Next Gen 2014 (F32) M3 Performance Simulations/Predictions - She'll Be Fast!

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

Does a 2014 calendar year launch = 2015 model year car? If so, does that mean the "not produced" model year will be the 2014?

In all liklihood, yes.

And if so, that would mean we still have two more model years -- 2012 & 2013 -- of E92 M3 production, right? I could live with that.

In theory it would go that way but SCOTT has said that the F32 3 series will follow the F30 3 series more closely than the E92 3 series did the E90 3 series. Instead of a 1.5 years between, he suggests only a year. This means that the F32 3 series will come in early 2013, and that the E92 M3 will probably only last somewhere near the end of 2012. This is exactly analogous to how the fact that the F30 3 series will be available in early 2012 means that the E90 M3 will be gone before the end of 2011.

[positiveions]

speculations drive the market. i'd rather wait for the final product

[Mighty M]

Its not hard gents. The e92 motor was basically 2 off the v10 of the e60. Same for text time. Just take two off. So it will be a v6 TT off the same architecture of the v8 TT of the upcoming m5.

just my dumb assed speculation. wait and see. But to me I think the e92 with the 8400 rev limit... you just cant replace that. It is 1000% wait and see with what the next m5 will look like IMHO.

7000 rpm limit or below = fail.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ILC32

Thanks for starting this discussion, swamp.

It will be interesting to see how close your predictions are to reality.

Since this is a thread for speculation, I will go ahead and speculate that the power will be 460 hp.

Sure.

I think my post is slightly better than "speculation" isn't it. I'd give it educated guess or hypothesis at least.

Originally Posted by Levi

Swamp2, nice topic.
...
Now to the weight, the new BMW's did not get weight reduction, but just less weight growth. Only the X3 is 30 kg lighter than the previous generation. In this way we can expect the 3 Series F3X to get about 50 kg lighter. This would mean a 335i F30 would weight 1550 kg (EU) compared to todays 335i E90 that weighs 1600 kg (EU). If the M3 F32 is based on a TT I6, and not a havier NA V8, it will weigh 1550 kg (EU), what is 100 kg less than todays M3 E92, and it would be slightly less than the previous M3 E46.

Thanks. Those numbers look quite reasonable to me. Do you have some real evidence of these F series weights or just guesses/educated guesses?

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

...automobilistic...

You totally made that word up. It's pretty cool though.

Originally Posted by Mighty M

Its not hard gents. The e92 motor was basically 2 off the v10 of the e60. Same for text time. Just take two off. So it will be a v6 TT off the same architecture of the v8 TT of the upcoming m5.

A major consideration of engine configuration is the engines balance and efficiency. Cross plane V8s like the M3 are naturally quite balanced. V6s are both poorly balanced thus require extra gear driven balancing and are less efficient than I6 because of that and the entire extra head and valve system. Since BMW has had no production engines ever in this configuration it is extremely unlikely. I6 is the most efficient and balanced engine configuration around. The only real drawback is its long length, making it typically unsuited to a FWD application.

[onefastdoc]

So, from these guestimations, the F32 M3 would spanked by the current R35 GTR, not to mention the 2011 C63 AMG.

That's depressing.

[OC3]

(Apology in advance if it was already answered in the thread. It's a long thread & I only glanced thru it.)

At this point, do we know w/ certainty if it's I6TT or V6TT ?

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by swamp2

You totally made that word up. It's pretty cool though.

Sorry, but I cannot take credit for the word creation. We tend to use "automotive" in English when automobilistic could be used as well. We do ride in automobiles afterall.

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?wor...&submit=Submit

Originally Posted by swamp2

A major consideration of engine configuration is the engines balance and efficiency. Cross plane V8s like the M3 are naturally quite balanced. V6s are both poorly balanced thus require extra gear driven balancing and are less efficient than I6 because of that and the entire extra head and valve system. Since BMW has had no production engines ever in this configuration it is extremely unlikely. I6 is the most efficient and balanced engine configuration around. The only real drawback is its long length, making it typically unsuited to a FWD application.

Of the two -- V6 & I6 -- the latter would be easier to stomach than the former. Regardless, anything that's a six is a step backward from an eight IMHO, and I doubt that BMW will bother to incorporate enough of the tech that it has in house into any six that will make all of us forget about the S65.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by OC3

(Apology in advance if it was already answered in the thread. It's a long thread & I only glanced thru it.)

At this point, do we know w/ certainty if it's I6TT or V6TT ?

No. It's nearly guaranteed to be a turbocharged six cylinder (based on the words of BMW officials in interviews). SCOTT has added that it will be an I6 and will share architecture with the N55. Neither of these two things can be considered certain though; we'll need an official BMW press release for that.

Also, note that it is not guaranteed to be a twin turbo either.

[mkoesel]

Regarding the growth point, that's not particularly important since they don't typically bump the power of the car over its lifetime. If they need more power for a future generation, they can just switch to the V8 at that time.

As far as reliability, that might be a stronger point, especially given the troubles BMW has had with its modern turbocharged I6 efforts. However, the problems don't appear to be due to squeezing large amounts of power from a small displacement motor. Though, some may be quick to point out that the N63 and S63 are not suffering from the high failure rate of the N54/N55 (but as I understand it there have still been some issues with the V8s, or at least the N63).

Originally Posted by Ben335

Maybe some one can shed some light on this:

In my mind, I feel that going with a TT 6 cylinder doesn't make sense at least long term. If BMW decided to use a "detuned" version of the TT 8 cylinder used the M5, X5, and X6 variants, this would allow them to easily make the power they want with plenty of room for them to grow. Additionally, I would think they would gain more reliability as they aren't pushing to the extreme a 6 cylinder and then having little room to grow. A TT 8 cylinder would allow them to meet their number for the next generation or even 2 generations.

The downsides of the 8 cylinder are perhaps weights and definitely mileage.

Thoughts????

[Alpina_B3_Lux]

Originally Posted by swamp2

And you don't buy a modified N55 that is stroked? The 1M is an N55 with 3.0l and 7k rpm.

Errr, no it's not. The 1M has the N54 engine in it with two turbos and not the N55 with a single turbo set-up. The R&D budget for the 1M was very tight, which is why they basically slapped on the M3 suspension bits (incl. LSD) and used the N54 engine in its variant out of the 335iS / Z4 35iS.

From everything we know today, the next M3 will be a twin-turbo inline 6, and as many already stated probably a variant of the N55 with two turbos instead of just one and a larger displacement. A twin turbo 8cyl engine is irrealistic, already from a fuel consumption standpoint (and yes, that has also become relevant for the M cars nowadays), but also because power-wise it is not a necessity as an inline 6 is largely sufficient for the roughly 450hp that are targeted.

Time will tell, of course.

Alpina_B3_Lux

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by Mighty M

But to me I think the e92 with the 8400 rev limit... you just cant replace that. It is 1000% wait and see with what the next m5 will look like IMHO.

7000 rpm limit or below = fail.

The new Mclaren MP4-12C has a twin turbo 3.8L V8 with an 8,500 rpm limit (600 hp). Obviously this is a supercar that is not in the same league as the M3, but it can be done on road cars.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

The new Mclaren MP4-12C has a twin turbo 3.8L V8 with an 8,500 rpm limit (600 hp). Obviously this is a supercar that is not in the same league as the M3, but it can be done on road cars.

The 8500RPM number was pre-release. Official redline is 8000RPM, which is still very respectable for a turbo motor by any measure. Plus I suppose its unclear whether the fuel shutoff is also at 8000RPM or perhaps is set at 8500RPM.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/18/m...any-unveiling/

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

The 8500RPM number was pre-release. Official redline is 8000RPM, which is still very respectable for a turbo motor by any measure. Plus I suppose its unclear whether the fuel shutoff is also at 8000RPM or perhaps is set at 8500RPM.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/03/18/m...any-unveiling/

That article is old (from march)... McLaren's website currently says 8500 rpm, fyi.

[duk]

8500rpm V8 TT? wow nice

If next M3 has redline anything lower than 8k then no buy.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

That article is old (from march)... McLaren's website currently says 8500 rpm, fyi.

Fair enough. For what it is worth Autoblog had quoted the 8500 RPM figure as well until the official reveal. I am sure they had a good reason to change their info, although perhaps it is as simple as the red region on the tach starting at 8000 RPM or something of that nature. Like I said above, fuel shut off could very well remain at 8500 RPM

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by duk

8500rpm V8 TT? wow nice

If next M3 has redline anything lower than 8k then no buy.

Then you can pretty much rule it out right now.

The thing is, no other car in the class will have a high revving motor either. The upcoming (current in ROW) RS5 will, but that will probably be gone just about the time the the F32 M3 arrives on the scene. Doesn't make it non-viable as an alternative, however, the current M3 is besting it in just about every comparison test. The new one will likely decimate it performance wise.

That said, at least some other cars in the class will have V8 power. Even when the high revvers are all gone, I am still inclined to choose a V8 over an I6, assuming closely competitive performance in other areas of course.

[ihyln]

There are two things that need to happen for me to buy the next gen M3

1. HPFP issues have to be resolved. Completely.
2. 4 door version that isn't a bastardized GT. I'm sorry but the 5GT is ugly and the M3 GT can only get a little less uglier. You'd do well bringing a M3 wagon to the states.

[duk]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Then you can pretty much rule it out right now.

The thing is, no other car in the class will have a high revving motor either. The upcoming (current in ROW) RS5 will, but that will probably be gone just about the time the the F32 M3 arrives on the scene. Doesn't make it non-viable as an alternative, however, the current M3 is besting it in just about every comparison test. The new one will likely decimate it performance wise.

That said, at least some other cars in the class will have V8 power. Even when the high revvers are all gone, I am still inclined to choose a V8 over an I6, assuming closely competitive performance in other areas of course.

That's what I am afraid of:

1. low redline
2. no 6MT
3. increased weight

I guess sticking to my S65 will be ok!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

Sorry, but I cannot take credit for the word creation. We tend to use "automotive" in English when automobilistic could be used as well. We do ride in automobiles afterall.

http://www.howjsay.com/index.php?wor...&submit=Submit

It is not in the OED nor Merriam Webster. As such I am going to continue to call this a made up word .

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by swamp2

It is not in the OED nor Merriam Webster. As such I am going to continue to call this a made up word .

M-W is slacking, but will catch up eventually.

I suspect that you along with all speakers of one or more of the Romance languages (a.k.a. Romanic languages) understood its meaning in context.

Moving along...

Isn't it time for a turbo poll; Dealbreaker or not for the next M3?

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by Levi

Yes. It is so. In general, now BMW's are produced 7 years and get facelift after 3 1/2 years. As the M models come 2 years later, they are produced 5 years. The M3 GTS for example did not come at the end of M3 E9X generation, but just at facelift, so after 2 years. There are yet three years until the new M3 comes, the actual one will yet be produced until the new 3 Series Coupé comes, even if there is already the new 3 Series Sedan, unless BMW changed its way of doing things, what I doubt.

You are probably correct since we're talking about a large organization that is accustomed to operating a certain way and has been do so for a very long time; successfully too boot which means that if they're smart they won't attempt to fix what isn't broken.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by onefastdoc

So, from these guestimations, the F32 M3 would spanked by the current R35 GTR, not to mention the 2011 C63 AMG.

That's depressing.

GT-R yes, C63 AMG, no.

The current M3 with competition package has gone up against the C63 AMG (with "competition" package or whatever they call it) and has matched it in the straights and bested it on the track. A close battle but also all subjective evaluations also favor the M3.

The GT-R is a bit on an anomaly. The F32 M3 certainly be tunable to match the R35 GT-R but that will be a fairly aggressive tune (perhaps software+hardware). Keep in mind the GT-R is, by most reasonable accounts, putting out about 530 hp. It is also a clear anomaly in term of performance to price ratio. I suppose last but not least because the GT-R is for all practical purposes a 2 seater, many don't consider it a direct competitor to the M3.

If you want GT-R performance with a GT-R price, buy a GT-R. Although I haven't driven one, be prepared for what most describe as a soulless car... The flip side of that is one also quite easy to drive very hard.