"M wants to build its own car" - M-Division Insider

[mkoesel]

There are likely countless similar situations in corporations throughout the world.

Businesses need to make money, and all investments in product need to be built on a solid business case. Unfortunately, having the skills and desire to build and market a product does not make a good business case. That's why the engineers don't run the company - they'd quite probably run it straight into the ground.

Its just the way it is.

[Stainless 45]

The M3 GTS would have been plenty profitable, if they had just made more and sold them here...

[AlterZgo]

I've always considered the McLaren F1 sort of a BMW M supercar as it uses a 6.0L V12 M-motor.

[piloto]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

Isn't ALMS and touring cars exactly this?

Not quite. While I think those series are good for existing engines, you need something of the caliber of F1 to develop truly new technology. Now, the FIA, in my book, is being a bit too tight on the regulations, but they are pushing the envelope for power, economy and weight. So participating in that environment will no doubt yield some major technological advancements. DTM will help, but strictly for engines, I think the upcoming F1 regs is where the big fight will be.

[DivideBYZero]

Originally Posted by kmarei

How come a lot of other car makers can make a super car, and generate profit
But to BMW, it's a mystery?

Most of them don't make money on the halo super cars. The Veyron is a great example. You pay $1m and VW pays the other $2m.

[mdosu]

they thinking in lines of a car like the LFA

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by DivideBYZero

Most of them don't make money on the halo super cars. The Veyron is a great example. You pay $1m and VW pays the other $2m.

BMW M. Do not want to build a Veyron. For the fact that the select owners circle represents the celebrity Douchebags of humanity.
That is correct that the Veyron is not profitable , in fact I have covered this before when you see a wrecked Veyron someone at VW must get depressed because they have to pay for the car to be repaired or some cases rebuilt out of their own pocket.

Audi R8 exists because of the economies of scale regarding engine , drivetrain , parts and tech is borrowed from their sister brand Lamborghini and the Gallardo.
When you go to an "International" European autoshow and there is German repesentives from AMG and M. Ask them about the R8 because both divisions have stripped down the car and the Lamborghini and can tell you how much the two are very much alike because they have seen it.

The Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG is now beginning to turn a profit because of the Roadster now being to able to recover the cost.

As mentioned before M has strict plans what it wants to do in regarding M-One and M-Two. But in order for their vision to materialise. They need to wait until BMW is in mass volume production of CFRP. Because BMW have invested in this they have a susbstantial lead over their competitors and they know it. When CFRP is in mass production it will become cost effective for BMW to use and can therefore be applied and bring in the vehicle at a significant cost, more effective than a potential rival with the same CFRP genetics.

M-One and M-Two will be not what you are expecting in terms of "Supercar" they have competitors in the real world and will be exactly like them - "Accessible" meaning they will compete with the Cayman/Boxster and the 911/R8. Thanks to BMWi and mass CFRP production.

In the meantime the i8 will suffice because it is a Progressive Sports car - It is all about reinventing the sportscar recipe with a very different outlook.
The i8 is something new , highly innovative and will have many attributes as a sports car but with a more progressive outlook.

[kyleb350]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

In the meantime the i8 will suffice because it is a Progressive Sports car - It is all about reinventing the sportscar recipe with a very different outlook.
The i8 is something new , highly innovative and will have many attributes as a sports car but with a more progressive outlook.

I still think they should give the M division the i8 chassis to tinker with... just as a "what-if"

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

BMW M. Do not want to build a Veyron. For the fact that the select owners circle represents the celebrity Douchebags of humanity.

Love it when SCOTT does not mince words.

[mkoesel]

Very intriguing. So the key for M Sports cars is cost effective CFRP.

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

As mentioned before M has strict plans what it wants to do in regarding M-One and M-Two. But in order for their vision to materialise. They need to wait until BMW is in mass volume production of CFRP. Because BMW have invested in this they have a susbstantial lead over their competitors and they know it. When CFRP is in mass production it will become cost effective for BMW to use and can therefore be applied and bring in the vehicle at a significant cost, more effective than a potential rival with the same CFRP genetics.

M-One and M-Two will be not what you are expecting in terms of "Supercar" they have competitors in the real world and will be exactly like them - "Accessible" meaning they will compete with the Cayman/Boxster and the 911/R8. Thanks to BMWi and mass CFRP production.

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Very intriguing. So the key for M Sports cars is cost effective CFRP.

The Journey to using CFRP on M has been a long but successful one.
If you take the M3 CSL it was the first volume "based" production car - not an exclusive supercar to use a CFRP roof and Bootlid.

The E63 BMW M6 again inherited the CFRP roof, as did the E92 M3 but BMW NA requested a moonroof that was denied on the M6 but given to the E92.

What you have seen in the M3 CRT is further progression in reference to expanding CFRP such as the bonnet and lightweight seats. For BMW M using CFRP is still an expensive process so everything is arriving in stages to make it more cost effective.
If Audi or Mercedes-Benz had to apply a CFRP roof to the current RS5 or C63 Coupe (not Black Series) Then because of the cost of production and development it would be around 10,000 euro over an M3.

That is how far BMW have got by implementing the CFRP panels to regular models. And since the M3 CSL in 2003 the cost comes down because they are producing more parts but not at the volume which will be required for the i3 and i8.
Then when that is in operation you will see what BMW M can do.

The new BMW M6 which is imminent in the next few weeks retains the CFRP roof panel and but features other tweaks to make the car lighter. And when I say lighter you are not going to get a 1000kg M6 that is of course not possible with the market for the M6.

The next generation of BMW M cars are being engineered to feature non-load bearing structural elements constructed entirely out of CFRP , As CFRP will not only replicate exterior body panels and interior features, but what you cannot see too. This is how BMW M Performance Automobiles will stand aside M. BMWM. Will become more experimental than before. It will fully become a sub-brand.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by erhanh

It will be either ridiculously priced or won't see USA or both

M-division wants to build a true super car, BMW enthusiasts want one, but BMW doesn't allow one.

I wonder though, if the M3 GTS costs like 150-170k, which is a car based on 3 series, how much an M super car would cost? And who would buy it? Let say for 250k, would you buy M super car or F458 or GT2 or Gallardo...

I think the real cost of the M3 GTS was in its limited production.....my guess is if they could get the units up to R8 levels, the price might not be totally analogous to the GTS........R8 has approached close to 5-6k units. But still almost 200x more than the GTS, unless I am misinformed.

Cheers,
e46e92

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I think the real cost of the M3 GTS was in it limited production.....my guess is if they could get the units up to R8 levels, the price might not be totally analogous to the GTS........R8 has approached close to 5-6k units. But still almost 200x more than the GTS, unless I am misinformed.

Cheers,
e46e92

I agree. But BMW has a different view in these cars. GTS and CRT both are very limited for some reason.. And I think the E46 CSL was limited production too.

Btw, we're talking about BMW making a supercar, while Nissan is fitting the GTR drive train to Juke...

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by erhanh

I agree. But BMW has a different view in these cars. GTS and CRT both are very limited for some reason.. And I think the E46 CSL was limited production too.

Btw, we're talking about BMW making a supercar, while Nissan is fitting the GTR drive train to Juke...

If they sold 3-5k units worldwide a year, that is still pretty damn limited

Cheers,
e46e92

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I think the real cost of the M3 GTS was in its limited production.....my guess is if they could get the units up to R8 levels, the price might not be totally analogous to the GTS........R8 has approached close to 5-6k units. But still almost 200x more than the GTS, unless I am misinformed.

Cheers,
e46e92

AS has been told (Albert Biermann), the GTS was never meant to be a mass product- It started out as a customer project as part of Individual that grew. The cars were not built on the lines with the standard cars but built by M in Garching. The people at M found a way to build cars without board approval essentially. The CRT and GTS were never board approved- they were client cars that were then increased in production numbers in stages.

They have plans to build other vehicles in this manner- I am sure Scott can elaborate more.

There were no economy of scale issues, no price point issues just cars built for a limited run and limited clientele. They can build a car along the lines of the R8 to an extent but it would still be priced more because what the R8 has is a car it shares a ton of parts with that is a true super car and thus can warrant a higher cost and absorb the majority of the development cost- BMW does not yet have that- that is where BMWi comes in. M will cherry pick the best CFRP technology and build parts at unheard of prices thanks to economies of scale- wouldn't be surprised to see CFRP become the marketing device of future M cars and why we are now seeing the M Performance vehicles...


After the M6 debut in the near future I am sure that the new M3 and the tri-turbo inline six will become more of the focus- no worries about a V6 as it was deemed to costly at the board level (so we've heard).

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by mapezzul

AS has been told (Albert Biermann), the GTS was never meant to be a mass product- It started out as a customer project as part of Individual that grew. The cars were not built on the lines with the standard cars but built by M in Garching. The people at M found a way to build cars without board approval essentially. The CRT and GTS were never board approved- they were client cars that were then increased in production numbers in stages.

They have plans to build other vehicles in this manner- I am sure Scott can elaborate more.

There were no economy of scale issues, no price point issues just cars built for a limited run and limited clientele. They can build a car along the lines of the R8 to an extent but it would still be priced more because what the R8 has is a car it shares a ton of parts with that is a true super car and thus can warrant a higher cost and absorb the majority of the development cost- BMW does not yet have that- that is where BMWi comes in. M will cherry pick the best CFRP technology and build parts at unheard of prices thanks to economies of scale- wouldn't be surprised to see CFRP become the marketing device of future M cars and why we are now seeing the M Performance vehicles...


After the M6 debut in the near future I am sure that the new M3 and the tri-turbo inline six will become more of the focus- no worries about a V6 as it was deemed to costly at the board level (so we've heard).

There will be other cars similar to the GTS and CRT.
I should point out that the GTS was considered for the US alongside the 1M.
However it was felt that BMW customers would not sacrifice the luxury aspects of the standard M3 for the stripped out GTS.

BMWi ---------- BMW ----------- BMW M.

This is how the BMW Brand is bookended by BMWi and BMW M. BMWi with the i3 and i8 are completely seperate products from BMW. They are under the BMWi sub brand.

Eventually BMW M. will eventually offer the same idea in regards to a stand alone model. But within both BMWi and BMW M there are sub-brands - BMWi will eventually offer mobility under the guise of two wheels as well to expand the sustainability aspect of future mobility to other vehicles. And BMW M have just launched BMW M Performance Automobiles which is a sub brand within the BMW M brand.

With BMWi the synergy of material technology will filter through BMW and to BMW M. BMWi can be described as a Brand specifying on Sustainability where BMW M is Performance. But both brands can be considered as "Experimental" Because if you look at BMWi it is all new , highly innovative and completely unique. M can be considered in the same way - Look at the M advancements and innovation , look at how the engineering of an M always stands out , look at how M have brought CFRP to an entry sports car in an experimental way. A lot of these "experimental" firsts have been with an M car before the competition follow.

The new BMW M6 which is weeks away will reintroduce the CFRP roof but it will advance material technology to enhance the lightness factor of the new car which will show that BMW M are certainly progressing even though to some it looks as if they are not.

In conclusion I would say that the future for M is very Experimental. but with a very grounded passion for Performance and class leading dynamics.

[3XTR3M3]

Some amazing info in here. Thank you Scott and mapezzul

[manuelf]

Originally Posted by 3XTR3M3

Some amazing info in here. Thank you Scott and mapezzul

Yep - this was also my thought

If you want to cater to a wider audience (and the goal of selling 2 Mio. cars someday needs obviously a wider audience) you need to address more fine granular levels/differences in performance. If the introduction of ///M Performance means that the regular M modells don't need to consider any comfort aspect and are able to be more "extreme" and "experimental" then this is a perfect evolution in my eyes.

I am very excited about the upcoming F8x M3/M4 and the M2 and everything beyond!

[MMMorish]

Originally Posted by piloto

I'd rather see BMW spend their money and enter a proper racing series where engine development is going to be key. I'd love for BMW, via the M division to get back into F1 when the 1.6L turbo V6 engines come online in 2014. I believe money spent on developing technology there will benefit BMW in the best way (technology, marketing, reliability testing, etc.), and it can recoup the costs better by selling the engine to other teams (i.e. don't run your own team).

I'd much rather see this than an M supercar. I'd love for the furture M3s and M5s to have engines that have technology that's directly from their F1 efforts.

+1, however, BMW has done it before with the M1 and the Z8, if you want to consider that as a supercar, and Audi did it with the R8 with a lot of success, so why wouldn't they build a supercar?

Even Lexus jumped onto the supercar bandwagon with a phenominal effort with their LFA, not that I'd buy one.

I personally think that if BMW made one it would sell, more so if they got back into F1 and used its technology from the race car.

[Wolf]

so scott you are saying that we will get the supercar in the near future? maybe 2030? I will be 40 by the time BMW fully finishes the CFRPCTRPLBN

[aajami]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

I should point out that the GTS was considered for the US alongside the 1M.
However it was felt that BMW customers would not sacrifice the luxury aspects of the standard M3 for the stripped out GTS.

Scott,

I just now saw this post. I know I'm only one customer, but I feel confident that I speak for many others when I say that I would wholeheartedly welcome a stripped-down, lightweight M3. I don't feel that "luxury" and "M3" go hand in hand, and the current weight of my E92M is very off-putting.

Please consider making a focused version of the F8X.

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by aajami

Scott,

I just now saw this post. I know I'm only one customer, but I feel confident that I speak for many others when I say that I would wholeheartedly welcome a stripped-down, lightweight M3. I don't feel that "luxury" and "M3" go hand in hand, and the current weight of my E92M is very off-putting.

Please consider making a focused version of the F8X.

Sadly you would be in a minority when the majority would not sacrifice the luxury features of an M3. BMW would not be able to provide a business case for a handful of customers.