Inferiority Complex of German Journalists

[dhjones]

My oldest son just purchased a used 2003 M3. I took it out and drove it for about 15 miles on some country roads. All I can say is that car is the best handling car I have ever driven. Even with all my suspension mods to my car ( see sig) , the M3 is clearly in a class by itself. That being said, I believe my car is equal in acceleration Of course, we are talking a difference of around $20,000 dollars even with all of my aftermarket work. His BMW is a fine car. But then again, that is the reputation of a BMW and as we all know BMW owners pay for it.

Now for the design of the new BMW, I don't like it and apparently that is the same with much of the public.
I am hoping that with the 05 Mustang and the new suspension that the difference with the BMW will be greatly reduced. I am really hopeful that this is the case.

Doug

 

[Spackengackle]

Ford is looking into luxury options... it should come around. Just let them know.

 

[351CJ]

Ford is looking into luxury options... it should come around. Just let them know.

How?

 

[texgt]

Hey-
Diff. strokes.
MUSTANG is not trying to be a BMW.
MUSTANG is an American muscle car for a modern era.
Most MUSTANG owners do not want a BMW.
Complete different market.
PERIOD

 

[sixstringthing]

Can you really blame the Germans though? Yea yea "american muscle" and whatever you want, most of those import manufacturers are lightyears ahead of us, even if there is a price difference it would be hard not to find American cars "cheap looking" when you are used to those cars.

I don't think i've ever been in a BMW so I can't speak for them, but I stepped into a Kia Amanti @ a car show recently and I was stunned... my 02 GT felt so cheap afterwards, I could just imagine a BMW.
The Mustang is no luxury car, but they could definately afford to add a few nicer materials here and there.

 

[Route666]

A note about BMWs being overpriced.

For German journalists, beemers are locally built, and Mustangs would be imported. Which means prices are almost reversed. You can't blame them for being negative about something on a car that has to be imported, and may even cost more than a locally produced beemer of equal target buyer.

Like for us, Ford AU used to import Mustangs Cobras in 99, they had to convert them to RHD, and change lighting and stuff, and by the time you could buy one, it was 90 grand. You could buy a darn nice beemer for less than that, and even that's imported here, but that wasn't my point, just the cost of imported cars over locally produced ones.

 

[Sean`03///Zed4]

A few years ago I was seriously considering buying a BMW, 3 or 5. While the BMW inteiors on their $40K - $50K cars are clearly superior than a $25K Mustang, I was not all that impressed with the BMW interiors considering the price of a BMW. The standard seat material is "leatherette", which appears to be a fancy Germany name for "plastic". Leather is a $1,450 option and metallic paint is a $450 option.

Yes BMWs are nice, but they are expensive. A 330 with even modest option selections will run you $40K.

However, if Ford thinks that it can lure BMW 3 Series customers into buying a Mustang, Ford better get its ^&*( together and add some luxury options like DVD NAV, heated seats, etc. to the Mustang option list.

I respectfully disagree about the pricing factor for BMW's. One of the main reasons for bimmers to quote higher price is that they are techincally at higher level. Inline sixes are inherently costlier to manufacture. The transmissions (Getrag or ZedF<< Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen) epsecially the manual gearboxes are supposedly one of the best in the industry.
As a matter of fact if one has to factor in all the standard equipments such as DSC, CBC, ASC+T, ABS, Bi-VANOS, 4yr/50k mile warranty, 4yr/50k mile free maintenance, passenger airbag cutoff system, side/front/passenger system with weight and speed detection, advanced suspension & chassis geometry (high torsional rigidity, aluminum suspension components including lightweight struts and springs), advanced cooling system, automatic climate control and leatherette (which is actually referred to as synthetic leather & holds out better than leahter over time), electrical power steering. high resale value etc etc, it is a bang for the buck.
My 2.5 Zed4 base price is 33k and negotiating brings the price down to around 30k. Although I have quite some sporty "must have options" but I don't regret going for it, rather than a Corvette in a similiar price range. It's 0-60 is about 6.5 secs (decent enough) but what I really enjoy is not the (missing) ground pounding torque but the way it slices down the road especially the corners. The driving experince is a joy.

 

[upstate]

Having been the owner of a 70 Mustang Grande in the early 70's, that was as luxurius as they came back then. I agree satilite radio would of been a good start, to design a car that will look forward 5-10 years or more and not have satilite as an option is short sited. Navigation would be nice but I think way beyond where they were thinking. Auto dim mirror I thiught was standard on everything along with auto on/off headlights. Simple things like that don't take away from its sportyness but make it more up-to-date. I'm glad to see a tilt wheel and power windows with air, even if it dosen't offer auto air.

 

[351CJ]

Inline sixes are inherently costlier to manufacture.

Not true, inline 6s are cheaper to manufacture than a V6 and are way cheaper to manufacture than a V8.

I used to be in the machine tool business. The company I worked for sold production manufacturing equipment to the auto companies, so I kind of know about this sort of stuff.

You are correct a BMW 3 has a lot of nice things that you won't find on a Mustang, but you are paying for the aluminum suspension parts and the like. BMWs are expensive cars to own and to maintain once they're out of warranty.

 

[Sean`03///Zed4]

Not true, inline 6s are cheaper to manufacture than a V6 and are way cheaper to manufacture than a V8.

I used to be in the machine tool business. The company I worked for sold production manufacturing equipment to the auto companies, so I kind of know about this sort of stuff.

You are correct a BMW 3 has a lot of nice things that you won't find on a Mustang, but you are paying for the aluminum suspension parts and the like. BMWs are expensive cars to own and to maintain once they're out of warranty.

Where did you hear that. Cubical V8's are one of the cheapest to manufacture alongwith cubical V-6's because their geometrical shape gives an inherent stifness and inline sixes are costlier to manufacture because the process to make a stiff block out of lightweight material is involved.


http://www.car-forums.com/s16/t4509.html
"An inline unit is smoother as it reduces noise, vibration and harshness — but is more difficult to install and more expensive to produce."

Aluminum or lightweight suspension is the the norm and it results in better rebound and damping response giving the suspension & therefore it's handling more agility. As for car guys like us here , I have owned and maintained 3 bimmers and maintaning and running them is a much easier and economincal process.

Of course the unit of measurement is metric so it might be a problem here in the US

 

[351CJ]

Where did you hear that. Cubical V8's are one of the cheapest to manufacture alongwith cubical V-6's because their geometrical shape gives an inherent stifness and inline sixes are costlier to manufacture because the process to make a stiff block out of lightweight material is involved.

You are seriously mis-informed. BMW has done a masterful job convincing the world how wonderful I6s are. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The reason why BMW uses I6's, is because then BMW was a struggling car company in the 1950s and 1960 that sold cars with I4's, it was cheaper to move up to I6's instead of investing in new tooling for V engines.

I'6's are cheaper because they have only 1 head and half the # of cams, timing chains, etc. that a V engine does. The I5 has a much lower total parts count. Less parts means lower materials cost and less assembly time. Believe me, I know this stuff because I worked for a machine tool suppler to the auto companies. I know how this stuff is costed.

If I6's are so wonderful, why do ALL of BMWs top cars now have V8 / V10 / V12 engines?

 

[Route666]

Not to mention that the machining for a straight 6 is simpler, bores, etc lie in only one plane whereas V engine lie in two, requiring more complex CNC machines and/or programming, and/or labour in re-setting the block for machining in a seperate plane. Also, to me it seems that casting a V shape would be harder than a straight.

 

[351CJ]

Not to mention that the machining for a straight 6 is simpler, bores, etc lie in only one plane whereas V engine lie in two, requiring more complex CNC machines and/or programming, and/or labour in re-setting the block for machining in a seperate plane. Also, to me it seems that casting a V shape would be harder than a straight.

You are correct, an I6 block is simpler to machine.

I've seen machinery that machines V8 blocks by indexing the block 90 degrees (and then offsetting it for the L-R bore offset) and I've also seen machinery that can do both bore sides at the same time. Obviously machinery that can machine both bores at the same time is more expensive. But indexing the block and machining again takes more time and in high volume production, time is money.

But I6 blocks are machined in one shot by much simpler (and lower cost) equipment.

 

[Sean`03///Zed4]

LOL...there is not much complex machining involved as far as setting up the configuration of the basic block is concerned. It's a casting process whether its an inline six or V8 albeit different manufacturers deploy different methods. It's not like using a CNC machine to rebuild/increasing the bore as per desried specs..

Regarding the costs of the higher number of parts such as two heads and two sets of cam shafts it's offset by the production in higher volume & in all high volume production the innate parts are ususally supplied by OEM vendors.

The increase in costs for an inline six is also due to making the block stiffer as it loses the natural geometrical stiffness otherwise achieved configuration of a vee block. It's longitudinal shape to accomodate that long crank (which has 2 more journals than a V8 and therefore needs to be stronger) require added strength such as sideribs or addition of a soldly cast 'bedplate' beneath the main bearings botled to the block itself. This adds to the costs of manufacturing assembling/installing an inline-6 within an engine bay which must fit the block alongwith the accesories in front of it on it's subframe. The chassis has to be made stiff enough to ensure the rigidity stays within the specs.

On the other hand the seemingly increase in costs due to more parts involved in making a Vee block is offset as it can be fit transversely as well as longitudinally (for fwd/rwd cars) & designing seperate engine configurations are not required.

 

[Route666]

Can you list some references please? What you're saying sounds like it's coming from somewhere knowledgeable, I'd just like to see some other evidence of it other than you saying it, no offense intended toward your credibility, but this is after all the internet. I'm not buying that the V is cheaper to manufacture, as while there MAY be more volume for manufacturers making two heads for an engine, it still requires almost twice the material, and twice the casting/machining time, and when you build something in hundreds of thousands, every tiny bit of material extra on a product, and every few seconds extra it takes to make an item adds up to a huge bit. For two heads, sure they may be smaller, and have less cylinders per head, but overall there are more head bolt holes, as conjoining inline head bolts have to be doubled up in V heads. It may be quicker to machine these smaller heads, using two machines at once, but cost doesn't come from time, cost comes from machine running time, so 30 seconds of two machines costs basically the same as 60 seconds of one machine. I'm a quality controller for a manufacturer that produces on average approximately 1.5 million products per day, so each product is produced in less than 0.06 seconds. If each product took just 0.1 seconds longer to produce, we would only get about half a million per day, that's about 1 million items per day that we wouldn't make money on.

I'm also not really convince that there is any need for extra strengthening and cost involved in fitting an inline 6 into a car. The Aussie Falcon has and still does use an inline 6, and the same chassis, EXACTLY the same chassis fits the V8, and always has since the 60s.

I'm also not convinced about the supposed extra strengthening required in the inline motor, as there are more journals, and more mains area to support the forces than a V. I know the forces in an inline motor act much more directly on the mains caps, but a V has about twice as many cylinders per mains.

Seriously, give me links to support your case and I'll beleive it.

 

[351CJ]

Sean, you're grasping at straws, jumping all over the place in your arguemnts and contradicting yourself. It's pretty clear that you've drunk the BMW Cool-Aid and no longer want to follow any semblence of logic.

Production volume, nor what configuation cars (FWD/ RWD) the engine will be used in is not the issue. You started out your arguement saying that I6s cost more to make, without putting any of these conditions on your statement. This is pointless since BMW does not build FWD cars. But Volvo does use an I6 transversely in a FWD car, so your argument doesn't hold any water.

It doesn't matter whether the OEM is manufacturing the parts or they are buying them from a supplier, more parts = more cost AND more assembly time which = still more cost.

Give it up and admit that BMW has done a masterful job convincing people like you that I6s are superior.

But if I6s are really that superior, please tell my why BMW uses V8, V10 and V12 engines in their most expensive models? By your logic BMW should be putting those cheap V12s in their 1 series and saving the expensive I6s for the 7 series.

Finally, using your logic, please explain to me why a V8 545 costs more than a I6 530? Shouldn't the V8 545 be cheaper?

 

[Sean`03///Zed4]

Sean, you're grasping at straws, jumping all over the place in your arguemnts and contradicting yourself. It's pretty clear that you've drunk the BMW Cool-Aid and no longer want to follow any semblence of logic.

Production volume, nor what configuation cars (FWD/ RWD) the engine will be used in is not the issue. You started out your arguement saying that I6s cost more to make, without putting any of these conditions on your statement. This is pointless since BMW does not build FWD cars. But Volvo does use an I6 transversely in a FWD car, so your argument doesn't hold any water.

It doesn't matter whether the OEM is manufacturing the parts or they are buying them from a supplier, more parts = more cost AND more assembly time which = still more cost.

Give it up and admit that BMW has done a masterful job convincing people like you that I6s are superior.

But if I6s are really that superior, please tell my why BMW uses V8, V10 and V12 engines in their most expensive models? By your logic BMW should be putting those cheap V12s in their 1 series and saving the expensive I6s for the 7 series.

Finally, using your logic, please explain to me why a V8 545 costs more than a I6 530? Shouldn't the V8 545 be cheaper?

351 I have an engineering degree albeit in electronics but for the first two years we usually go through the basics wherein I opted for the mechanics of automobile engineering. I ended up with a master's in s/w but besides the degrees and what-not's the knowledge of increase in costs for Inline sixes vs 60 degrees v6's and 90 degree v8's is pretty much common.

The reason BMW does not go for inline sixes with a bigger engine volume is again the length of the unit. A 6.0 litre V12 will be approximately equal to the length of one 3 litre inline unit and the journal bearings is again maintained at 6 (6 * 2)whereas one would require a really long crank to accomodate for an inline 12 or inline 8 not to mention the huge length required in the engine bay and again the cost to stiffen the block. Keep in mind the main/rod end bearings are usually made of 'shells' of softer metals or specially developed alloys usually of lead, tin or bronze often with small amounts of more exotic metals deposited on a strong steel backing plate. These bearings usually combine resistance to high degree of erosion with a degree of 'give' to accomodate the ultra-thin oil film which actually carries the load.

Hence the cost of production again goes up as the number of journals and main bearings increase.
Of course I am guessing this is common place knowledge among mech engineers & I am surprised since you say you have experience in machining. Regarding reference to all this information I am not sure if one may find it on the internet.

Let's just say I have gone through & am quoting from reputable engineering book(s)/article(s) by American/European authors, the latter who mainly focuses on Euro engines and technologies citing machines from MB, BMW, Audi, Renault, Peugeot as well as the Euro Ford division as examples.

For instance resolutions for Al inherent problems, include treatment of machined aluminum alloy surfaces chemically, with a deposited layer which is then partially etched away to leave a raised surface basically of silicon with a network of microscopic channels to hold the lubricating oil in place....
.....one of the most familiar treatment is the Nicasil process, originally developed for the interior walls of the Wankel engine (the rotary engine) & first used in production piston engine by Porsche in it's so & so sized engine for the so-and-so model".

Crankshaft design schematics vary and depend upon engine load conditions & according to the load imposed by combustion pressures.

The crankshaft for Ford's Duratorq DI Direct Ignition turbo-diesel as used in the new Mondeo is formed by forging, has substantial overlap between the main and big-end bearings and eight counterweights, two per cylinder throw. In contrast the far more lightly loaded crankshaft for the Mondeo's 4-cylinder petrol engine is made of cast iron with only four conterweights.

I don't know if you want to believe all this information but you can run it by any Ford/BMW engineer any given sunday & they will confirm it's validity alongwith with other facts such as the theoritical peak effciency of an Otto cycle engine is no more than 20%.

BTW: Volvo uses a transversely mounted Inline 5 (2.3 through 2.5) & the only 2.9 litre inline 6 is also turbocharged and all these motors are undersquare in nature, i.e their bore is less than the stroke meaning the depth of the block will have an increase rather then the length. However it's still tight and that's why they opt for TC. The chassis where the inline 6 is mounted onto is the s80/XC90 which is wider than the s40-s60 series.

The S80 and XC90 are in the midsize and SUV segment having a width of about 72.1"/74.7" with a bore and stroke of 3.28 * 3.56 with a weight distribution of 57/43 fore and aft and overall weight of 3737/4750 respectively

The Zed4 is in the roadster category, overwall width around 68.5, bore * storke being 3.31 * 2.91 (oversquare) and overall weight of 2932 lbs. with a 50-50 weight distribution.

The dynamics of installing and adapting (packaging) the same motor longitudinally will bring change in the chassis characteristics mainly to maintain the rigidity and weight distribution evenly 50-50. (read previous post).

As for the higher base price of the 545. The car is placed in a different sector, in the midsize segment ( a 2.5l %-er costs about 15-17k more than a 2.5 I6 3 series. The 545 also has more technological gadgetry such as the I-drive, active roll stabilization, active steering, dual climate control, bigger wheels, 6-speed transmission with triple and double cone synchros. Well the list is quite different from say a 2.5 Zed4 hence the increase in base price.

 

[Route666]

351 I have an engineering degree albeit in electronics but for the first two years we usually go through the basics wherein I opted for the mechanics of automobile engineering. I ended up with a master's in s/w but besides the degrees and what-not's the knowledge of increase in costs for Inline sixes vs 60 degrees v6's and 90 degree v8's is pretty much common.

The reason BMW does not go for inline sixes with a bigger engine volume is again the length of the unit. A 6.0 litre V12 will be approximately equal to the length of one 3 litre inline unit and the journal bearings is again maintained at 6 (6 * 2)whereas one would require a really long crank to accomodate for an inline 12 or inline 8 not to mention the huge length required in the engine bay and again the cost to stiffen the block. Keep in mind the main/rod end bearings are usually made of 'shells' of softer metals or specially developed alloys usually of lead, tin or bronze often with small amounts of more exotic metals deposited on a strong steel backing plate. These bearings usually combine resistance to high degree of erosion with a degree of 'give' to accomodate the ultra-thin oil film which actually carries the load.

We weren't talking about 12 cylinders were we???, and also you just stated that BMW goes with the V because of length, not because of cost, or required chassis or engine block strength.

Hence the cost of production again goes up as the number of journals and main bearings increase.
Of course I am guessing this is common place knowledge among mech engineers & I am surprised since you say you have experience in machining. Regarding reference to all this information I am not sure if one may find it on the internet.

Machining more journals is one of the less time consuming things you could do, since they all lie on the same axis, even the same planar offsets. All you need to do is move the plane and you're machining different mains. Machining two heads requires setup and take down time, that is, the time to get the heads setup for the machine to work them, and then to take them both out once done. This takes more labour than moving the machine head further along to do the extra journals.

Let's just say I have gone through & am quoting from reputable engineering book(s)/article(s) by American/European authors, the latter who mainly focuses on Euro engines and technologies citing machines from MB, BMW, Audi, Renault, Peugeot as well as the Euro Ford division as examples.

Which books?

The dynamics of installing and adapting (packaging) the same motor longitudinally will bring change in the chassis characteristics mainly to maintain the rigidity and weight distribution evenly 50-50. (read previous post).

Engine installation and adaptation is dynamic? Every vehicle I have seen has a static mounting system for engine to chassis and to clutch and transmission, etc. Also, I don't understand what changes need to be done to maintain rigidity whilst mounting either a V or I. What is required, when installing a straight 6 to maintain the same level of rigidity the chassis would have with a V6?

 

[351CJ]

Sean, it's probably time to quit here. You keep confusing design and manufacturing issues. And you keep throwing in information that has NOTHING to do with the discussion of whether an I6 or V8 is more costly to manufacture. Also, the ridgity of a I6 block is a design issue, not a manufacturing issue.

The use of AL, etching AL, Nicasil, iron liners, steel liner, etc. have NOTHING to do with whether a I or V engine is cheaper to manufacture. Again you're just blowing smoke here not addressing the issue.

The main journals in the block are ALL machined at the same time in one operation. It doesn't matter whether there are 5 or 7 main bearings, their all machined at the same time in one operation.

I'm an EE too, but I worked in the machine tool business for many years and I've spent a lot of time inside auto manufacturing plants, mainly engine and transmission. I later became a project engineer who was responsible for system design on the machine tools we built, for making sure the whole system worked properly and was resonsible for overseeing the intsallation of them in the auto plants. My experience is first hand. I used to deal with manufacturing engineers from the big 3 on a daily basis.

 

[Sean`03///Zed4]

Sean, it's probably time to quit here. You keep confusing design and manufacturing issues. And you keep throwing in information that has NOTHING to do with the discussion of whether an I6 or V8 is more costly to manufacture. Also, the ridgity of a I6 block is a design issue, not a manufacturing issue.

The use of AL, etching AL, Nicasil, iron liners, steel liner, etc. have NOTHING to do with whether a I or V engine is cheaper to manufacture. Again you're just blowing smoke here not addressing the issue.

The main journals in the block are ALL machined at the same time in one operation. It doesn't matter whether there are 5 or 7 main bearings, their all machined at the same time in one operation.

I'm an EE too, but I worked in the machine tool business for many years and I've spent a lot of time inside auto manufacturing plants, mainly engine and transmission. I later became a project engineer who was responsible for system design on the machine tools we built, for making sure the whole system worked properly and was resonsible for overseeing the intsallation of them in the auto plants. My experience is first hand. I used to deal with manufacturing engineers from the big 3 on a daily basis.

Jeez 351 you and Route 666 should take a damn chill pill. . No need to get defensive here, remember the original point was to prove why BMW's costs higher, you guys think your Mustang is well priced fine by me. I am happy with the pricing factor of my Zed4, no gripes there.

Besides this not a competition to see who can make whom quit first, it's a forum to share knowledge and so far I don't see any pertinent information coming from either of you or disputing what I said.

Route 666: I brought up the V12 because it was an issue for 351 & for the same reason i brought up the V8 in the 545. Apparently reading & understanding the content of someone's posts is a trifle more important than trying to salvage an image of "know it all".

351: I never said anything about production costs when i mentioned Al etching process. The information was cited because you displayed doubts in the integrity of the information.
Also if you would know the proper term of reference is Al (that's a small 'l' not a capital one)


You guys want to know which books I refer to, well they are degree books, you want to know which books , go and do some research.

From what I have seen from you and Route 666, I think you guys have hands on experience on machining or rebuilding engine and related components. That's the reason you two are merging costs on machining/rebulding at a smaller scale (assuming garage level work) with high volume level production. The two process are different with different setups. In this case knowledge of the basics/theory would have helped but apparently not going to happen.

At the same time consistently saying I am wrong is just a biased opinion. If any one of you have to disprove what I am saying put your money where your mouth is post some links and then do it otherwise I have to opine both of you are blowing out a little more than just a little of smoke. Get it!