BMW (Toyota Supra) B58 Engine Teardown Video

Messages
7,879
Location
Michigan
Originally Posted by PimTac
Interesting to say the least. So what happens to the Supra now? These guys will slap the engine back together, reinstall and get it on the market at a discount? Sounds like a upcoming thread here on BITOG.
Candidate for an LS swap!
 
Messages
186
Location
FL
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by PimTac
Interesting to say the least. So what happens to the Supra now? These guys will slap the engine back together, reinstall and get it on the market at a discount? Sounds like a upcoming thread here on BITOG.
Candidate for an LS swap!
Speaking of V8s, there's a popular video game called Car Mechanic Simulator. Interestingly, the character finds a V8 Supra at the junkyard to rebuild. He also found a V6 BMW M3 to work on. I don't think the video game editors were too much into cars.
 
Messages
10,017
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Everyone is missing the point. Weight distribution is a useless metric. If I can create a 50/50 car in my driveway right now with nothing but cinder blocks, and the selling feature of some cars is 50/50, then there's something inadequate about the concept of 50/50 weight distribution. We need a better yardstick by which we can compare cars--a yardstick that can't be gamed so easily. Static weight distribution is a very simple concept though, and one that people love to latch on. The relevant concept is the moment of interia. Unfortunately, high school physics doesn't cover this concept, and so people like to talk endlessly instead about "weight distribution" rather than what's actually on a BMW or Audi or Porsche designer's mind, which would be the moment of inertia. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I highly doubt you ever seen where BMW engine is located. Yes, you can achieve 50:50% with other tricks. Audi due to Torsen has to push engine forward, and they are desperately trying to push engine back, so they were very proud that B9 engine is pushed 3mm back compared to B8. They have battery below spare tire in some vehicles, heavy speakers at rear board etc. But fact is, and you point that correctly, engine is too far in front. THAT IS NOT THE CASE IN BMW. Engine sits BEHIND front axle! You are trying to tell us that BMW's claim of 50:50% is gimmick, when it is not, bcs engien and transmission are pushed far back to achieve that weigh balance, where most weight is located between front and rear axle. The introduction of electronic shifter in automatic transmissions was done to allow better position of transmission. All that is done, yet here we are with claims that that is not true. Only thing I can figure out is that you have never peaked under the hood of BMW.
 
Messages
10,017
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by madRiver
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Originally Posted by edyvw
Not necessarily. BMW was able to achieve perfect distribution with older engines. 335i with N55 engine had distribution 49/51% in F30 model.
I can build a car with 2000 pounds in front of the front axle and 2000 pounds behind the rear axle and get a "perfect" 50/50 weight distribution. But would you track such a car? Or would you prefer that the weight be more concentrated toward the center of the vehicle? BMW's obsession with "weight distribution" is little more than marketing. It's not really about 50/50 front/rear. More important is where the weight is located.
Yes you can build a track car(one trick pony) however BMW builds a far more complex machine with way more variables including comfort, feel, performance for a price point. It laughable you consider your track building comparable to building a production vehicle.
He is talking about how he can build car with 2000lbs in front of front axle. I am not sure for the love of God where is he getting idea that BMW's engine sits in front of axle? Audi etc. yes, but BMW? BMW does not have spare tire bcs. precisely of that reason. Only thing obvious here is that BMW is seriously foreign concept to him.
 
Messages
186
Location
FL
Originally Posted by edyvw
He is talking about how he can build car with 2000lbs in front of front axle. I am not sure for the love of God where is he getting idea that BMW's engine sits in front of axle? Audi etc. yes, but BMW? BMW does not have spare tire bcs. precisely of that reason. Only thing obvious here is that BMW is seriously foreign concept to him.
Again, you completely missed the point. I made an analogy between the claim of "perfect 50/50 weight distribution" and a hypothetical car with 5000 pounds located ahead of the front axle and 5000 behind the rear axle. Both have the "perfect" distribution, but one vehicle is decidedly imperfect. An analogy is different than saying two things are exactly the same. I made an analogy. I did not say BMW puts an engine ahead of the front axle. Are we clear about analogies now? Also, have you studied what moment of inertia is? There are many excellent articles about the moment of inertia and how it relates to Porsche cars online.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,751
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Originally Posted by edyvw
He is talking about how he can build car with 2000lbs in front of front axle. I am not sure for the love of God where is he getting idea that BMW's engine sits in front of axle? Audi etc. yes, but BMW? BMW does not have spare tire bcs. precisely of that reason. Only thing obvious here is that BMW is seriously foreign concept to him.
Again, you completely missed the point. I made an analogy between the claim of "perfect 50/50 weight distribution" and a hypothetical car with 5000 pounds located ahead of the front axle and 5000 behind the rear axle. Both have the "perfect" distribution, but one vehicle is decidedly imperfect. An analogy is different than saying two things are exactly the same. I made an analogy. I did not say BMW puts an engine ahead of the front axle. Are we clear about analogies now? Also, have you studied what moment of inertia is? There are many excellent articles about the moment of inertia and how it relates to Porsche cars online.
Yes, BMW believes in both. 50:50 weight distribution AMD reducing MOI. That is why they extensively use aluminium at the ends of the vehicle, and in the front subframes and suspension components.
 
Messages
10,017
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Originally Posted by edyvw
He is talking about how he can build car with 2000lbs in front of front axle. I am not sure for the love of God where is he getting idea that BMW's engine sits in front of axle? Audi etc. yes, but BMW? BMW does not have spare tire bcs. precisely of that reason. Only thing obvious here is that BMW is seriously foreign concept to him.
Again, you completely missed the point. I made an analogy between the claim of "perfect 50/50 weight distribution" and a hypothetical car with 5000 pounds located ahead of the front axle and 5000 behind the rear axle. Both have the "perfect" distribution, but one vehicle is decidedly imperfect. An analogy is different than saying two things are exactly the same. I made an analogy. I did not say BMW puts an engine ahead of the front axle. Are we clear about analogies now? Also, have you studied what moment of inertia is? There are many excellent articles about the moment of inertia and how it relates to Porsche cars online.
So, you made analogy. So what that has to do with BMW when BMW has perfect distribution and most of that weight is between axles? What is the point of that? I know very well what is inertia, but where you getting that inertia when majority of weight in BMW is between axles? If we were talking about Audi, OK, we could say: yes, that bunch of steel, aluminum, plastic and rubber that is called engine sits in front of axle so it is creating understeer, but that is NOT the case with BMW. So, why we are talking about analogies when BMW has that perfect weight distribution, and there is nothing that hangs over axles? What is teh point? If BMW has "inertia" problems, where it is coming from? Tell us which part of BMW 340i F30 with B58 engine or G20 with B58 engine creates "inertia." Otherwise, what is the point of your argument? Or, if B58 engine with chain is in the back to address those (nonexistent) issues, tell us what creates that "inertia" in F30 335i or E90 335i with N55 engine? Enlighten us!
 
Last edited:
Messages
977
Location
USA
Thread starter
50/50 isn't "perfect" for a sports car. There's a reason mid-engine sports cars are superior. Closer to 45/55 - 40/60 is better.
 
Messages
186
Location
FL
Originally Posted by edyvw
What is teh point? If BMW has "inertia" problems, where it is coming from? Tell us which part of BMW 340i F30 with B58 engine or G20 with B58 engine creates "inertia." Otherwise, what is the point of your argument? Or, if B58 engine with chain is in the back to address those (nonexistent) issues, tell us what creates that "inertia" in F30 335i or E90 335i with N55 engine? Enlighten us!
Why are you so invested in defending the honor of BMW? Can you please explain what's so "perfect" about 50/50 weight distribution? Many sports cars do just fine without the "perfect" 50/50 distribution; the 911 is an example. Also, you don't know how car design works. There are no inertia "problems" with modern BMWs per se. It's all on a continuum; the optimization of the center of inertia isn't a right/wrong issue. There's a spectrum, on which one extreme would be a car that has 5000 pound ballasts on the bumpers, with the other extreme being a point mass. Car engineers today are interested in saving literal grams per component. There are few ways to drop 20 pounds here and 40 pounds there and 30 pounds here and 100 pounds there. There's a reason you pay a $20,000 premium for, say, a Lexus RC F, which drops about 18 pounds over the standard RC F, and uses a smaller A/C compressor to shave less than a pound of weight. Weight savings, and by extension, optimizing mass, mass distribution, and center of inertia (all related), are hard to come by. Moving the chain around doesn't seem like much to a layman, but even fractions of a pound and the location of the weight/mass are all worth fighting for.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,124
Location
Atlanta,GA
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
experimented with front side ballast in order to introduce some balance to the 911 due to the extreme rearward bias? I'm guessing you've never heard of under/oversteer? In any case your point is moot because while you're correct that "50/50" can be achieved in many ways there are only a few industry accepted ways of which none* include ballast other than my Porsche example.
So close but so far from the correct technical explanation of what Porsche was hoping to achieve. Over and understeering are directly related to the moment of inertia and mass distribution in the vehicle, not static weight distribution.
Front grip also is a factor with regards to the degree of over/understeer. As for static weight distribution if its 40-60 the majority of the mass is going to be at the rear which coincidentally is going to be were most of the weight is as well.
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Originally Posted by edyvw
What is teh point? If BMW has "inertia" problems, where it is coming from? Tell us which part of BMW 340i F30 with B58 engine or G20 with B58 engine creates "inertia." Otherwise, what is the point of your argument? Or, if B58 engine with chain is in the back to address those (nonexistent) issues, tell us what creates that "inertia" in F30 335i or E90 335i with N55 engine? Enlighten us!
Why are you so invested in defending the honor of BMW? Can you please explain what's so "perfect" about 50/50 weight distribution? Many sports cars do just fine without the "perfect" 50/50 distribution; the 911 is an example. Also, you don't know how car design works. There are no inertia "problems" with modern BMWs per se. It's all on a continuum; the optimization of the center of inertia isn't a right/wrong issue. There's a spectrum, on which one extreme would be a car that has 5000 pound ballasts on the bumpers, with the other extreme being a point mass. Car engineers today are interested in saving literal grams per component. There are few ways to drop 20 pounds here and 40 pounds there and 30 pounds here and 100 pounds there. There's a reason you pay a $20,000 premium for, say, a Lexus RC F, which drops about 18 pounds over the standard RC F, and uses a smaller A/C compressor to shave less than a pound of weight. Weight savings, and by extension, optimizing mass, mass distribution, and center of inertia (all related), are hard to come by. Moving the chain around doesn't seem like much to a layman, but even fractions of a pound and the location of the weight/mass are all worth fighting for.
For the typical driver the closer to 50/50 the better especially when on a spirited drive because 50/50 provides a more neutral feel with regards to handling. The 911 is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion because at high speeds or on a very spirited drive the typical 911 requires a different driving technique because of all the mass over the rear axle. I really can't figure out what point you're trying to make because you know that in the automotive world when people speaking about weight distribution they're talking about mass. Perhaps you should write to the automotive press with a complaint that they have a ethical obligation to say "mass distribution" rather than "weight distribution"? Oh and btw big reason why Lexus or anyone charges a huge premium for street compliant track-vehicles has very little to do with the actual cost of the weight saving components.
 
Last edited:
Messages
5,124
Location
Atlanta,GA
Originally Posted by E365
50/50 isn't "perfect" for a sports car. There's a reason mid-engine sports cars are superior. Closer to 45/55 - 40/60 is better.
Think about it terms of a stock street car and the average driver rather than the professional/semi-professional who has hours upon hours on the track in a track-prep'd vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Messages
186
Location
FL
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
I really can't figure out what point you're trying to make because you know that in the automotive world when people speaking about weight distribution they're talking about mass. Perhaps you should write to the automotive press with a complaint that they have a ethical obligation to say "mass distribution" rather than "weight distribution"?
Some of the press is already informed with regard to the difference between weight and mass. There are plenty of great articles about Porsche and its mass distribution, center of mass, moment of inertia, etc. And no, people rarely are referring to mass distribution when they say "weight distribution." Imagine that you're starting a professional basketball team. Your sole criteria for selecting players is that they have to be over 6'4". That's a good point to start with, but ultimately, it's insufficient as the sole criteria. There are plenty of great players under your "perfect" 6'4" height. Same with the fetish regarding the "perfect" 50/50 weight distribution. 50/50 weight distribution is a okay starting point, but again, it's insufficient. The somewhat nose-heavy Camry can be made 50/50 with the simple addition of a few cinder blocks in the trunk. Does that make the Camry a great sports car though? It would behoove us to choose some better criteria so we can have an informed discussion about cars instead of useless and random blathering. The better criteria is: mass distribution.
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,017
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
I really can't figure out what point you're trying to make because you know that in the automotive world when people speaking about weight distribution they're talking about mass. Perhaps you should write to the automotive press with a complaint that they have a ethical obligation to say "mass distribution" rather than "weight distribution"?
Some of the press is already informed with regard to the difference between weight and mass. There are plenty of great articles about Porsche and its mass distribution, center of mass, moment of inertia, etc. And no, people rarely are referring to mass distribution when they say "weight distribution." Imagine that you're starting a professional basketball team. Your sole criteria for selecting players is that they have to be over 6'4". That's a good point to start with, but ultimately, it's insufficient as the sole criteria. There are plenty of great players under your "perfect" 6'4" height. Same with the fetish regarding the "perfect" 50/50 weight distribution. 50/50 weight distribution is a okay starting point, but again, it's insufficient. The somewhat nose-heavy Camry can be made 50/50 with the simple addition of a few cinder blocks in the trunk. Does that make the Camry a great sports car though? It would behoove us to choose some better criteria so we can have an informed discussion about cars instead of useless and random blathering. The better criteria is: mass distribution.
You tied yourself so much into knot. It is time you actually realize that you have no idea what you talking about.
 
Messages
10,017
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Originally Posted by edyvw
What is teh point? If BMW has "inertia" problems, where it is coming from? Tell us which part of BMW 340i F30 with B58 engine or G20 with B58 engine creates "inertia." Otherwise, what is the point of your argument? Or, if B58 engine with chain is in the back to address those (nonexistent) issues, tell us what creates that "inertia" in F30 335i or E90 335i with N55 engine? Enlighten us!
Why are you so invested in defending the honor of BMW? Can you please explain what's so "perfect" about 50/50 weight distribution? Many sports cars do just fine without the "perfect" 50/50 distribution; the 911 is an example. Also, you don't know how car design works. There are no inertia "problems" with modern BMWs per se. It's all on a continuum; the optimization of the center of inertia isn't a right/wrong issue. There's a spectrum, on which one extreme would be a car that has 5000 pound ballasts on the bumpers, with the other extreme being a point mass. Car engineers today are interested in saving literal grams per component. There are few ways to drop 20 pounds here and 40 pounds there and 30 pounds here and 100 pounds there. There's a reason you pay a $20,000 premium for, say, a Lexus RC F, which drops about 18 pounds over the standard RC F, and uses a smaller A/C compressor to shave less than a pound of weight. Weight savings, and by extension, optimizing mass, mass distribution, and center of inertia (all related), are hard to come by. Moving the chain around doesn't seem like much to a layman, but even fractions of a pound and the location of the weight/mass are all worth fighting for.
Again, read my previous posts. You have no idea what you talking about. Lexus RC is really not good example because for class where it plays it is too heavy. Again, tell us what ballast on bumpers have to do with BMW? This is topic about BMW B58 engine not Lexus or microwaves like Camry. Tell us where is that mass located in BMW G20 or F30 or E90? Ony thing clear here is that you tied yourself into knot and trying to get out of discussion as providing some argument. I asked you about BMW and you talking about some appliance FWD cars or attempts of sport cars like RC F. Only clear here is that you have no idea about BMW. But, if I need some ballasts when doing some work on a house, I know who to ask.
 
Last edited:
Messages
186
Location
FL
Originally Posted by edyvw
Lexus RC is really not good example because for class where it plays it is too heavy. Again, tell us what ballast on bumpers have to do with BMW? This is topic about BMW B58 engine not Lexus or microwaves like Camry. Tell us where is that mass located in BMW G20 or F30 or E90? Ony thing clear here is that you tied yourself into knot and trying to get out of discussion as providing some argument. I asked you about BMW and you talking about some appliance FWD cars or attempts of sport cars like RC F. Only clear here is that you have no idea about BMW. But, if I need some ballasts when doing some work on a house, I know who to ask.
I'm in the automotive industry. Whole-vehicle evaluations are not pertinent to this discussion regarding mass distribution and moment of inertia. Whether a M3 or RC F or 911 are good, bad, or average sports cars is irrelevant to why the timing chain is on the rear of a B58 engine. Comments like yours show that your understanding of vehicle engineering doesn't go far beyond what anyone can read in Car&Driver. And you make my point for me. Even with such a "heavy" car as the RC F, weight savings are hard to come by. And in a more weight-optimized car, like a BMW with a B58 engine, weight savings are even harder to come by. What you can do is to optimize the mass distribution of the vehicle, given that weight reductions (mass reductions) are not going to be very easy to come by. The next step will be further electrification of the drivetrain. The new Mercedes inline 6 is a very good from a high-level engineering perspective. It eliminates the accessory belt system that's commonly found on the front of engines. That right there gives you weight and mass savings, while optimizing the moment of inertia by removing mass from the front of the vehicle. I expect BMW to lose the accessory belt system in a few years as well.
 
Last edited:
Messages
10,017
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by Deontologist
Originally Posted by edyvw
Lexus RC is really not good example because for class where it plays it is too heavy. Again, tell us what ballast on bumpers have to do with BMW? This is topic about BMW B58 engine not Lexus or microwaves like Camry. Tell us where is that mass located in BMW G20 or F30 or E90? Ony thing clear here is that you tied yourself into knot and trying to get out of discussion as providing some argument. I asked you about BMW and you talking about some appliance FWD cars or attempts of sport cars like RC F. Only clear here is that you have no idea about BMW. But, if I need some ballasts when doing some work on a house, I know who to ask.
I'm in the automotive industry. Whole-vehicle evaluations are not pertinent to this discussion regarding mass distribution and moment of inertia. Whether a M3 or RC F or 911 are good, bad, or average sports cars is irrelevant to why the timing chain is on the rear of a B58 engine. Comments like yours show that your understanding of vehicle engineering doesn't go far beyond what anyone can read in Car&Driver. And you make my point for me. Even with such a "heavy" car as the RC F, weight savings are hard to come by. And in a more weight-optimized car, like a BMW with a B58 engine, weight savings are even harder to come by. What you can do is to optimize the mass distribution of the vehicle, given that weight reductions (mass reductions) are not going to be very easy to come by. The next step will be further electrification of the drivetrain. The new Mercedes inline 6 is a very good from a high-level engineering perspective. It eliminates the accessory belt system that's commonly found on the front of engines. That right there gives you weight and mass savings, while optimizing the moment of inertia by removing mass from the front of the vehicle. I expect BMW to lose the accessory belt system in a few years as well.
I was in car industry too, so please, do not give me that BS. I asked you about "ballast," where is it in G20, F30 or E90, and you gave me Toyota Camry as an example. Last time I checked, Camry is not BMW 3 series. Lexus RC-f is heavy due to platform, it has engine pushed forward compared to BMW. Engine mostly sits bit ahead of front axle, and it is V8, which is NOT comparable to BMW. Like I said, you tied yourself into knot and you do not know your way out.
 

Pew

Messages
961
Location
Illinois
Originally Posted by Deontologist
[quote=edyvw] The next step will be further electrification of the drivetrain. The new Mercedes inline 6 is a very good from a high-level engineering perspective. It eliminates the accessory belt system that's commonly found on the front of engines. That right there gives you weight and mass savings, while optimizing the moment of inertia by removing mass from the front of the vehicle. I expect BMW to lose the accessory belt system in a few years as well.
Yea, and now we need turkey basters to change the oil instead of just letting good ole natural gravity do it's work.[/quote]
 
Messages
10,017
Location
Colorado Springs
Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by Deontologist
[quote=edyvw] The next step will be further electrification of the drivetrain. The new Mercedes inline 6 is a very good from a high-level engineering perspective. It eliminates the accessory belt system that's commonly found on the front of engines. That right there gives you weight and mass savings, while optimizing the moment of inertia by removing mass from the front of the vehicle. I expect BMW to lose the accessory belt system in a few years as well.
Yea, and now we need turkey basters to change the oil instead of just letting good ole natural gravity do it's work.
I did not even see this gem. So MB optimized inertia by removing mass from front, yet engine still sits more forward than in BMW or Alfa Romeo. One cannot make this up.[/quote]
 
I say this as a BMW enthusiast. I am not impressed with that over engineered B58 motor. It was designed by a bunch of engineers who never so much as changed their own spark plugs. I love my BMWs but I will not buy the brand again. Next up, oil pan removals for oil changes because the drain plug compromises pan stiffness. A 3.0L inline six with 335 horsepower. Big deal. With all that "engineering" I would have expected 500+. Watching this makes a Tesla seem appealing to me! Scott
 
Messages
7,016
Location
North Carolina
Originally Posted by SLO_Town
I say this as a BMW enthusiast. I am not impressed with that over engineered B58 motor. It was designed by a bunch of engineers who never so much as changed their own spark plugs. I love my BMWs but I will not buy the brand again. Next up, oil pan removals for oil changes because the drain plug compromises pan stiffness. A 3.0L inline six with 335 horsepower. Big deal. With all that "engineering" I would have expected 500+. Watching this makes a Tesla seem appealing to me! Scott
Interesting that that was your takeaway, Scott. I saw a lot of smart packaging and intelligent design, moreso than BMW has shown since the turn of the century.
 
Top