M division selling out??

[gr8000]

Originally Posted by mixja

Who the hell wants to wring the revs out of an SUV? SUV owners expect and want lots of torque - the M badge applied to an SUV stands for something totally different compared to the M badge applied to a sports coupe/sedan...

+1

The M badge has come a long way since its inception. IMO it will be disapointing and unfair to see it being dragged arround on huge / heavy vechicles such as SUVs or even on the 7 series!!!! On the latter, I think I read somewhere that development is going on to offer an "M" package on a 7 series.

But I realise that compromises need to be made in an imperfect world. If this is what it takes for BMW to make profits to fund R&D for future true M sports cars then so be it. I am afraid however that the aggility has been lost with no intention to get back to the good old "purist" herritage.

As for the poll qn, it is impossible for me to answer it as it is highly hypothetical, too wide, and dependent on many unknowns.

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by gr8000

+1
But I realise that compromises need to be made in an imperfect world. If this is what it takes for BMW to make profits to fund R&D for future true M sports cars then so be it. I am afraid however that the aggility has been lost with no intention to get back to the good old "purist" herritage.

I just don't buy the argument that BMW has to dilute the "M-badge" for profits, like they will go belly-up if they don't do it. It is call greed.

Looking at the results of the poll, where 1/3 of the owners will be switching to a new brand, is very telling. I don't see this making profits grow.

[KonigsTiger]

I buy whatever suits me and is exciting at the moment.

[JC919]

Personally, my next car is going to be a pcar, a 7.1 GT3 to be specific. However, with a TTV8 M5...um no the M division isn't selling out

[spyderco10]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

I don't think the E36 M3 revved up to 8k, did it? IIRC, the US spec M3 wasn't too far from the 328 as far as power goes.

What defines the ///M brand to me? Nothing else except that M cars are street cars that are track ready out of the box.

It doesn't matter if they use an I6, V6, V8 or a 2 cycle lawn mower engine, I think M cars will continue to be represent some of the best cars available.

As I've said elsewhere, if the M division has to pump out X6Ms and X5Ms to keep making M3s...then I'm 100% fine with that.

+1 exactly the same reason Porsche made/makes the Cayenne

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by bigjae1976

I don't think the E36 M3 revved up to 8k, did it? IIRC, the US spec M3 wasn't too far from the 328 as far as power goes.

Not sure about the crippled US motors, but the Euro S50B30 revved to 7250 RPM while the Euro S52B32 revved to 7600 RPM. I think the S14B23 in the original M3 maxed out at 7250 RPM also.

So you're right - 8K+ is only for the recent generations. However, they've been steadily raising it over the years.

[Mischievous M]

Am sure the boys at ///M Division know what they're doing. :-) Its now a case of the M's heritage evolving to another level. I'm a tad iffy on the turbo but would rather the consideration of Super-Charging but heck... I am no engineer. just you regular end user who doesn't mind paying a good nickle for an awesome vehicle.

[1cleanm6]

ok...

lemme just put in some facts..

1999 bmw e46 body introduced
2000 bmw e46 coupe introduced
2001 bmw M e46 introduced

2006 bmw e90 body introduced
2007 bmw e92 introduced
2008 bmw m3 introduced

2013 bmw eXX body will be introduced
2014 bmw eXX coupe will be introduced
2015 bmw m3 coupe will be introduced

Hmm we are in 2009, THATS 6 YEARS AWAY...

Honestly are you that bored to be thinking about what the M division will be doing 6 years from now?

If you are i must feel really sorry for u

Enjoy something while its here. the e92 m is a great car

[MTROIS]

I am going to enjoy this one for a while... I won't care if I am not the new kid on the block!!

Alos, I can't answer your poll as a third option "Don't know yet" is not available! The one thing I know (unless I win at the lottery, but since I am not playing....) is that my next 'fun' car will be a classic/collectible one. The M is enough power for the foreseeable future and I'd rather strip this one down to make it lighter (Thanks Lucid for your great post on this topic).

Enough said, the sun is shining so I am out for a spin!!

[bigjae1976]

There's a good article in Bimmer Mag this month about this very issue in the middle of the X6M test drive. The BMW CEO talks about the direction on the M division in the future. I translate it as M division will continue to build sports cars.

It also talks about the patented exhaust manifold on the S63 where it produces a constant pulse of exhaust gas to spin the turbo's. This leads to improved throttle response, low end power, and virtually eliminates turbo lag.

Sounds like some innovative M engineering to me. I will admit that while the X6 looks pretty good in person, the X6M looks like total trash.

Originally Posted by Boosted335

2013 bmw eXX body will be introduced
2014 bmw eXX coupe will be introduced
2015 bmw m3 coupe will be introduced

I might be wrong but I think the next 3 series will be a 2012.

[warzilla]

I saw the X5 M in the flesh today, parked at the local Home Depot. I went up close to take a look at the details and I got to say I was really disappointed. It looks so artificially forced to look like a M, it was ridiculous. For instance, it had a similar side 'gill' treatment like the M3 but I don't even think it was real but pure cosmetic. The rims are f-ing ugly as hell. And the front with the big air intakes? Don't even get me started. The car was also lower then a normal X5 but it looked really odd, sort of like a turtle with very short legs.

I know the X5 M is fast and will handle 'surprisingly well' for an SUV (all the car mags say that about the butt heavy X6 M), but did BMW really have to execute the X5 M suv like this? I personally liked the old X5 4.8is (which wasn't technically a M) and was very close to buying one when it was new. But it definitely had a better exterior build (and great rim/tire setup) compared to the new X5 M. Very disappointed to say the least.

[330CIZHP]

Well said. I had similar feelings when I saw the X6 M. Although, I thought it looked nice for an SUV.

At idle, it has a decent burble. My major disappointment came when I saw it under hard acceleration. After years of seeing and driving Z4 M, E46 M3, E90 M3, M5 and M6, I had become classically conditioned to that frantic and metallic scream that makes the hair on my neck stand. With the X6 M, the POS sounded boring as shite with only a little burble down low and nothing after that. Only a hissing sound.

6800 rpm redline for an M car is a joke! I know you cannot put a high-revving engine in an SUV, but did BMW not make it clear this is the direction in the future for all M cars??

Originally Posted by warzilla

I saw the X5 M in the flesh today, parked at the local Home Depot. I went up close to take a look at the details and I got to say I was really disappointed. It looks so artificially forced to look like a M, it was ridiculous. For instance, it had a similar side 'gill' treatment like the M3 but I don't even think it was real but pure cosmetic. The rims are f-ing ugly as hell. And the front with the big air intakes? Don't even get me started. The car was also lower then a normal X5 but it looked really odd, sort of like a turtle with very short legs.

I know the X5 M is fast and will handle 'surprisingly well' for an SUV (all the car mags say that about the butt heavy X6 M), but did BMW really have to execute the X5 M suv like this? I personally liked the old X5 4.8is (which wasn't technically a M) and was very close to buying one when it was new. But it definitely had a better exterior build (and great rim/tire setup) compared to the new X5 M. Very disappointed to say the least.

[SlammedR8]

Originally Posted by warzilla

I saw the X5 M in the flesh today, parked at the local Home Depot. I went up close to take a look at the details and I got to say I was really disappointed. It looks so artificially forced to look like a M, it was ridiculous. For instance, it had a similar side 'gill' treatment like the M3 but I don't even think it was real but pure cosmetic. The rims are f-ing ugly as hell. And the front with the big air intakes? Don't even get me started. The car was also lower then a normal X5 but it looked really odd, sort of like a turtle with very short legs.

I know the X5 M is fast and will handle 'surprisingly well' for an SUV (all the car mags say that about the butt heavy X6 M), but did BMW really have to execute the X5 M suv like this? I personally liked the old X5 4.8is (which wasn't technically a M) and was very close to buying one when it was new. But it definitely had a better exterior build (and great rim/tire setup) compared to the new X5 M. Very disappointed to say the least.

and....? do you think the E9x's side 'gill' is "REAL" ?

[SpencerM3]

Originally Posted by Boosted335

2013 bmw eXX body will be introduced
2014 bmw eXX coupe will be introduced
2015 bmw m3 coupe will be introduced

Not splitting hairs, but it will be an fXX not an eXX.

[footie]

All this chat of 6800rpm not being high enough is comical. It's an SUV for heaven sake, not a racing car and now to address the issue of what is a decent amount of revs for a future M car. The fact is that this figure has got progressively higher with each new model, now sitting at the 8400rpm point, but is that honestly desirable for a daily driver.

The M3 is/was for me a thrilling drive when you were 'really' on it, revving to the limit in each gear but driven remotely normally and the engine as a whole was (dare I say it) boring, it had none of the low end grunt of most other (less peaky) engines so it bags the question as to whether a car designed to carry an entire family should be equipped with this type of engine. I understand the philosophy of this for say a Z4 or even the M6 which is basically a 2+2 at best but not any of the others.

I'm very excited that BMW has decided to offer engines that will be both exciting and thrilling to drive up near their rev limit but also just as thrilling in day to day situations.

[edcvin]

[QUOTE=ModLikeMad;5885952]+1 It is sad to see the amazing amount of unilateral thinking that goes on around here sometimes. BMW is a highlyt acclaimed auto manufacturer and performance car builder because they always strive for the best! So maybe the new v6 turbo is not something you will like, but it may be something that someone else likes. I've heard in this very thread something about a "thrashy V6" and how it seemingly can't live up to the current V8...BS!!! Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the current engine, but the thought of a V6 that consumes less gas and puts out more ponies is definitely a win win for everyone, not to mention the weight savings... If you think that adding FI is a bad idea, go say that to Porsche as they drive circles around you. FI can be awsome when done right, and I think that before you go jumping off the band wagon, why not give the company you love so much the opportunity to make you fall in love with it all over again. After all, no one wants to keep getting their ass kicked by a 480 hp twin turbo V6 like the GT-R forever!![/QUOTE]

lmao this put a smile on my face!


-Vin

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by footie

All this chat of 6800rpm not being high enough is comical. It's an SUV for heaven sake, not a racing car and now to address the issue of what is a decent amount of revs for a future M car. The fact is that this figure has got progressively higher with each new model, now sitting at the 8400rpm point, but is that honestly desirable for a daily driver.

Well, but the thing is footie, it is possible to build a motor that both revs high and has FI to provide more low end torque. Best of both worlds. This should do a lot to take care of your daily drivering concerns (personally I find the M great as a daily driver already).

And as I said in the "future M3" thread, the reason we don't associate high revving motors with SUVs is because they are so damn heavy, generally speaking. Its not because people are going off roading with them and need the torque for that reason - that's for sure. I could maybe see the argument for towing a large trailer, but again that is a tiny fraction of the population who is buying a luxury SUV, or at least an M "performance SUV" anyway. So if BMW would offer a lighter SUV, then the high revving motor will be no problem. Like I said, the M5 Touring does just fine with the S85 and that offers much of the utility of an SUV also.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by footie

All this chat of 6800rpm not being high enough is comical. It's an SUV for heaven sake, not a racing car and now to address the issue of what is a decent amount of revs for a future M car. The fact is that this figure has got progressively higher with each new model, now sitting at the 8400rpm point, but is that honestly desirable for a daily driver.
.

I think you did not read the whole thread closely. It has been mentioned before that yes SUVs are not supposed to get high-revving engines. Yet, BMW has abundantly made it clear that this is the direction they are taking with the M cars.

One may argue that it is possible to have a high-revving engine and turbocharger in one car. In mass produced cars, it has almost never been done simply because of reliability issues due to stress of high-revs combined with turbocharging. For one, BMW cannot even seem to get the turbos right on the 335 with a low-revving car, I could imagine how much worse it would be, if BMW is stupid enough to attempt a high-revving engine with turbo. Even Porsche keeps its turbo cars away from something that is even remotely higher revving than normal.

I would give you example of R34 GT-R that had an 8500 rpm redline with twin turbos. However, the engine and transmission were plagued with reliability issues. No wonder Nissan went with 6600 rpm redline on the R35 GT-R.

I can guarantee you one thing, the next M3 and M5 will have a 7000 rpm redline tops. Nothing more. Whether we like it or not, is a separate debate.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

One may argue that it is possible to have a high-revving engine and turbocharger in one car. In mass produced cars, it has almost never been done simply because of reliability issues due to stress of high-revs combined with turbocharging.

I won't argue that is hasn't been done often. But that doesn't mean it can't be done. What other 60k car revs to 8400RPM besides an M3? Not too many I can think of. So right there we have a great example of how BMW pushes the envelope with its engines.

For one, BMW cannot even seem to get the turbos right on the 335 with a low-revving car, I could imagine how much worse it would be, if BMW is stupid enough to attempt a high-revving engine with turbo.

Just because you can't imagine it doesn't really mean much since you are not an automotive engineer, or at least not one who designs high performance engines. Plus as has already been discussed, the 335i can't be used as a measuring stick for a engine that is years away from production and will be designed for more punishment than a 335i. If anything the S63 will provide a better picture of how the M3 motor should hold up and we don't yet have any data there to conclude anything from.

You are basically calling McLaren stupid in your above paragraph, which speaks volumes about your credibility on the topic. I am sure you will come back with the "Its not a volume vehicle" argument, but the reality is that you have absolutely no idea what the R&D of that motor is compared to an engine program like the S65 or S85. And you especially do not have any idea how much more McLaren spent on R&D than they would have if their engine were N/A. It may be small in the overall cost structure - you have no idea one way or the other.

I can guarantee you one thing, the next M3 and M5 will have a 7000 rpm redline tops. Nothing more. Whether we like it or not, is a separate debate.

You might be right, but I will also make a guarantee and that is that you are absolutely making a stab in the dark with your proclaimation here. And also, if you end up being wrong, I will bet that it won't change your tendency to overstate your opinions as facts.

[footie]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Well, but the thing is footie, it is possible to build a motor that both revs high and has FI to provide more low end torque. Best of both worlds. This should do a lot to take care of your daily drivering concerns (personally I find the M great as a daily driver already).

And as I said in the "future M3" thread, the reason we don't associate high revving motors with SUVs is because they are so damn heavy, generally speaking. Its not because people are going off roading with them and need the torque for that reason - that's for sure. I could maybe see the argument for towing a large trailer, but again that is a tiny fraction of the population who is buying a luxury SUV, or at least an M "performance SUV" anyway. So if BMW would offer a lighter SUV, then the high revving motor will be no problem. Like I said, the M5 Touring does just fine with the S85 and that offers much of the utility of an SUV also.

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.

[mkoesel]

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.

Ok well, I can't really debate that with you. I agree that there is no real need here, nor is there a need for a performance car on the street to begin with. It's more a matter of desire, and specifically the desire to have a car that rev's like a Ferrari and can still haul the family. Some people want a car that rev's like a pickup truck and can haul the family. That's fine too. Ok, so there are a lot of sports car and exotics that don't rev high also - that I will concede of course. But I like the high revving ones better and I think that this is true for a lot of others also, otherwise M would not be selling many cars.

[a burrito]

the M3 now is a lightyears better than the e30 m3.

the M3 now is still on top of the competition despite having cars likt he m5, m6, x5m, and x6m. just cause they have all these other M cars doesn't mean they don't do their homework. they need to expand and make more money somehow and this is the way to do it.