Taken from Car and Driver on the 760Li...
...

Okay, enough techno babble. What kind of power does the big sedan make? Try 438 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 444 pound-feet of torque at 3950 rpm. It's less power than the Mercedes V-12 makes, but that's made with turbocharging. BMW considers turbos or superchargers to be low-tech shortcuts to power, horsepower solutions unfit for a flagship engine. Blowers, they say, add weight and complexity and reduce throttle response. Ask a BMW engineer if the V-12 might one day be turbocharged, and you'll get a scowl and a curt, "Nein!"

I love you BMW :)

... i think i've heard that before, from other engineers about turbos or forced induction systems being short term stop gaps for more power in production cars...

of course in racing, there ARE merits to using turbos, but then again there are serious comprimizes in using them.... i certainly wouldn't say they're "low tech", but i would say "short on finesse"... :)

I reckon turbo's arnt all theyr cracked up to be, hell, shure they give u power, but the lag time is pathetic, if i want power, i want it now!
Superchargers are the way i'd go, you save money on Insurance too (allot of money). shure, superchargers take to give, but in the sort of car the rx8 is, its not a drag car, mor of a twisty road, high cornering speedstype car. (well to me anyway)
so i say power when u need it,
I loath street racers, and that pathetic whoosh sound at 20km/h down the driveway !Dumb!
silent supercharging i say (but whichever gives more horses the better :cool: :D :cool: :p :cool: :D )

Originally posted by PsYcHo_Pilot
I reckon turbo's arnt all theyr cracked up to be, hell, shure they give u power, but the lag time is pathetic, if i want power, i want it now!
Superchargers are the way i'd go, you save money on Insurance too (allot of money). shure, superchargers take to give, but in the sort of car the rx8 is, its not a drag car, mor of a twisty road, high cornering speedstype car. (well to me anyway)
so i say power when u need it,
I loath street racers, and that pathetic whoosh sound at 20km/h down the driveway !Dumb!
silent supercharging i say (but whichever gives more horses the better :cool: :D :cool: :p :cool: :D )

Silent Supercharging???? Hows that possable Mine sounds like a screaming Banshee with the Eaton at WOT. RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. :D

HAHAHH, poor bugger, Roots type i'm guessing

I just get pissed off at that pathetic lag u get, and the street racers cruising at the same speed,with all the traffic and u can hear the blow off every 5 seconds (exaggeration of course).

I stand by my Centrafugal supercharger, its the most efficient of all (according to my knowlege) with 75% adiabatic efficiency, so an about 40% power increase sounds peachy to me...:cool: :D :cool: :D :cool: :D :cool: :D

Originally posted by wakeech
... i think i've heard that before, from other engineers about turbos or forced induction systems being short term stop gaps for more power in production cars...

of course in racing, there ARE merits to using turbos, but then again there are serious comprimizes in using them.... i certainly wouldn't say they're "low tech", but i would say "short on finesse"... :) They are low tech to BMW because they have great engineers and would rather produce the power honestly than with the help of turbos. McLaren F1 produced the highest top speed in a NA v12 from none other than BMW.

Nobody can beat that NA :)

I didn't see BMW compete in the last couple Le Mans. Probably cause they're afraid of getting smoked by turbo's :) If you had displacement to work with...why would you concern yourself with FI. NA has it's burdens too. If the McLaren engine is the pinnacle of NA engines, then it takes 6.0L to get 627hp. While with FI, the same amount of power can be had from 2-3L engines. I would bet the 2-3L engines weigh considerably less than the 6L. I think I'd rather have a NA engine than one with FI for a daily driver.

Originally posted by visitor
I didn't see BMW compete in the last couple Le Mans. Probably cause they're afraid of getting smoked by turbo's :) If you had displacement to work with...why would you concern yourself with FI. NA has it's burdens too. If the McLaren engine is the pinnacle of NA engines, then it takes 6.0L to get 627hp. While with FI, the same amount of power can be had from 2-3L engines. I would bet the 2-3L engines weigh considerably less than the 6L. I think I'd rather have a NA engine than one with FI for a daily driver. Same. I prefer NA on my daily driver for the throttle response, and that way I pay for the actual development time and not the horsepower rating. That's why I don't like those STis and Evo VIIIs coming out... very fast cars but with turbos, there are lots of cars that can be :)

Originally posted by Hercules
That's why I don't like those STis and Evo VIIIs coming out... very fast cars but with turbos, there are lots of cars that can be :)

I like the new STI, sans big gull wing. There's a truck trail going up a hill, around 5 miles. Would have lots of fun driving a rally car up that thing.

erm sometimes turbos are the only solution to get more power without rebuilding the engine.