high-revving engine is not difficult at all. Virtually any normally aspirated engine can be made to rev beyond 8K and put out over 100HP/liter (yes, even a meager 4cyl found in a Kia can be re-built to put out 100HP/liter). All you need are stronger connecting rods, a reinforced crank, high-compression forged pistons, more aggressive cams, a ported and built cylinder head, plus headers. These are all parts that are available "off-the-shelf" from various manufacturers (both OEM and aftermarket). The tuning is also rather straightforward and can usually be banged out in a day on a chassis dyno.
However, when it comes to designing a turbocharged engine, I can vouch that not only do you need all the parts I mentioned above, but you also need to design extra components such as an exhaust manifold, wastegate dump, plumbing for both hot/cold sections of the turbo, a heat exchanger system and an intake manifold. Then you have to deal with the tuning process, which is a complete nightmare for an engineer. Whereas a normally aspirated engine is "predictable" in the amount of airflow it sees at a given RPM, a turbocharger is variable in its boost output, which means you can see an unlimited amount of variance in airflow at a given RPM. Then you have to factor in elevation and temperature differences as well. By no means an easy feat, which is why you see tons of normally aspirated upgrades for BMWs, but rarely a solid/reliable turbocharger upgrade.
I'm truly baffled when people criticize BMW for going back to its turbo roots (yes, BMW was the first automaker to run a turbocharged engine in a mass production vehicle and managed to run them with great success in Formula 1 as well). Not only are turbocharged engines much more efficient and "fun" to drive, but they are engineering marvels that should be recognized for their complexity.
However, when it comes to designing a turbocharged engine, I can vouch that not only do you need all the parts I mentioned above, but you also need to design extra components such as an exhaust manifold, wastegate dump, plumbing for both hot/cold sections of the turbo, a heat exchanger system and an intake manifold. Then you have to deal with the tuning process, which is a complete nightmare for an engineer. Whereas a normally aspirated engine is "predictable" in the amount of airflow it sees at a given RPM, a turbocharger is variable in its boost output, which means you can see an unlimited amount of variance in airflow at a given RPM. Then you have to factor in elevation and temperature differences as well. By no means an easy feat, which is why you see tons of normally aspirated upgrades for BMWs, but rarely a solid/reliable turbocharger upgrade.
I'm truly baffled when people criticize BMW for going back to its turbo roots (yes, BMW was the first automaker to run a turbocharged engine in a mass production vehicle and managed to run them with great success in Formula 1 as well). Not only are turbocharged engines much more efficient and "fun" to drive, but they are engineering marvels that should be recognized for their complexity.
For years, BMW has established its reputation by churning out high revving N/A motors while everyone else focused on either large displacement engines (GM, M or some form of FI (Toyota, Nissan).
IMO people are being critical because BMW is showing signs of going along with everyone else. I remember quite a few threads on this forum debating the 535 and 550 engines. The irony is that many of the 550 owners who dogged the 535 for its turbos wouldn't hesitate to buy an F10 55x with the same thing.
#5
Contributors
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 11,084
Likes: 0
From: Thousand Oaks, California
My Ride: 2008 550i Jet Black on Black Leather, SAT with Paddles, Logic 7, Comfort Seats, NAV, Sport Package, PDC, Xenons, Sirius, Trinity 12W LED Angel Eyes, RPi GT Exhaust, M rear spoiler, ACS Roof Spoiler, Tinted Tail Lights, Bimmian Carbon Fiber Pillar Trim, Bimmian Shadow 550i emblem, RPi Scoop, E60 Forum Cling, Mtec bulbs in fog lights, Mtec 2W LED for License Plate Light Bulbs, K&N Filter, Bimmian LED Smoked Side Markers, Blackout roundels, Carbon Fiber Kidney Grills.
Retired Rides - 1989 325i convertible, 1995 M3, 2002 X5, 2005 545i, 2008 X5 (Lemon)
I LOVE the sound of my V8, but whatever works, will get my vote in the future!
#6
Contributors
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,119
Likes: 0
From: San Jose, California, USA
My Ride: 2008 Porsche 911 Carrera S Convertible. Midnight Blue, 6 Speed.Retired - 2007 997 Carrera S, Midnight Blue, Grey leather, premium audioRetired - 2007 550i, Monaco Blue over Beige, Navigation, Logic 7, Cold Weather Pack, Comfort Access, Sport Package
Model Year: 2008
I'd disagree with the contention that designing a forced induction engine is orders of magnitude greater in difficulty than a normally aspirated powerplant when we're talking about the traditional M engines, and most specifically the S85 in the M5/M6. There's a tremendous engineering challenge associated with the development of an engine and a valvetrain that can run reliably with an 8500 RPM redline. Were it not for the limiter, these engines could probably run close to 10,000 RPM with reasonable reliability. That's no mean feat.
To your primary point, I don't think that a forced induction engine (and particularly the M version) should be viewed as inferior to a normally aspirated unit, BMW is clearly capable of building tremendous engine in either flavor. I've always been of the view that one isn't necessarily "better" than the other, they just go about their business in a different way. I've made the same points before when comparing the S85 to say the LS9/LSA powerplant in the ZR1 and CTS-V - they simply use different means to achieve the same end, and each has its inherent advantages and disadvantages.
The problem, however, is that the engineering philosophy of the M brand as a whole is undergoing a change - and not everyone buys into or appreciates these changes. For me, the hallmarks of an M engine are and will always be a very high revving, highly strung powerplant that needs to be worked very hard to give its best - because that's the philosophy that characterizes racing engines in general. The change to forced induction will lead to reduced redlines and the engines will lose some of their soul. And when the engines lose soul, the car loses soul. M is all about flawed genius, and it is these flaws that we've come to love. The powerplant change is just part of a trend towards the "commoditization" of the M brand. M never stood for all wheel drive, automatic transmissions, high centers of gravity and turbocharging. So - the turbo engines will, bo doubt, be very capable - but for me, they're likely to lose their soul. And that's not a good thing.
To your primary point, I don't think that a forced induction engine (and particularly the M version) should be viewed as inferior to a normally aspirated unit, BMW is clearly capable of building tremendous engine in either flavor. I've always been of the view that one isn't necessarily "better" than the other, they just go about their business in a different way. I've made the same points before when comparing the S85 to say the LS9/LSA powerplant in the ZR1 and CTS-V - they simply use different means to achieve the same end, and each has its inherent advantages and disadvantages.
The problem, however, is that the engineering philosophy of the M brand as a whole is undergoing a change - and not everyone buys into or appreciates these changes. For me, the hallmarks of an M engine are and will always be a very high revving, highly strung powerplant that needs to be worked very hard to give its best - because that's the philosophy that characterizes racing engines in general. The change to forced induction will lead to reduced redlines and the engines will lose some of their soul. And when the engines lose soul, the car loses soul. M is all about flawed genius, and it is these flaws that we've come to love. The powerplant change is just part of a trend towards the "commoditization" of the M brand. M never stood for all wheel drive, automatic transmissions, high centers of gravity and turbocharging. So - the turbo engines will, bo doubt, be very capable - but for me, they're likely to lose their soul. And that's not a good thing.
#7
Contributors
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,421
Likes: 0
From: Originally from Koeln, Deutschland. Enjoying it in Bonita Springs, Florida Now :)
Originally Posted by swajames' post='1024982' date='Oct 5 2009, 12:14 PM
The problem, however, is that the engineering philosophy of the M brand as a whole is undergoing a change - and not everyone buys into or appreciates these changes. For me, the hallmarks of an M engine are and will always be a very high revving, highly strung powerplant that needs to be worked very hard to give its best - because that's the philosophy that characterizes racing engines in general. The change to forced induction will lead to reduced redlines and the engines will lose some of their soul. And when the engines lose soul, the car loses soul. M is all about flawed genius, and it is these flaws that we've come to love. The powerplant change is just part of a trend towards the "commoditization" of the M brand. M never stood for all wheel drive, automatic transmissions, high centers of gravity and turbocharging. So - the turbo engines will, bo doubt, be very capable - but for me, they're likely to lose their soul. And that's not a good thing.
#8
Contributors
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,799
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
My Ride: F90 M5 Singapore Grey Executive package blacked out grill, body matched paint
Model Year: 2019
Originally Posted by Krozi' post='1025151' date='Oct 5 2009, 11:48 AM
Well said
+2million kroz
but what about a Porsche for example 911 gt3 or 911tt?
See I don't think a turbo engine loses or gains any stigma when comparing in a co. like Porsche I think people really only groan about turbos when recalling memories of all the crappy 80's GM turbo POS that notoriously sucked.
I myself would take a GT3 just for the fact that the tt actually scares the hell out of me
#9
Originally Posted by swajames' post='1024982' date='Oct 5 2009, 12:14 PM
I'd disagree with the contention that designing a forced induction engine is orders of magnitude greater in difficulty than a normally aspirated powerplant when we're talking about the traditional M engines, and most specifically the S85 in the M5/M6. There's a tremendous engineering challenge associated with the development of an engine and a valvetrain that can run reliably with an 8500 RPM redline. Were it not for the limiter, these engines could probably run close to 10,000 RPM with reasonable reliability. That's no mean feat.
To your primary point, I don't think that a forced induction engine (and particularly the M version) should be viewed as inferior to a normally aspirated unit, BMW is clearly capable of building tremendous engine in either flavor. I've always been of the view that one isn't necessarily "better" than the other, they just go about their business in a different way. I've made the same points before when comparing the S85 to say the LS9/LSA powerplant in the ZR1 and CTS-V - they simply use different means to achieve the same end, and each has its inherent advantages and disadvantages.
The problem, however, is that the engineering philosophy of the M brand as a whole is undergoing a change - and not everyone buys into or appreciates these changes. For me, the hallmarks of an M engine are and will always be a very high revving, highly strung powerplant that needs to be worked very hard to give its best - because that's the philosophy that characterizes racing engines in general. The change to forced induction will lead to reduced redlines and the engines will lose some of their soul. And when the engines lose soul, the car loses soul. M is all about flawed genius, and it is these flaws that we've come to love. The powerplant change is just part of a trend towards the "commoditization" of the M brand. M never stood for all wheel drive, automatic transmissions, high centers of gravity and turbocharging. So - the turbo engines will, bo doubt, be very capable - but for me, they're likely to lose their soul. And that's not a good thing.
To your primary point, I don't think that a forced induction engine (and particularly the M version) should be viewed as inferior to a normally aspirated unit, BMW is clearly capable of building tremendous engine in either flavor. I've always been of the view that one isn't necessarily "better" than the other, they just go about their business in a different way. I've made the same points before when comparing the S85 to say the LS9/LSA powerplant in the ZR1 and CTS-V - they simply use different means to achieve the same end, and each has its inherent advantages and disadvantages.
The problem, however, is that the engineering philosophy of the M brand as a whole is undergoing a change - and not everyone buys into or appreciates these changes. For me, the hallmarks of an M engine are and will always be a very high revving, highly strung powerplant that needs to be worked very hard to give its best - because that's the philosophy that characterizes racing engines in general. The change to forced induction will lead to reduced redlines and the engines will lose some of their soul. And when the engines lose soul, the car loses soul. M is all about flawed genius, and it is these flaws that we've come to love. The powerplant change is just part of a trend towards the "commoditization" of the M brand. M never stood for all wheel drive, automatic transmissions, high centers of gravity and turbocharging. So - the turbo engines will, bo doubt, be very capable - but for me, they're likely to lose their soul. And that's not a good thing.
Its not that FI is bad, its just not an M. I'm sure the new TTs are great from bmw, and they do just fine in the normal lines, but when the past 25+years of ///M philosophy has been based on NA power and they appear to be doing a 180, then you hear the tradionalists barking, like I often do. We never say that the turbo is bad, its just different in the way it delivers power and audible extascy, and when speaking of M, its near heresy to speak of FI...its the intangible that is at the souls of the beast, and the S85 will forever be the Ultimate aspiration of what NA could be
#10
Originally Posted by rennsport99' post='1024478' date='Oct 4 2009, 05:57 PM
I've always been curious why consumers view turbocharged engines as an inferior engineering achievement, while a high-revving normally aspirated engine seems to get all the acclaim. While I'm not an engineer (by degree) or mechanic (by trade), I've been modifying my own cars for some time now, mostly performance upgrades. I've blueprinted both NA and FI engines, and can honestly say that designing a turbocharged engine is orders of magnitude greater in difficulty than a normally aspirated engine. Building a high-revving engine is not difficult at all. Virtually any normally aspirated engine can be made to rev beyond 8K and put out over 100HP/liter (yes, even a meager 4cyl found in a Kia can be re-built to put out 100HP/liter). All you need are stronger connecting rods, a reinforced crank, high-compression forged pistons, more aggressive cams, a ported and built cylinder head, plus headers. These are all parts that are available "off-the-shelf" from various manufacturers (both OEM and aftermarket). The tuning is also rather straightforward and can usually be banged out in a day on a chassis dyno.
However, when it comes to designing a turbocharged engine, I can vouch that not only do you need all the parts I mentioned above, but you also need to design extra components such as an exhaust manifold, wastegate dump, plumbing for both hot/cold sections of the turbo, a heat exchanger system and an intake manifold. Then you have to deal with the tuning process, which is a complete nightmare for an engineer. Whereas a normally aspirated engine is "predictable" in the amount of airflow it sees at a given RPM, a turbocharger is variable in its boost output, which means you can see an unlimited amount of variance in airflow at a given RPM. Then you have to factor in elevation and temperature differences as well. By no means an easy feat, which is why you see tons of normally aspirated upgrades for BMWs, but rarely a solid/reliable turbocharger upgrade.
I'm truly baffled when people criticize BMW for going back to its turbo roots (yes, BMW was the first automaker to run a turbocharged engine in a mass production vehicle and managed to run them with great success in Formula 1 as well). Not only are turbocharged engines much more efficient and "fun" to drive, but they are engineering marvels that should be recognized for their complexity.
However, when it comes to designing a turbocharged engine, I can vouch that not only do you need all the parts I mentioned above, but you also need to design extra components such as an exhaust manifold, wastegate dump, plumbing for both hot/cold sections of the turbo, a heat exchanger system and an intake manifold. Then you have to deal with the tuning process, which is a complete nightmare for an engineer. Whereas a normally aspirated engine is "predictable" in the amount of airflow it sees at a given RPM, a turbocharger is variable in its boost output, which means you can see an unlimited amount of variance in airflow at a given RPM. Then you have to factor in elevation and temperature differences as well. By no means an easy feat, which is why you see tons of normally aspirated upgrades for BMWs, but rarely a solid/reliable turbocharger upgrade.
I'm truly baffled when people criticize BMW for going back to its turbo roots (yes, BMW was the first automaker to run a turbocharged engine in a mass production vehicle and managed to run them with great success in Formula 1 as well). Not only are turbocharged engines much more efficient and "fun" to drive, but they are engineering marvels that should be recognized for their complexity.