M division selling out??

[ihyln]

Originally Posted by footie

I don't think anyone is getting my point here, I don't see any reason for having a high revving family car. Away for the track the need for a ultra high-revving engine is nil, and that's what any engine revving north of 8000rpm actually is. You only experience those extra 1000rpm (if BMW make their next M3 rev to 7000rpm that is) for a very brief time and only really get their full benefit in gears above 3rd where the gearing allows the revs to build at a slower rate.

I just don't see a problem with less revs, look at the amount of sportscar and supercars that have/are and will run lower revving turbo-charged units instead of N/A, even the latest new kid on the block the Noble M600 is running a 4.4 Yamaha bi-turbo with a peak revs of around 7K max, so normal public opinion doesn't imply that high revs is a necessity. My problem is that I do not feel the X5/6M engine is anywhere near good enough to lift the boot of the M5/6, well not in it's current form that is. They need a power band to mimic that of the RS6, I know it's an Audi but it gives you an extended power band instead of peaking close on 1000rpm prior to the rev limiter. Drive an RS6 and you get that feeling of the power continuing right to the limiter, unlike the norm where most turbo unit have did their best work long before that point.

If BMW can match or better still best the power curve of the RS6 with both their M5/6 and M3 then I doubt anyone here will be complaining that they miss those extra 1000rpms or so.

The brain is a wonder tool and it's amazing how quick you adapt to the narrower rev band (yeah even the brain of the BMW M driver ), though in reality the only real noticable difference is that the revs build slightly slower with probably in-gear peak speeds stay pretty much the same.

Hello, you do not get the point of these cars in general. Calling everyone else's logic faulty is hilarious. Oh and the X6M tops out at 6700RPM so that's more than a "1000 RPM" that people will notice. Anyway, nice try.

[Griz]

Originally Posted by penny31

With the M division announcing that
the next gen m3 will be twin turbo already turns down everything for which M stands for.

I guess they already screwed that one up when they turbocharged the M1 race car.

Originally Posted by penny31

Also with the whole x6 m and x5 m being turbo'd I feel like we have reached the point where exclusivity of the "M" brand is come down.

Thousands of new M3s are put on the roads each year and by no means is it an exotic car. I would hardly consider this an exclusive group. One should buy this car because of what it provides and what it can do - I could care less about exclusivity.

Originally Posted by penny31

This just be my last M unless the M division does right and stops selling out.

If there's a car that you think you'll be happier with, then go for it.

[Murderface]

Originally Posted by ihyln

If you had any clue about BMW's history and the "M1" you'd know it is reserved for their mid engine supercar. The 1 series will never be the M1 and the only likely tag it will bear is the tii.

You do realize that simpson's avatar is supposed to be smart, right?

I believe he said "1 Series M", which is what BMW said an M-developed 1 Series would be called if it came out. No one is suggesting that they're trying to build a supercar out of the 1 Series. The M1 concept, however, does borrow the 3 cylinder diesel from the 1 Series.

[1º]

anyone contemplating to stop buying M cars just because they will have turbos in their motors needs to get a life

[SlammedR8]

Originally Posted by 1º

anyone contemplating to stop buying M cars just because they will have turbos in their motors needs to get a life

not to mention, so many people are getting so "IN TO" this discussion.

ITS F***ING 5-6 YEARS AWAY!!!!!! GET A LIFE!

[UltimateBMW]

Originally Posted by slammedm3

not to mention, so many people are getting so "IN TO" this discussion.

ITS F***ING 5-6 YEARS AWAY!!!!!! GET A LIFE!

Your post seems quite self conflicting. You point out that poeple are passionate about this topic as if to discredit them, then flagrantly tell them to get a life.

I think it should be obvious that this topic matters to some poeple. There is nothing wrong with looking towards the horizon. I always get a kick from people making posts that knock discussion or attempt to belittle a topic. If you don't like the discussion, kindly remove yourself from these forums. Your input most likely will not be missed.

Back on topic, In addition to just having both the M3 and M5 go FI, and with the next M coupe suggested as being the 1-series with a FI 4banger, what has me more disheartened is that they aren't even keeping any of the cars in the M line-up as NA. There is no nod to their previously awesome engines, its just going to be the same car in 3 different sizes. I believe true diversity would result in M division bringing at least 1 car to market with a high rev'ing naturally aspirated engine. I feel they are just being quite hasty in sweeping every car them make over into the turbo'd department.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

I feel they are just being quite hasty in sweeping every car them make over into the turbo'd department.

That would be great, but BMW has made it pretty clear that they intend to infuse their newly minted set of "Efficient Dynamics" ideals into the core of every product. There is nothing wrong with efficient, clean vehicles of course - even hig performance ones. And I personally maintain my belief that it is possible to build efficient, regulations-compliant natuarlly apsirated motors.

However, the reality is that these types of motors simply do not readily evoke efficiency among consumers, especially with many other manufacturers also jumping on the "small displacement turbo" bandwagon. I think that BMW's marketing folks - not governmental regulations - have had the biggest hand in killing their high-revving natuarlly aspirated vehicles. It just doesn't work with their new marketing line, which I will add is still vaporware in the US at least (no start/refire when coming to a stop, for example, like they have on European models).

As I mentioned before (either earlier in this thread, or perhaps one of the nine other similar ones) I think that GM will continue on with the V8 Corvette and I will add that Ford will also continue on with the V8 powered Mustang. At least for the next decade - and probably longer. Both have put a ton of R&D into efficient V8s, not least because their bread-and-butter vehicles - pickup trucks - will require them for years to come due to the headstrong demographic to which they cater. At the same time both are also leading the way in turbo charged and direct injected smaller displacement engines as well. So there is room for both. Just not at BMW.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

Back on topic, In addition to just having both the M3 and M5 go FI, and with the next M coupe suggested as being the 1-series with a FI 4banger, what has me more disheartened is that they aren't even keeping any of the cars in the M line-up as NA. There is no nod to their previously awesome engines, its just going to be the same car in 3 different sizes. I believe true diversity would result in M division bringing at least 1 car to market with a high rev'ing naturally aspirated engine. I feel they are just being quite hasty in sweeping every car them make over into the turbo'd department.

Agreed. Considering the same motor from X5 M and X6 M has been confirmed to be the next engine in the upcoming M5 and possibly M6, the character of the powertrain in the M5 will almost be identical to that of the X5 M and X6 M.

BTW, the re-defining of M cars has already begun so no it is not 5 - 6 years away.

Again, I would reiterate I have real life experience with the X6 M of watching it being pushed and it is just about the most disgusting thing BMW could have done with the M car. The engine and exhaust note had no character whatsoever.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Agreed. Considering the same motor from X5 M and X6 M has been confirmed to be the next engine in the upcoming M5 and possibly M6, the character of the powertrain in the M5 will almost be identical to that of the X5 M and X6 M.

That's only true in case BMW decides against KERS at short notice. I'd like to remind of this little fact being able to change everything about a car's character.


Best regards,
south

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by southlight

That's only true in case BMW decides against KERS at short notice. I'd like to remind of this little fact being able to change everything about a car's character.


Best regards,
south

I read that BMW has decided to not put KERS since it was dropped due to issues while BMW had not yet ditched the F1 program out of concern for the environment.

What will be the benefit of it anyway?

[SlammedR8]

Originally Posted by UltimateBMW

Your post seems quite self conflicting. You point out that poeple are passionate about this topic as if to discredit them, then flagrantly tell them to get a life.

WHAT?

How does my post seem to be self conflicting? Your example of what Im doing makes no sense at all.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by southlight

That's only true in case BMW decides against KERS at short notice. I'd like to remind of this little fact being able to change everything about a car's character.

Even with KERS though, its still going to be a version of the S63 (maybe with a new number of its own) V8, right south. I admit the KERS is intriguing, but in the end its just another way of getting power, right? I mean, it's not like it could transform the turbo V8 into a high revving V10.

[JCtx]

I have a few questions for engine experts. Let's assume 2 engines, one FI and one high-revving (relatively small) NA, provide identical performance on the same car (outputs will never be the same, since FI provides better torque and NA higher HP), and weigh the same. Let's assume a 3.0L TTV6 and a 4.2L V8 (pretty much what Audi did with the S4). And let's assume both cars will always be driven identically (accelerate identically, cruise identically, etc) and weigh the same. I think all of those assumptions are pretty close to real, but comment on any of them if needed. My questions are:

1. Would the FI engine yield better fuel mileage, like auto manufacturers lead consumers to believe? I think it's about the same.
2. Would the FI engine yield a better carbon footprint? If they consume the same fuel, probably the same too.
3. Is my assumption of equal weight correct? I think it'd be equal since a TT engine has to be beefier than NA, plus the weight of the TT hardware.
4. Is the FI engine cheaper to build? I think so, but could be wrong.

So far, the only clear advantage of FI over NA is slightly better packaging, no? How about cost? Trying to see the rationale of going in that direction. Maybe I'm wrong on some of my assumptions .

A larger, lower revving engine comparable to the high-revving one, like a 5.0L V8, obviously adds weight on the engine and on the car, since it has to be larger to house the larger engine, so that arrangement is probably on the way out of 'mainstream' cars (like the ISF and AMG 6.3s) IMO. All comments welcome.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

1. Would the FI engine yield better fuel mileage, like auto manufacturers lead consumers to believe? I don't think so.

Doesn't the new S4 get a lot better mileage than the old B7, as well as the B8 S5? I think it does, at least as far as EPA numbers go. Now, if both are driven hard, will the numbers be closer? Not sure - they might very well be. Unfortunately the automakers are a slave to the EPA though and all that matters is how the car performs in their tests.

A larger, lower revving engine comparable to the high-revving one, like a 5.0L V8, obviously adds weight on the engine and on the car, since it has to be larger to house the larger engine, so that arrangement is on the way out of 'mainstream' cars IMO. All comments welcome.

That's not necessarily true. Displacement is the measure of the volume of the cylinder (the part that is swept by the piston, anyway) when the crank is at BDC. So, for example, you could destroke a motor from 4L to 3L and save little to no weight, or you could stroke it from 4L to 5L and gain none as well. Same thing with bore changes. You remove metal from the block, and add some to the piston, its basically a wash, or even favors the larger bore slightly.

Now, it is true that in general the bore center dimension effects the length of the V8 engine and deck height effects its height and width. So not all V8s are the same size of course. But the point is that you cannot generally assume that the larger displacement motor will be the larger physically sized motor. This is especially true when you consider head design also. GMs pushrod V8s are very compact for example.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

I read that BMW has decided to not put KERS since it was dropped due to issues while BMW had not yet ditched the F1 program out of concern for the environment.

What will be the benefit of it anyway?

I'm only aware of reports that BMW has decided no to use KERS in the next M3 due to costs. Unless I have missed something they didn't rule it out for the M5.

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Even with KERS though, its still going to be a version of the S63 (maybe with a new number of its own) V8, right south. I admit the KERS is intriguing, but in the end its just another way of getting power, right? I mean, it's not like it could transform the turbo V8 into a high revving V10.

It somewhat does. The main differences between a turbo engine and a high revving NA engine are throttle response and red line. You're right that it does nothing about the latter, but the instant response of an electric engine can do wonders about the total response time. Done the right way KERS can mask the turbo lag and make you feel like driving an NA engine.


Best regards,
south

[southlight]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

I have a few questions for engine experts. Let's assume 2 engines, one FI and one high-revving (relatively small) NA, provide identical performance on the same car (outputs will never be the same, since FI provides better torque, but FI will have higher torque and NA higher HP), and weigh the same. Let's assume a 3.0L TTV6 and a 4.2L V8 (pretty much what Audi did with the S4). And let's assume both cars will always be driven identically (accelerate identically, cruise identically, etc) and weigh the same. I think all of those assumptions are pretty close to real, but comment on any of them if needed. My questions are:

1. Would the FI engine yield better fuel mileage, like auto manufacturers lead consumers to believe? I don't think so.

That depends on the way the cars are driven. TT engines only offer better fuel mileage under part throttle and rather low revvs. The higher you revv (and the more you're on the accelerator), the less the advantage of TT engines. EPA and European fuel consumption standards are performed in a range TT engines do have advantages, so these figures are always better for smaller TT engines.

2. Would the FI engine yield a better carbon footprint?

Carbon footprint is directly related to fuel consumption. So it doesn't matter on its own, an engine consuming less fuel has a better footprint.

3. Is my assumption of equal weight correct? I think it'd be equal since a TT engine has to be beefier than NA, plus the weight of the TT hardware.

I don't think there's a general answer to this.

4. Is the FI engine cheaper to build? I think so, but could be wrong.

Speaking of engines in general, FI engines are more expensive both in development and production. Speaking of ///M engines, I think that's still true, but the difference is less than usual.


Best regards,
south

[UltimateBMW]

South,

Have you ever driven a car with KERS? I personally haven't, was looking to get an idea of what it's like. It's implementation in F1 is so limited (1x 6s burst per lap?) its hard to notice when they use it.

[arr0gant]

Look at what Porsche has done. They started with a '99 911 with an NA 3.4 at 295BHP and now are at 3.8 with 385BHP and 435BHP respectively on the GT3. They have stuck with and continued to develop and improve on the same NA, flat6 block.

M division had a masterpiece with the 3.2 liter I6 putting out 330BHP. Had they continued along the same path, they would have an NA, 6 cylinder 3.6 or 3.8 liter putting out around 400BHP.

Instead they cut corners by using (the no doubt marvelous) 4.0 V8, but now they have to back track and go back to the 6 and simply throw Turbo's on it.

I don't like the smell of this, at all....

[gr8000]

Originally Posted by arr0gant

Instead they cut corners by using (the no doubt marvelous) 4.0 V8...

In what sense have they cut corners with the 4lt V8?

[arr0gant]

Originally Posted by gr8000

In what sense have they cut corners with the 4lt V8?

It's simple, my brother. Instead of continuing to develop and bore out the I6, they cut corners by cutting 2 cylinders off the m5's V10 and slapped it in the M3.

I'm not saying it's not an amazing engine, it is. But, now they have to backtrack and have no real new development on the I6. I don't know about you, but I'd like the new M3 to be an N.A. 3.6 liter I6 with 400BHP that reds at around 9000!!

By contrast, can you imagine if the 997 911 was a V8, then they decided to go backwards, back to a flat6 and throw some turbo's on it so it had the power we expect since we had the 420 in the V8??

HELL NO!! This is where BMW M screwed up, and we're just supposed to accept that, as doing things the "right" way? I don't think so.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by arr0gant

It's simple, my brother. Instead of continuing to develop and bore out the I6, they cut corners by cutting 2 cylinders off the m5's V10 and slapped it in the M3.

The 3.2 Liter S54 is already bored out to the maximum with atleast the 8000 rpm redline. There is nothing they could do with this engine especially without sacrificing the 8400 rpm redline they were looking for. It was past its technological prime and also heavy due to block iron construction.

The 5.0 Liter V10 was the best engine to make as a basis for the development of the V8, which they did. However, I really believe they should have put direct injection in it (though it makes the car difficult to modify like the RS4 and IS-F have no aftermarket performance parts) and extracted more peak torque at high rpms of around 315 - 317 ft-lbs@5000 rpm (and hence more horsepower over 6000 rpm) and then it pretty much as perfect as it could be.

[bigjae1976]

I thought the story behind the S65 was that BMW made the S85 for F1 but then F1 mandated V8s. So BMW made the S65.