[chiefneil]

Originally Posted by fshubert

I'm impressed with BMW engineering. The normally aspirated V8's are awesome and I love the turbo straight six. The Turbo V8's are very odd indeed. Can't figure out why an engineer would think sticking two (not one, but two) turbos in the well of the "V". Yeah, not much room under the hood outside the engine. Maybe time to move off of turbochargers and on to superchargers?

It's called a "hot" design, sometimes "hot inside V" or "hot v" design. It's done for packaging and to reduce turbo lag.

Quoting from a couple websites:

On the MB hot v:
The advantages of this layout: the eight-cylinder engine has more compact dimensions, which allow the low installation position as well as optimum weight distribution between the front and rear axles. The “hot inside V“ also optimises the supply of fresh air to both exhaust gas turbochargers.

Wiki on the N63:
The exhaust manifolds and turbochargers are located between the banks of cylinders (i.e. on the "inside" of the V8) and the intake manifolds are located on the outside of the engine;[3] this is the opposite of the traditional manifold arrangement for a V8. This new design creates a more compact engine package and reduces the width of the assembled engine, also decreasing the distance from the exhaust manifolds to the turbochargers.[4] The engine uses air-to-water intercoolers, which are more efficient and provide a shorter air path than standard air-to-air intercoolers.[1]

http://jalopnik.com/the-coolest-hot-...nes-1632591852

[chiefneil]

I wonder if efficient dynamics is a partial explanation for the very weird dead battery behavior I experienced with our E70 X5 (2012 model, N55 engine).

One day the car would start, but immediately die. We restarted a few times like that but couldn't keep it running. The symptoms were classic fuel-pump related so I called BMW Assist. The tow truck driver (after a 3 hour wait, that's another story) started the car and backed it up, but it died in the driveway. He repeated the process a few times and finally got it up on the truck.

I was positive the problem was a bad fuel pump, but the verdict from the dealer was dead battery. A dead battery that could actually start the car multiple times but not keep it running more than 4-5 seconds. Who knew?

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by E90Fleet

Less than a average of say 10miles a day.
Know a couple N63 that do a less than that.

I can see that happening, but cringe at the idea of a V8 driving less than 10 miles from each start up.

Even smaller engines really need more than 10 miles a single run to get some heat into them and a degree of energy recovery.

HighlandPete

[fshubert]

Originally Posted by chiefneil

It's called a "hot" design, sometimes "hot inside V" or "hot v" design. It's done for packaging and to reduce turbo lag.

Quoting from a couple websites:

On the MB hot v:
The advantages of this layout: the eight-cylinder engine has more compact dimensions, which allow the low installation position as well as optimum weight distribution between the front and rear axles. The “hot inside V“ also optimises the supply of fresh air to both exhaust gas turbochargers.

Wiki on the N63:
The exhaust manifolds and turbochargers are located between the banks of cylinders (i.e. on the "inside" of the V8) and the intake manifolds are located on the outside of the engine;[3] this is the opposite of the traditional manifold arrangement for a V8. This new design creates a more compact engine package and reduces the width of the assembled engine, also decreasing the distance from the exhaust manifolds to the turbochargers.[4] The engine uses air-to-water intercoolers, which are more efficient and provide a shorter air path than standard air-to-air intercoolers.[1]

http://jalopnik.com/the-coolest-hot-...nes-1632591852

Very interesting. I didn't think the design was lackadaisical and it seems like it was quite thought out.

[Thumper333]

Originally Posted by ft1330

You're right, that's what I get for commenting halfway through reading an article. Overall this V8 doesn't seem like it was designed very well from the get go.

There's nothing wrong with the engine design. The fault lies in the ridiculous lengths to be seen as "green". The fault is with a system that KNOWS a battery needs to be recharged but chooses NOT to so as to 'save' power.

Do you HONESTLY think anyone that buys a twin turbo V8 is going to complain because they get 21MPG instead of 24MPG?? But the stupid "fleet averages" force this garbage on the manufacture.....because all attempts to punish the consumer directly failed. I paid a $4000 "gas guzzler" tax on my 2008 Super Bee, pissed me off, but didn't stop me. Didn't stop lots of other people either, same engine as the SRT8 which they sell plenty of.

Here's a question the fake environmentalists probably never care about. Putting this system in place saves gas, raising the MPG of the car and making everyone feel fuzzy. BUT.....you are tossing out a battery every 10 months instead of 5-7 years average, that's a 500% increase in disposal of batteries. That's 500% MORE energy used to recycle what you can out of them.....500% more toxic waste that must be rendered inert and then disposed of safely. 500% more batteries to be made and shipped......meaning a 500% increase production and transportation energy used.

Where exactly are we coming out ahead here? CFLs, solar panels, wind turbines, etc, etc........no one ever looks at the life-cycle of their solutions. It's like going to a doctor with a pain in your arm and having them amputate. Well, your arm doesn't hurt anymore right? Problem solved......next! lol

The proper, and truly environmental fix would be to let the thing charge it's battery like it is supposed to.

Originally Posted by eric@helix

Maybe the future of internal combustion car ownership includes plugging in your car like a plug-in hybrid.

No, no it doesn't. The "future" means advancements and making cars better, making them do more than they do now. Plug-in technology is a step BACKWARDS, reducing the functionality of the tool that we call the Car.

When we get 750HP AWDs with individual electric motors at each wheel powered by an onboard nuclear reactor with a service life of 10 years with no fill ups...........that will be an advancement. Heck, even Mr. Fusion would be an advancement LOL Hybrid and EVs are a fad. The only thing keeping them around is government subsidies. If buying a disco record gave you a tax credit and the disco musicians were being paid to cover their losses......we'd all still be grooving to the Bee-gees.

[nicknaz]

Nice article thanks.

Interesting sentence that bmw insiders say the oil consumption is happening to owners who aren't driving the car hard enough to fully break in the engine.

Warm em up and drive em hard!

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by nicknaz

Interesting sentence that bmw insiders say the oil consumption is happening to owners who aren't driving the car hard enough to fully break in the engine.

This is not peculiar to the N63, but applies to many engines.

We've had this issue over here in the UK, many users moving across to diesel after small petrol engines. The extra low end torque has allowed very low revs and easy running. Many an engine has burned oil due to poor break-in and users driving for greater fuel economy.

HighlandPete

[ft1330]

Originally Posted by Thumper333

There's nothing wrong with the engine design.

The temperature dissipation design is definitely wrong. They packed the hottest elements of the engine together.

[Blubaron79]

Originally Posted by ft1330

The temperature dissipation design is definitely wrong. They packed the hottest elements of the engine together.

Exactly. The turbos sit in between the cylinders. They get no air to help them cool as they sit beside each other.

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by Blubaron79

Exactly. The turbos sit in between the cylinders. They get no air to help them cool as they sit beside each other.

M5 S63 is the same and has few problems. Same with well driven N63 and N63TU

[omaralt]

i have the perfect solution. make all the leases (lets be real here, most people lease) a minimum of 15K miles/year. if you drive any less you dont get free maintenance. that way you encourage more driving, win win! :P

[KneeDragr]

Originally Posted by Blubaron79

I am sure because some old person bought a 550 or 750 and drive it to the store once every week. Never fully using it's potential or opening the thing up. Just think: Old Crown Victoria's with a V8 that old people drive/drove. I always thought: There are 4 cylinders just going to waste..

Old people like smooth cars, and those extra cylinders prove a smooth engine for them. I dont think they are wasted from that perspective.

[Thumper333]

Originally Posted by ft1330

The temperature dissipation design is definitely wrong. They packed the hottest elements of the engine together.

Originally Posted by Blubaron79

Exactly. The turbos sit in between the cylinders. They get no air to help them cool as they sit beside each other.

LOL

Ok, even if we stipulate that there is a better or at least equally advantageous way to mount the turbos on this car in this platform (I am sure the German's didn't flip a coin to pick turbo locations. There is a darn good reason they are mounted where they are) then we are still left with the undeniable conclusion that the turbos are NOT the direct cause of the battery failure.

So what makes MORE sense. Redesign the ENTIRE engine and engine compartment for new turbo locations........OR........let the electrical system charge the battery whenever it needs it?

It's as simple as flipping a switch. Load a new program that allows the charging system to work on demand and all these problems go away.......