fasterthanferrari
Well-Known Member
How would the 335's IL6 3.0L twin turbo stack up against the RB26DETT or JZA80 or any other IL6 twin turbo engine you can think of?
335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
- Thread starter fasterthanferrari
- Start date
fasterthanferrari
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
Has any 335 owners here ever wondered why the engine is underpowered compared to the Japs'? With BMW built quality should be easily comes 350-400hp, because of M3 perhaps? What are the average hp numbers with different chips upgrade?
Has any 335 owners here ever wondered why the engine is underpowered compared to the Japs'? With BMW built quality should be easily comes 350-400hp, because of M3 perhaps? What are the average hp numbers with different chips upgrade?
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
Germans are too dumb when they come to marketing. Their cars are priced to compete with different models of their competitors. Jap cars that debut, particulalrly sports cars, are all kamikaze cars. They are out for a killing on any segment. And they seldom have many models competing, having a lower overhead which translates into savings for consumers. German cars have too many models competing and they are only bothered with reigning top in that particular segment. Not much concentration on building the ultimate sports car unlike the italians and the japanese.
fasterthanferrari;309256 said:
Germans are too dumb when they come to marketing. Their cars are priced to compete with different models of their competitors. Jap cars that debut, particulalrly sports cars, are all kamikaze cars. They are out for a killing on any segment. And they seldom have many models competing, having a lower overhead which translates into savings for consumers. German cars have too many models competing and they are only bothered with reigning top in that particular segment. Not much concentration on building the ultimate sports car unlike the italians and the japanese.
centurion
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
335's IL6 3.0L twin turbo stack up against the RB26DETT or JZA80 ??
OK see the BMEP. I'm not going to give you the PSI, only the proportional multiplier.
BMEP definition: the average (mean) pressure which, if imposed on the pistons uniformly from the top to the bottom of each power stroke, would produce the measured (brake) power output.
My interpretation: BMEP is a relative value measuring the performance efficiency of an engine. Like... you got so many CC you make effective use of it or not? Higher number is better for efficiency.
BMEP = constant x [max power output] / [engine capacity x rpm for max power]
BMW 335 engine:
300 / (2979 x 5800) = 1736 units
RB26DETT
dynoed: 327hp at 6800 =
327 / (2568 x 6800) = 1873 units
official: 280hp @6800
280 / (2568 x 6800 )= 1603 units
JZA80 (german engine lah!) using USA model spec:
320 hp (239 kW) @5600 rpm 2997 cc
320/ (2997 * 5600) = 1907 units
Looking at this BMW is the worst off. Or you could say, least stressed pressure wise. But looks like the Nissan block can take HELLUVA more stress with bigger turbos. This test is fair because all the engines mentioned are turbos.
So possibly the best engine is the Nissan's, having the good efficiency AND ALSO the best overclockability.
335's IL6 3.0L twin turbo stack up against the RB26DETT or JZA80 ??
OK see the BMEP. I'm not going to give you the PSI, only the proportional multiplier.
BMEP definition: the average (mean) pressure which, if imposed on the pistons uniformly from the top to the bottom of each power stroke, would produce the measured (brake) power output.
My interpretation: BMEP is a relative value measuring the performance efficiency of an engine. Like... you got so many CC you make effective use of it or not? Higher number is better for efficiency.
BMEP = constant x [max power output] / [engine capacity x rpm for max power]
BMW 335 engine:
300 / (2979 x 5800) = 1736 units
RB26DETT
dynoed: 327hp at 6800 =
327 / (2568 x 6800) = 1873 units
official: 280hp @6800
280 / (2568 x 6800 )= 1603 units
JZA80 (german engine lah!) using USA model spec:
320 hp (239 kW) @5600 rpm 2997 cc
320/ (2997 * 5600) = 1907 units
Looking at this BMW is the worst off. Or you could say, least stressed pressure wise. But looks like the Nissan block can take HELLUVA more stress with bigger turbos. This test is fair because all the engines mentioned are turbos.
So possibly the best engine is the Nissan's, having the good efficiency AND ALSO the best overclockability.
centurion
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
the Germans have remained on top of the most desired list for normal humans for a long long time lah.
making a car to appeal to the market is accepted by me. Because the market buys the product. You make what people wanna buy, not make what you wanna make.
Still, the Germans to their credit have created cars which fit into identified markets. You want extreme cars you got the GT2 and GT3. They price it that way to fit what the market can pay.
By contrast I find the Japanese and Italians largely more cock when it comes to marketing.
And I don't think that BMW build quality is really that superior, FTF. They are AT PAR with the acceptable, but not noticeably superior. If they raise their HP you guys are gonna complain about turbo lag I guess. Or it will fail emissions. Or fuel consumption will go to hell. It's all a compromise. BMW optimized it for the 335 market which they perceived, which emissions and fuel consumption is a big issue. After all this is just battling the CLK350 and the Audi S5 ... so 300HP is enough.
the Germans have remained on top of the most desired list for normal humans for a long long time lah.
making a car to appeal to the market is accepted by me. Because the market buys the product. You make what people wanna buy, not make what you wanna make.
Still, the Germans to their credit have created cars which fit into identified markets. You want extreme cars you got the GT2 and GT3. They price it that way to fit what the market can pay.
By contrast I find the Japanese and Italians largely more cock when it comes to marketing.
And I don't think that BMW build quality is really that superior, FTF. They are AT PAR with the acceptable, but not noticeably superior. If they raise their HP you guys are gonna complain about turbo lag I guess. Or it will fail emissions. Or fuel consumption will go to hell. It's all a compromise. BMW optimized it for the 335 market which they perceived, which emissions and fuel consumption is a big issue. After all this is just battling the CLK350 and the Audi S5 ... so 300HP is enough.
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
This HP zhit is all about marketing lah. As some already said, its about who u wanna market agst and which segment. If needed, BMW definitely can make more BHP from the 335, of cos they will charge u a higher price too. So no thank you, I get my procede...cheaper!
In USA, BMW faces a fierce battle from relentless Infiniti(nisssan) and lexus IS models. Lexus made a IS350 that churns about 305 bhp(3.5L v6) whereas BMW 330i at that time only had 258-ish bhp. to address that, throw in 2 ding dongs n u get a 335. Now 335i rated in brochure as 306 bhp...one more BHP than IS350...yes one more bhp....how about that.
get it?
This HP zhit is all about marketing lah. As some already said, its about who u wanna market agst and which segment. If needed, BMW definitely can make more BHP from the 335, of cos they will charge u a higher price too. So no thank you, I get my procede...cheaper!
In USA, BMW faces a fierce battle from relentless Infiniti(nisssan) and lexus IS models. Lexus made a IS350 that churns about 305 bhp(3.5L v6) whereas BMW 330i at that time only had 258-ish bhp. to address that, throw in 2 ding dongs n u get a 335. Now 335i rated in brochure as 306 bhp...one more BHP than IS350...yes one more bhp....how about that.
get it?
fasterthanferrari
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
I knew the Getrag but never knew the engine was also German, interesting.
A 30 year-old design beats them all, and what for all the R&D after that. In the end, everything amounts to cost cutting, meeting emissions standards and providing reasonable performance for at least the warranty period. Are we buying less or paying more?
I knew the Getrag but never knew the engine was also German, interesting.
A 30 year-old design beats them all, and what for all the R&D after that. In the end, everything amounts to cost cutting, meeting emissions standards and providing reasonable performance for at least the warranty period. Are we buying less or paying more?
centurion
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
I think i made a mistake there ... the JZA80 was made by Toyota but the JZA80E was almost completely overhauled by a German engineering firm, sorry about the misinformation. As for this engine beating them all, yes, in terms of efficiency, but how long it would last, its weight, etc. all may be at its disadvantage. It's probably easy to build more toughness into the engine, but at the expense of weight.
Are we paying more for less? Hardly I think. The engine is a small component of the cost of an entire car, even though the capital spending on engine plants is enormous. We're paying for the power seats, the emissions computer, the sensors, the plastics, the everything which is not really important to the enthusiast.
I think i made a mistake there ... the JZA80 was made by Toyota but the JZA80E was almost completely overhauled by a German engineering firm, sorry about the misinformation. As for this engine beating them all, yes, in terms of efficiency, but how long it would last, its weight, etc. all may be at its disadvantage. It's probably easy to build more toughness into the engine, but at the expense of weight.
Are we paying more for less? Hardly I think. The engine is a small component of the cost of an entire car, even though the capital spending on engine plants is enormous. We're paying for the power seats, the emissions computer, the sensors, the plastics, the everything which is not really important to the enthusiast.
powersteer
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
isnt JZA80 the car?
afaik, the engine used is 2JZ-GTE ... in 2.5L guise, its 1JZ-GTE
isnt JZA80 the car?
afaik, the engine used is 2JZ-GTE ... in 2.5L guise, its 1JZ-GTE
fasterthanferrari
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
Considering the lifespan of any engine, manufacturing cost would probably equals that of rims and tires, so its not very expensive. Perhaps during development, however many facts are known also, so its just re-engineering, matellergy and soft tooling. Everywhere else is much the same..seat design (electronic & mechanically) changed much over the last 10-15 years? And once the plastics mould is set, its a good couple hundred thousand pieces from that as well. So I would say material wise the car is cheap. But I can see alot of cost goes into the process of making one, a protion goes into inventory here, marketing & admin there etc. So yes, its more expensive for the non-essential stuff that would concern enthusiast.
Anywhere I can find out more on the 80E? Can't seems to find any link, perhaps you would know where it was applied.
centurion;309399 said:
Considering the lifespan of any engine, manufacturing cost would probably equals that of rims and tires, so its not very expensive. Perhaps during development, however many facts are known also, so its just re-engineering, matellergy and soft tooling. Everywhere else is much the same..seat design (electronic & mechanically) changed much over the last 10-15 years? And once the plastics mould is set, its a good couple hundred thousand pieces from that as well. So I would say material wise the car is cheap. But I can see alot of cost goes into the process of making one, a protion goes into inventory here, marketing & admin there etc. So yes, its more expensive for the non-essential stuff that would concern enthusiast.
Anywhere I can find out more on the 80E? Can't seems to find any link, perhaps you would know where it was applied.
fasterthanferrari
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
Hi there, you are right. I did forget the the engine model so I just use the car instead. Also per Centurion, the 2JZ was used in several different cars starting from late production 3rd gen supra to aristo sedans all having slightly different configration, even JDM had different spec, so in a way using the JZA80 was correct afterall.
powersteer;309432 said:
Hi there, you are right. I did forget the the engine model so I just use the car instead. Also per Centurion, the 2JZ was used in several different cars starting from late production 3rd gen supra to aristo sedans all having slightly different configration, even JDM had different spec, so in a way using the JZA80 was correct afterall.
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
Just as it is impossible to accurately sum up a car's ability to get round a track quickly, using just one parameter in isolation (max. lat. G, or top speed, or yaw rate per degree of road wheel steer at given speed, etc.), it is just as difficult to draw conclusions about engines in the same - looking at say power, power width, engine speed, BMEP, external volumes, overall weight, etc. in isolation.
BMEP is a good indicator of charging efficiency in engines that have similar operating engine speeds, similar redlines, and similar operational requirements. Problem is they are rarely all similar across different makes and models - especially in street applications, and so makes using BMEP to compare them a little less straightforward.
Rules of thumb are..
- Greater requirement for power width = lower BMEP
- Greater focus on peak power given no false restrictions on max RPM = lower BMEP
- Lower engine speeds, lower operating engine speed range = higher BMEP due to much lower friction. IMEP - little = high BMEP. Also ability to really tailor port cross sections and really be aggressive with valve accels, for much smaller and lower engine speed range allows power per cycle to be much higher
For example if you compared a 2L I44 generator engine (or say a boat engine) that spent all of its life at, and only, a constant 4000 RPM, it could be perfected for that very specific task and BMEP would be high compared to any other 2L I4 road car engine that would have all sorts of variable systems , make peak power at say 5500 RPM, make more overall power, and cost a lot more. A more flexible engine, but poorer BMEP.
centurion;309378 said:
Just as it is impossible to accurately sum up a car's ability to get round a track quickly, using just one parameter in isolation (max. lat. G, or top speed, or yaw rate per degree of road wheel steer at given speed, etc.), it is just as difficult to draw conclusions about engines in the same - looking at say power, power width, engine speed, BMEP, external volumes, overall weight, etc. in isolation.
BMEP is a good indicator of charging efficiency in engines that have similar operating engine speeds, similar redlines, and similar operational requirements. Problem is they are rarely all similar across different makes and models - especially in street applications, and so makes using BMEP to compare them a little less straightforward.
Rules of thumb are..
- Greater requirement for power width = lower BMEP
- Greater focus on peak power given no false restrictions on max RPM = lower BMEP
- Lower engine speeds, lower operating engine speed range = higher BMEP due to much lower friction. IMEP - little = high BMEP. Also ability to really tailor port cross sections and really be aggressive with valve accels, for much smaller and lower engine speed range allows power per cycle to be much higher
For example if you compared a 2L I44 generator engine (or say a boat engine) that spent all of its life at, and only, a constant 4000 RPM, it could be perfected for that very specific task and BMEP would be high compared to any other 2L I4 road car engine that would have all sorts of variable systems , make peak power at say 5500 RPM, make more overall power, and cost a lot more. A more flexible engine, but poorer BMEP.
fasterthanferrari
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
I guess it sort of leads back to thermodynamics, but if all else being equal including cylinder head design and airflow parameters. Are we left with adjusting bore and strock ratios which leads to piston speed and ultimately rpm? In simpler terms, rpm makes power which is why we see F1 engines going into 18k - 20k range. When will compression ratio comes into consideration?
RB26DETT
CR 8.5:1
BxS 86 X 73.7 (over sq)
JZA80 (2JZGTE)
CR 8.5:1
BxS 86 x 86 (sq)
335
CR 10.20:1
BxS 84 x 89.6 (under sq)
from IS forum, here is a little argument btw the IS350 and 335 for those interested.
I guess it sort of leads back to thermodynamics, but if all else being equal including cylinder head design and airflow parameters. Are we left with adjusting bore and strock ratios which leads to piston speed and ultimately rpm? In simpler terms, rpm makes power which is why we see F1 engines going into 18k - 20k range. When will compression ratio comes into consideration?
RB26DETT
CR 8.5:1
BxS 86 X 73.7 (over sq)
JZA80 (2JZGTE)
CR 8.5:1
BxS 86 x 86 (sq)
335
CR 10.20:1
BxS 84 x 89.6 (under sq)
from IS forum, here is a little argument btw the IS350 and 335 for those interested.
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
Engine speed makes power provided artificial limits are placed on engine internal displacement and none on intake tract. Where free to run in conditions besides listed, engine speed is avoided (by larger displacements) because it is the most damaging thing you can do to an engine that requires expensive materials and proccesses to deal with. High cylinder pressures from forced induction are also damaging, but easier to deal with since beefing things up at lower engine speeds is easy to do. With high engine speeds the more you beef things up on the cheap, the harder the engine fights itself.
High CRs in forced inducted engines on pump gas or close to pump gas are often a limit if looking for any sort of efficiency at upper engine speeds, upper loads. At high loads, high boost levels, on high CR engines, you can run ridiculously retarded ignition for short durations,, but you'll burn a lot of fuel for the power you make and really heat or burn up the exhaust tract. Peak power won't be as high as an appropriately speced engine for peak power at that engine speed and load range.
The plus side to CR in force inducted engines is you get more response at lower loads, lower engine speed. Better gas mileage. The different manufacturer objectives are already made fairly obvious just by looking at CR across the 3 engines you list.
Besides all this you're also comparing aluminium and cast iron blocks. Block material makes a big difference in bore stability at higher loads, though at this point other factors are the limit.
Bore-stroke ratios are of less influence on what's been discussed on this thread so far... having more to do with surface to volume ratios therefore thermal efficiency, and enough bore area for valve area for power target. More NA concerns. The small differences across these 3 engines are probably due to existing bore spacings, different displacement, and/or packaging it all without having to cast or forge anything too radically different from past... economies of scale.
A little fuzzy at this hour so might have to come back at later time and make clarifications or corrections to above..
Engine speed makes power provided artificial limits are placed on engine internal displacement and none on intake tract. Where free to run in conditions besides listed, engine speed is avoided (by larger displacements) because it is the most damaging thing you can do to an engine that requires expensive materials and proccesses to deal with. High cylinder pressures from forced induction are also damaging, but easier to deal with since beefing things up at lower engine speeds is easy to do. With high engine speeds the more you beef things up on the cheap, the harder the engine fights itself.
High CRs in forced inducted engines on pump gas or close to pump gas are often a limit if looking for any sort of efficiency at upper engine speeds, upper loads. At high loads, high boost levels, on high CR engines, you can run ridiculously retarded ignition for short durations,, but you'll burn a lot of fuel for the power you make and really heat or burn up the exhaust tract. Peak power won't be as high as an appropriately speced engine for peak power at that engine speed and load range.
The plus side to CR in force inducted engines is you get more response at lower loads, lower engine speed. Better gas mileage. The different manufacturer objectives are already made fairly obvious just by looking at CR across the 3 engines you list.
Besides all this you're also comparing aluminium and cast iron blocks. Block material makes a big difference in bore stability at higher loads, though at this point other factors are the limit.
Bore-stroke ratios are of less influence on what's been discussed on this thread so far... having more to do with surface to volume ratios therefore thermal efficiency, and enough bore area for valve area for power target. More NA concerns. The small differences across these 3 engines are probably due to existing bore spacings, different displacement, and/or packaging it all without having to cast or forge anything too radically different from past... economies of scale.
A little fuzzy at this hour so might have to come back at later time and make clarifications or corrections to above..
fasterthanferrari
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
Well yes, that certainly clears up alot of doubts, I just never thought of it from that angle before. Had been mixed up mostly between the Japanese and Americans philosophies and they had ben pretty clear cut about what their objectives were. I am only beginning to understand what the Europeans are after, then there are several school of thoughts between them as well. Thanks again for the insight.
Well yes, that certainly clears up alot of doubts, I just never thought of it from that angle before. Had been mixed up mostly between the Japanese and Americans philosophies and they had ben pretty clear cut about what their objectives were. I am only beginning to understand what the Europeans are after, then there are several school of thoughts between them as well. Thanks again for the insight.
PerverTT
Well-Known Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
Shaun - Is this the reason for the use of an iron block in relatively modern engines like the ones used in the E46 M3 and in the VAG 1.8T? The former is designed to run at high revs while the latter is often subject to insane boost pressures. Had always thought of iron as a low cost, low tech material for use in an engine block.
Shaun - Is this the reason for the use of an iron block in relatively modern engines like the ones used in the E46 M3 and in the VAG 1.8T? The former is designed to run at high revs while the latter is often subject to insane boost pressures. Had always thought of iron as a low cost, low tech material for use in an engine block.
GeekinE90
Active Member
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
I believe the S54 in the E46 M3 is an aluminium block engine. Most modern normally aspirated engines are all aluminium block even if they are high revving. Its the older skool turbo engines which are iron block engines. Even the latest supercar killing Nissan GTR R35's VR38DETT twin turbo engine is aluminium block.
PerverTT;309667 said:
I believe the S54 in the E46 M3 is an aluminium block engine. Most modern normally aspirated engines are all aluminium block even if they are high revving. Its the older skool turbo engines which are iron block engines. Even the latest supercar killing Nissan GTR R35's VR38DETT twin turbo engine is aluminium block.
Re: 335 vs GTR vs Supra Engine Talk
S54 has an iron block
see here: 2002 Ward's Ten Best Engines
GeekinE90;309699 said:
S54 has an iron block
see here: 2002 Ward's Ten Best Engines
