New Speculations on the F30 M3 / F32 M3

[southlight]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I don't think the redline of the F10 M5 is known precisely yet either. The dash pictures do not show it clearly but I think the consensus is 6750-7000.

Not far off, the redline of the F10 M5 is at 7100 rpm.



Picture from this thread: http://f10.5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=417386


Best regards,
south

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by southlight

BMW M is still considering several engines or rather engine layouts for the next M3, so I can't tell whether this particular engine will actually make it into production, only that this is one possible layout they're looking into:

- The displacement will be increased from 3.0l to 3.5l. We've had a discussion on this possibility earlier here, and came to the conclusion it wasn't possible based on the N55's cylinder spacing. What we didn't know back then is that BMW wouldn't touch the N55's bore, but implement this increase solely by adding stroke. In other words, crank and heads will be different from the N55.

I've been giving this motor layout some further thought, and I've come to the conclusion that it would be a big mistake. This despite the fact that there would be many good things to recommend it:

As I mentioned before, all of the math suggests a power peak no higher than about 6800 and more likely 6600, and a peak RPM of ~7200 with 7000 being more likely. This assumes BMW engineers improve the head to work as well as previous M3s, which seems required to retain any kind of top end. 7000 rpm coincides with valvetronic's published rev limit, and I suspect that's no coincidence. The way I understand Valvetronic, I suspect that there is a tradeoff between response time and RPM- raise the RPM and the response (and hence throttle response) will be slower. As throttle response is critical for an M3, I can see the engineers being willing to trade peak RPM for and improvement there (assuming the use an improved valvetronic, of course).

With these improvements the 450 hp would be easy to achieve with boost levels no higher than the current N55; lag could be quite minimal, boost would hit early, etc. An improved valvetronic could improve response further, so very near N.A. response looks achievable with this configuration.

So what's not to like? The shape of the power curve:

In my mind the M3 is not defined by the peak RPM- that's just numbers on a dial, and I suspect if you re-painted the tach most people couldn't tell the difference (certainly not with the sound off, anyway). What they could easily feel, however, would be the torque curve falling off. A flat or increasing torque curve feels dramatic- half way through the gear your mind starts saying that physics should be catching up and the car slowing down. When it doesn't, or indeed when it gets faster instead of slower alarm bells start going off (OMG this is quick). That feeling defines the M3 and the Porsche GT3.

A 997 turbo or most turbo cars are different- a great big wallop of torque down low (the hand of god) that blows your mind, but then the feeling wanes as you pull through the gear. Still fast, still good, but often called a GT experience vs a Sportscar.

The motor described above would by definition be the latter experience, as the bore to stroke ratio insures that torque would naturally be falling across the revs much more seriously than the 997 turbo. Some trickery with variable boost might flatten the curve out by cutting torque down low, but towards the power peak there would be no hiding the fact that the car is running out of breath.

Make no mistake, this is a smart way to engineer the motor as it plays to both what a turbo motor and the parts BMW has are good at. It's just that the M3 would loose it's character in the process, like a Porsche GT3 becoming a turbo. Still good perhaps, but very different...

It certainly doesn't need to be this way with a turbo. McLaren's new 3.8L turbo proves this- 8500 rpm redline, flat torque to 7K. If that motor was limited to ~7000 rpm and 450 hp it would provide exactly the same airplane at takeoff feeling the M3 has now, as the car would simply get faster and faster. That can't happen with this long stroke, small bore concept though.

Let's hope BMW engineers test this motor and come to the same conclusion, and let's hope they have another concept that pulls to redline. If not, I fear the M3 will cease to be an M3 in all but name...

Are there any other rumors as to what other configurations BMW might be looking at?

[swamp2]

Good post ^.

My curiousity as to which routes they will take, given the expectations folks have for the high revving experience, is quite high. Its unfortunate that any sort of firm details are probably quite distant in the future.

Do keep in mind though that the flat wide torque curve of the E9X M3 along with the corresponding linear hp curve (which provides the exact kind of turbine like thrust feeling you described) is actually new to the M3 series. Prior generations, had much peakier torque curves. The E46 M3 was peaky in the midrange and thus has a bit of the more classic turbo-like feel. The E36 M3 with its primitive single stepped VANOS system also provided a similar feel. Some even criticized the feel of the E46 for being smoother and more linear than the E36 M3 and thus it felt slower. This progression continued with the E9X series.

Also keep in mind that Valvetronic exists much more from an emissions perspective than from a performance one. There is no reason it must be in the next M3 engine. Since the turbo system (again rumored to be a unique tri-turbo system) along with direct injection should provide substantial improvements in fuel efficiency and emissions.

Either way I'm sure BMW wants to continue to snag some additional Engine of the Year awards and since the F10 M5 engine is not highly innovative this is probably the next BMW engine with a chance for some significant innovations.

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Do keep in mind though that the flat wide torque curve of the E9X M3 along with the corresponding linear hp curve (which provides the exact kind of turbine like thrust feeling you described) is actually new to the M3 series. Prior generations, had much peakier torque curves.

And I enjoy some peaks when the torque climbs. But all of the previous curves are quite different to what we'd be talking about here, which would be a slow steady decline (think dodge viper).

Originally Posted by swamp2

Also keep in mind that Valvetronic exists much more from an emissions perspective than from a performance one.

This may be true for where the technology stands today. However valvetronic has the potential to increase cylinder filling at low rpm, increasing torque and thereby decreasing turbo lag, as it can make an almost ideal cam for those situations.

Valvetronic also has the potential to be as fast or faster than individual throttle bodies in terms of engine response vs a single throttle. ITBs help a turbo motor by eliminating the delay caused by the plenum filling after boost has been built, and Valvetronic does the same.

My understanding is that currently peak rpm and actuation speed are the main factors preventing Vavetronic from being better all around vs ITBs. Both relate to actuator motor power. A more powerful actuator could reduce travel time (originally 300 ms in the first systems, not sure what it's down to now). It could also increase peak RPM above 7000 by allowing the use of stiffer valve springs. The other way at this is through lighter (smaller) valves. I doubt it's just coincidence that this configuration limits valve size vs larger bore to stroke ratio.

I agree that BMW will look to put some significant tech in this motor, and an improved valvetronic would certainly help, but they shouldn't sacrifice the power curve to do it...

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

So what's not to like? The shape of the power curve:

My beef with it is on a somewhat more tangible/practical level: the rod ratio on such a motor will go to hell (assuming no added deck, which would further compromise already tight packaging constraints, not to mention balloon costs). You end up with too much lateral force on the wristpin and cylinder wall at half TDC/BDC, not to mention engineering challenges as far as not yanking the piston out of the bottom of the cylinder. In other words it would be a half-assed design at best. Maybe OK for Bubba's small block chevy drag car, but not good for a production motor from a company who is expected to set the standard for engine performance and refinement.

Are there any other rumors as to what other configurations BMW might be looking at?

Well there is the more obvious one - that is, simply retaining the 3L displacement ceiling common to all other current BMW I6's (N52, N53, N54, N55) and all recent past BMW I6's (M50, S50, M52, M54) except for the iron-block S52B32 (which increased bore vs. it's relatives, not stroke).

[ILC32]

Awesome posts in this thread. Kudos especially to Pete. Pete, what's your background if I may ask?

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

My beef with it is on a somewhat more tangible/practical level: the rod ratio on such a motor will go to hell (assuming no added deck, which would further compromise already tight packaging constraints, not to mention balloon costs).

Yes. I'm assuming they would do what's required to make the motor serviceable, but I agree they likely can't move the pin high enough in the cylinder, etc, so added deck seems likely...

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Well there is the more obvious one - that is, simply retaining the 3L displacement ceiling common to all other current BMW I6's...

Or something in between could be decent, maybe a 3.2. Even a little more bore would help...

Originally Posted by ILC32

Awesome posts in this thread. Kudos especially to Pete. Pete, what's your background if I may ask?

Thanks very much- I am a mechanical engineer, but not this field. I just enjoy this stuff (as all MEs should)...

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Doctor J

The MT is a dinosaur in terms of its likelihood to survive into the future.

BMW is thinking global instead of niche market. From an accounting standpoint it makes no sense to continue offering a manual transmission that is really used in a very small percentage of their product line.

I'm sure they are willing to lose a few sales to purists who demand a MT in their sports cars -- because they sell a hell of a lot more SUVs and sedans with ATs to make up the difference.

Hell even Porsche purists admit the PDK shifts faster and better and gets better fuel economy than the manual transmission. I think the MT is going to be a very small % of Porsche future sales too -- and as soon as that happens the bean counters will kill it.

Porsche purists buy the GT3 and GT3 RS - naturally aspirated high revving screamers, offered only with a "dinosaur" six speed transmission that shifts with the mechanical precision of a Mauser bolt action. Not a PDK to be found.

These dinosaur Porsche boxer six cylinder GT3s run the Nordschleife at a fairly good pace. I believe the times are 7:40 and 7:33 respectfully. Did a V8 M3 equipped with a DCT break the 8:05 mark at the Nordschleife? Did a 444 hp V8 M3 GTS equipped with an amazing 7 speed DCT beat either of these dinosaurs around the Nordschleife. Nada. It posted a time of 7:48, eight seconds slower than the base GT3.

Led Zeppelin were also called dinosaurs by some at the end of their reign when drummer Bonzo died in 1980. For their reunion concert 27 years later, promotors claimed there were 20 million ticket requests in a venue that has a capacity of 23000.

A quartz watch keeps time better than the finest manual wound mechanical movements found in the worlds most sought after watches. But what would you rather own and set the time with, a Seiko or a Patek Philippe?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

Porsche purists buy the GT3 and GT3 RS - naturally aspirated high revving screamers, offered only with a "dinosaur" six speed transmission that shifts with the mechanical precision of a Mauser bolt action. Not a PDK to be found.

These dinosaur Porsche boxer six cylinder GT3s run the Nordschleife at a fairly good pace. I believe the times are 7:40 and 7:33 respectfully. Did a V8 M3 equipped with a DCT break the 8:05 mark at the Nordschleife? Did a 444 hp V8 M3 GTS equipped with an amazing 7 speed DCT beat either of these dinosaurs around the Nordschleife. Nada. It posted a time of 7:48, eight seconds slower than the base GT3.

Led Zeppelin were also called dinosaurs by some at the end of their reign when drummer Bonzo died in 1980. For their reunion concert 27 years later, promotors claimed there were 20 million ticket requests in a venue that has a capacity of 23000.

A quartz watch keeps time better than the finest manual wound mechanical movements found in the worlds most sought after watches. But what would you rather own and set the time with, a Seiko or a Patek Philippe?

Come on Ruff, apples to oranges baby apples to oranges. There are arguments for and against both types of transmissions but I don't think you've got to the essense of the issue with this la la la...

[BMW269]

I do not want to start a new thread, and this fits very nicely here.

Question: Who are M3 drivers?
If we can answer this question, we can then define what an M3 is and what should it be like.
The M3 is the car that represents the benchmark of BMW sportscars, or better to say sporty cars, just like in Porsche it is the 911. Both M3 and 911 are very traditional and have a very long history with alot of sucses in motosport.
M3 is often campared to 911 GT3. The 911 GT3 is better and faster, but M3 has more place and is more comfortable for daily use. I do not think many of the M3 owners got the M3, because it is cheaper than the 911 GT3. The M3 also is not a cheap M car, and for this reason BMW M made the "M1". I hope the "M1"/M2, is the first step to an M3, and so the M3 will still stay the best car. Also, remember the next M2 is getting a TT 2.0l I4, and some here said would take any V8 over 6 cylinders.
The new M5 is getting a TT V8. I do not think there will be any disapointment, except the sound. The M5 was the fastest sedan in the world. Now it is not the case (E AMG, CLS AMG, RS6, CTS-V, Panamera and more to come), and for the M5 to take back its place it to go FI. Yes the M5 E60 had the supercar (Carrera GT, LFA, Gallardo, R8) and ex-F1 sound, but with this sound it cannot get much faster, witout becoming uncomfortable.
FI is better for daily driven cars, and all BMW's and BMW's are getting turboes: 1.5l I3, 1.6l I4, 2.0l I4, 3.0l I6, 4.4l V8 (new 4.0l V8), 6.0l V12 (and new smaller V12).
I agree that the next M5, M6 and M2 get turboes (TT 2.0l I4 and TT 4.4l V8), but the M3 has to be different.
Why? If you are looking for the sportiest BMW, it is the M3, if Audi, R8, if Porsche 911, let us say GT3, if Mercedes, SLS. BMW is not going to build any true supercar, only an eco-supercar, but its not that "super" for 200.000 €.
I think for the next M3 F32, M should continue developing the S65, for example direct injection. That is what Ferrari did for the 458 Italia, and Mercedes for the new C 350 GCI. Of course the M3 is not a Ferrari, but for M it has the same status, unless M wants to build another performance car, but unfortunately it is not the case.
Our hopes of seing a new S65 in the next M3, are almost impossible, remember how Scott stresses these words:

S65 will die with the M3.

Nonetheless, it is still to early to know what engine the next M3 will get. If it is true that for the "M1", M worked on a detuned engine of the next M3 F32, based on the N55, and called S55, and because they could not finish it, put a tuned N54 into it, does not mean that engine cannot get its place into another M car. It would fit very well into the new X3 M, that will come whether you want it or not, ot the Z4 M E89, that is now heavier and less sporty, but more of a roadster GT.
Porsche put turboes on 911 Turbo, Cayenne Turbo, Panamera Turbo, yet still offers a H-R N/A engine in the 911 GT3. Can you imagine if the 911 GT3 got FI? That is the same case for the M3. Times have changed, cars are getting heavier and bigger, so the M3 has to keep the V8, symbol of sport cars: McLaren MP4-12C, Ferrari 458 Italia, etc... Should the M3 go back to I6, because the M3's E36 and E46 got an I6? Why then not to I4, that's what the M3 E30 had? Because now there is the M2 for this?
And now, what car is BMW going to use in motorsport for GT2, GT4, DTM? BMW Motorsport engines are always based on BMW AG engines. The 320si has the 320i engine, now going to get the turbo 1.6l I4 of the Mini Cooper S, the Z4 M Coupé GT3 had the M3 E46 engine, now they have the P65 engine based on the S65. Is the next BMW M3 Motorpsort going to run the 24-Nürburgring against the mighty 911 GT3 R with a TT I6?

I now have an idea about Scotts words and why he stresses them so:

The S65 is going to die with the M3 E92, to give birth to an all new S66 that will come to life with the new M3 F32.

And what about the S55, based on the N55? I think the X3 M and Z4 M will get this engine. For the coming Z4 M, to get an upgraded Z4 sDrive35is engine, that is already considered as an M engine, an upgraded N54, make no sense, unless when the Z4 M comes, it will replace the Z4 sDrive35is.

My thinking of what was told, and what was understood:

The M3 F32 is going to get the increased capacity 4.4l V8. [DISPLACEMENT]

The new X3 M and Z4 M are going to get a Twin/(Tri)Turbo 3.0l I6, named S55, based on the N55, that we wanted to put as a detuned version into the 1SMC. [N55]

And we understood: M3 F32 is coming with increased displacement N55.


I have my hopes back, all BMW's and BMW M's are going FI except the M3, that is keeping a H-R N/A V8.

Imagine:
M3 Coupé F32
NA 4.4l V8
490 PS, 450 Nm
Redline @ 8.800 rpm
1500 kg (EU)
0-100 km/h: 4.2 sec (6MT)
V-max: 300 km/h
N-Ring: 7:50 min


THE M3 IS NOT JUST ANY M CAR: IT'S AN M3.

PS: If it will not be so, the M3 will die, and I together. The difference, its name will remain, but mine not.




!!!EDIT!!! : One more reason to believe the M3 F32 is going to keep a NA V8
Mercedes has FI on all engines except the 3.5l V6 (350 GCI) and the 6.3l V8 (63 AMG). We know the NA 6.3l V8 is going to be replaced by the new TT 5.5l V8 in the E AMG, S AMG, SL AMG, ML AMG, CL AMG, CLS AMG, except the SLS AMG. What engine are going to get the new C AMG and SLK AMG? I heard about a 3.5l V6 Komprex Supercharger. But this is probably not an AMG engine but a Mercedes engine that will replace the NA 3.5l V6.
It is very likely, the new C AMG and SLK will, like the previous C55 AMG and SLS 55 AMG got the E/S/SL 55 AMG engine but without supercharger, the new C AMG and SLK AMG, will be called C 55 AMG and SLK 55 AMG, and will get the new 5.5l V8, but without turboes. This means, no easy ECU upgrade to make it as fast as the new E 63 AMG, and NA 5.5l V8 with about 500 HP. The AMG's TT 5.5l V8 is very light, witout the turbo-system it will be even lighter, and may weigh less than the 3.5l V6 Komprex engine, and this will bring the new C 55 AMG to another level about handling.

New C 55 AMG: NA 5.5l V8 with 500 HP and 550 Nm? How can the M3 F32 not get a NA V8?

C 55 AMG (NA 5.5l V8) vs. M3 F32 (TT 3.5l I6) = M3 owners going over to AMG

[southlight]

Originally Posted by Levi

My thinking of what was told, and what was understood:

The M3 F32 is going to get the increased capacity 4.4l V8. [DISPLACEMENT]

The new X3 M and Z4 M are going to get a Twin/(Tri)Turbo 3.0l I6, named S55, based on the N55, that we wanted to put as a detuned version into the 1SMC. [N55]

And we understood: M3 F32 is coming with increased displacement N55.


I have my hopes back, all BMW's and BMW M's are going FI except the M3, that is keeping a H-R N/A V8.

I just want to add my understanding:

F3x M3 and X3 M will basically share engines, much like the X5 M and M5 do. Both will get a 3.5l turbo 6-cylinder.

If it gets the green light, the Z4 M would be an even sportier version than the M3 GTS, e.g. S65, fixed roof, light weight, and very limited.


Best regards,
south

[Vbcarguy]

How great would it be if they put the v10 from the m5. That would be a dream come true

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I am being completely honest when I say I think the new M3 will be a great car. There are things I don't like about the direction M is taking, yet at the same time an M3 has always been about the complete package. The 8400 rpm redline (well anything above about 6000) in our cars is truly breath taking. However the combination of huge torque, huge power (relatively speaking of course) and a decently high rpm, along with what I think we be the first true weight growth reversal is going to result in a car that has a much improved power to weight and will be quite a bit faster (I'm about ready to make a long post on that...) . I certainly won't complain about the drastically improved mpg either. Does that last little detail make me not a real M enthusiast? Certainly not in my opinion, it just make me one with half a conscious... As well the overall platform will be improved and the suspension will be redesigned and improved as well.

Have a bit of faith.

SWAMP, I must make it clear again, as I did in my long post back on page 5 or something, that I have no doubt this will be a great car, but so is the S4, & S63........and a tuned 335i. But great and special are two different things.

I believe you are undervaluing what a special motor means to an ///M car and the brand itself. I just don't see how a low revving and torquey engine will help to make this car special and separate from its competitors. What about throttle response? Sorry, there is still a huge difference between the S65 and its supposed "zero-lag" FI counterparts.

This motor will feel like nothing more than a stronger version of the FI motor that will be used in the rest of the BMW line, while the S65 (and the S54 before it) felt MUCH different then any non-///M power plants.

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

I've been giving this motor layout some further thought, and I've come to the conclusion that it would be a big mistake. This despite the fact that there would be many good things to recommend it:

As I mentioned before, all of the math suggests a power peak no higher than about 6800 and more likely 6600, and a peak RPM of ~7200 with 7000 being more likely. This assumes BMW engineers improve the head to work as well as previous M3s, which seems required to retain any kind of top end. 7000 rpm coincides with valvetronic's published rev limit, and I suspect that's no coincidence. The way I understand Valvetronic, I suspect that there is a tradeoff between response time and RPM- raise the RPM and the response (and hence throttle response) will be slower. As throttle response is critical for an M3, I can see the engineers being willing to trade peak RPM for and improvement there (assuming the use an improved valvetronic, of course).

With these improvements the 450 hp would be easy to achieve with boost levels no higher than the current N55; lag could be quite minimal, boost would hit early, etc. An improved valvetronic could improve response further, so very near N.A. response looks achievable with this configuration.

So what's not to like? The shape of the power curve:

In my mind the M3 is not defined by the peak RPM- that's just numbers on a dial, and I suspect if you re-painted the tach most people couldn't tell the difference (certainly not with the sound off, anyway). What they could easily feel, however, would be the torque curve falling off. A flat or increasing torque curve feels dramatic- half way through the gear your mind starts saying that physics should be catching up and the car slowing down. When it doesn't, or indeed when it gets faster instead of slower alarm bells start going off (OMG this is quick). That feeling defines the M3 and the Porsche GT3.

A 997 turbo or most turbo cars are different- a great big wallop of torque down low (the hand of god) that blows your mind, but then the feeling wanes as you pull through the gear. Still fast, still good, but often called a GT experience vs a Sportscar.

The motor described above would by definition be the latter experience, as the bore to stroke ratio insures that torque would naturally be falling across the revs much more seriously than the 997 turbo. Some trickery with variable boost might flatten the curve out by cutting torque down low, but towards the power peak there would be no hiding the fact that the car is running out of breath.

Make no mistake, this is a smart way to engineer the motor as it plays to both what a turbo motor and the parts BMW has are good at. It's just that the M3 would loose it's character in the process, like a Porsche GT3 becoming a turbo. Still good perhaps, but very different...

It certainly doesn't need to be this way with a turbo. McLaren's new 3.8L turbo proves this- 8500 rpm redline, flat torque to 7K. If that motor was limited to ~7000 rpm and 450 hp it would provide exactly the same airplane at takeoff feeling the M3 has now, as the car would simply get faster and faster. That can't happen with this long stroke, small bore concept though.

Let's hope BMW engineers test this motor and come to the same conclusion, and let's hope they have another concept that pulls to redline. If not, I fear the M3 will cease to be an M3 in all but name...

Are there any other rumors as to what other configurations BMW might be looking at?

GREAT POST. Expresses everything I have been trying to say.

Originally Posted by southlight

I just want to add my understanding:

F3x M3 and X3 M will basically share engines, much like the X5 M and M5 do. Both will get a 3.5l turbo 6-cylinder.

If it gets the green light, the Z4 M would be an even sportier version than the M3 GTS, e.g. S65, fixed roof, light weight, and very limited.


Best regards,
south

.............Might as well piss all over the ///M symbol and the heritage of the ///M3 if it winds up sharing an engine with a X3 ///M. Boy I want to slap the sh*t out of the decision makers at BMW.......blowing up and destroying decades of hard work.

MORONS!!!!!


Cheers,
e46e92

[RandyB]

Great discussion so far - I have enjoyed reading it. I don't like the direction things appear to be going, however. There is probably no other choice for them than to turn to smaller, lower revving turbo engines. That doesn't mean I have to like it though, and I don't.

I still think the new car will be engaging to drive, but in different ways. There are three things that I really didn't want the next M3 to be - bigger, heavier and artificially aspirated. Two out of three have all but been confirmed and I'm left just hoping that it will be no heavier than before.

That said, I will probably turn my attention in the direction of the next-gen Cayman S and hope for a 350 hp N/A 3.4/3.6. I'm running out of cars to choose from that I like but at least I'm enjoying the two I have.

[ruff]

I believe BMW still has a viable market out there for the hard core enthusiasts. BMW was one of the pioneers to attract and mine this very market when it developed the M Division. Porsche is beginning to mop up the market share of disaffected M enthusiast and I believe the defection to Porsche will continue at an accelerated rate.

On a positive note, the 1M is a turn back in the right direction for M, especially given the budget and time constraints. Though I think most 1M shoppers would gladly dish out an addition 5k+ to get a unique M motor with a few more ponies. It will certainly steal market share from the Japanese sports car manufactures.

As I have said in the past and other reiterated, if the next generation M3 came equipped with a tweaked S65, or they threw in the S65 B44 powerplant from the GTS and dropped a hundred + pounds, it would save development/production costs and continue the M tradition of high revving banshee screaming race tuned M cars.

Anyone who has driven the current M3 knows that the race bred S65 is what makes the car so special. Porschephiles knows the unqualified importance of the dry sump racing GT1/Mezger motor found in the GT3. And anyone who follows the Z06 knows what the race bred small block LS7 means to the Corvette faithful.

I have seen more than a few folks here state their desire to own a GT3 vs the faster GTR and a lot of it has to do with the character of the GT1 motor, even though it gives up a lot in horsepower and torque to the Nissan twin turbo. And the talk of "soulessness" of the GTR is in part due to it's technologically advanced transmission and electronic nannies that ironically make it even faster.

It is sad to see the M division abandoning the brilliant S65 and its racing ties. It is the closest powerplant to the Ferrari F430 in sound and character on the market today, and at a fraction of the price. Remember how we celebrated this very fact and gloated about its eight individual throttle butterflies and 8400 red line. Let me repeat that - 8400 red line. How quickly we forget. The next generation M3 could take a page from Ferrari and implement DI and remain the Ferrari like power plant at a bargain basement price to the 458. And throw in livable back seats for free, just because. Sounds like an enticing marketing campaign for BMW to snatch away Porsche market share.

[duk]

Didn't M division confirm next M3 will be 6 cyl and turboed?

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by ruff

I believe BMW still has a viable market out there for the hard core enthusiasts. BMW was one of the pioneers to attract and mine this very market when it developed the M Division. Porsche is beginning to mop up the market share of disaffected M enthusiast and I believe the defection to Porsche will continue at an accelerated rate.

On a positive note, the 1M is a turn back in the right direction for M, especially given the budget and time constraints. Though I think most 1M shoppers would gladly dish out an addition 5k+ to get a unique M motor with a few more ponies. It will certainly steal market share from the Japanese sports car manufactures.

As I have said in the past and other reiterated, if the next generation M3 came equipped with a tweaked S65, or they threw in the S65 B44 powerplant from the GTS and dropped a hundred + pounds, it would save development/production costs and continue the M tradition of high revving banshee screaming race tuned M cars.

Anyone who has driven the current M3 knows that the race bred S65 is what makes the car so special. Porschephiles knows the unqualified importance of the dry sump racing GT1/Mezger motor found in the GT3. And anyone who follows the Z06 knows what the race bred small block LS7 means to the Corvette faithful.

I have seen more than a few folks here state their desire to own a GT3 vs the faster GTR and a lot of it has to do with the character of the GT1 motor, even though it gives up a lot in horsepower and torque to the Nissan twin turbo. And the talk of "soulessness" of the GTR is in part due to it's technologically advanced transmission and electronic nannies that ironically make it even faster.

It is sad to see the M division abandoning the brilliant S65 and its racing ties. It is the closest powerplant to the Ferrari F430 in sound and character on the market today, and at a fraction of the price. Remember how we celebrated this very fact and gloated about its eight individual throttle butterflies and 8400 red line. Let me repeat that - 8400 red line. How quickly we forget. The next generation M3 could take a page from Ferrari and implement DI and remain the Ferrari like power plant at a bargain basement price to the 458. And throw in livable back seats for free, just because. Sounds like an enticing marketing campaign for BMW to snatch away Porsche market share.

This

[BMW269]

The M3 is a special car, it is not an M5, a car that never sees the track. Let the Z4 M share the engine with the X3M. The Z4 is a very capable car, probably even more so than the M3, but it does not have the history, the soul, the image, the statue, just like the Cayman does't have what the 911 has.

Then looking at the engine weights, a TT I6 does not look much lighter than a NA V8, specially if it has to be upgraded to stand boost and heat.
S54: 217 kg
S65: 204 kg
N54: 188 kg
N55: 184 kg

If BMW M goes this way for the next M3 (TT I6), it is not for anything "green". So are they no more able to build anything better than the S65 anymore?
If the next M3 gets lighter, what shall actually happen, it does not need FI. If the M2 is going to be the new "M3", and the M3 and "Baby M6", and the M6 a sort of "M7 Coupé" than the direction taken is understandable, but wrong: who will want a 4 banger M2 F22? Maybe I, but I will never consider it as an M3 E30, just as a smaller car than the M3 F32.

And what about the 3 Series Tii? Only for Sedan or also for Coupé? If only for Sedan, then everything is clear:
1 Series Tii Hatch (F20)
M2 Coupé (F22)
3 Series Tii Sedan (F30)
M3 Coupé (F32)

Let's have a look at the 3 Series Coupé (F32):

320i: TT 2.0l I4, ~200 PS
325i: TT 2.0l I4, ~250 PS
335i: TT 3.0l I6, ~330 PS

Will there come a new engine with the F32 Coupé as there came the N54 with the E92 Coupé? We don't know. If we place the M3...
M3: TT 3.5l I6, ~470 PS (less not be reasonable, why then 3.5l displacement instead of 3.0l?)
Is there any gap between 335i and M3? There is a 140 PS diference, the actual diference is of 114 PS, 94 PS if you count the 335i Performance/335is. So I see a gap, but how to fill this gap? New 20 PS BMW Tii ECU for 335i?

The M3 F32 will never be able to distinguish itself from its counterparts 335i and 3 Series Tii. It needs it own engine an that is a new/modified S65.

Actually, even BMW does not know exactly how will be the next M3 F32, the basis for it, the 3 Series Coupé F32 is not yet advanced.

Why then does BMW M say TT I6 for new M3?
Because this would give us hope, but we should know times change and FI is the direction, because of the so to say warming-up, that even does not exist, but was made to earn money.There is no better way then making the S65 lighter, more efficient, more powerful, torquy and putting this in a lighter car. It is also cheaper.


By saying "S65 dies with M3", many will still try to get there hands on an M3 E92, and this means SALES. If we knew the next M3 also gets a NA V8, then many would not hurry on buying an M3 E9X.

NA V8 in E92 and then in F32? That was the case in E36 and E46, both NA I6.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by Levi

The M3 is a special car, it is not an M5, a car that never sees the track. Let the Z4 M share the engine with the X3M. The Z4 is a very capable car, probably even more so than the M3, but it does not have the history, the soul, the image, the statue, just like the Cayman does't have what the 911 has.

I might repeat what I've said before, but that's exactly the reason why the Z4 M could get the S65 but not the next M3 or X3 M. The Z4 M would be a halo project like the M3 GTS. They wouldn't sell more than some hundred units, so it doesn't have any impact on BMW's fleet consumption.

Originally Posted by Levi

If BMW M goes this way for the next M3 (TT I6), it is not for anything "green". So are they no more able to build anything better than the S65 anymore?

You can't be serious. I love the S65, it's a true masterpiece, and I'd be all for keeping it for the next gen M3 if it was possible. Emissions and fuel consumption are the reasons for this change, and nothing else.

Originally Posted by Levi

The M3 F32 will never be able to distinguish itself from its counterparts 335i and 3 Series Tii. It needs it own engine an that is a new/modified S65.

Do you know the differences between the M3 engine and the N55? I guess it's easy to say the egnines are too similar, but without knowing the details it's a bit premature.

Originally Posted by Levi

Actually, even BMW does not know exactly how will be the next M3 F32, the basis for it, the 3 Series Coupé F32 is not yet advanced.

Running M3 prototypes based on the F30 do already exist.

Originally Posted by Levi

Why then does BMW M say TT I6 for new M3?

Because that's gonna happen, easy as that. It's no cheap sales trick for the current E9x M3.


Best regards,
south

[BMW269]

Scott said the Z4 M was not getting the S65 (S65 dies with M3), but it is going to get an upgraded version of the N54 of the 1SMC, which is an upgrade of the N54 of the Z4 35is, which is an upgrade of the N54 of the Z4 35i. But for this reason S65 makes more sense to me yet not as a limited production. Last generation Z4 M E85/E86 appeared as LCI and was produced till the end.
Will it be a limited production so that M3 F32 with turbo should sell?
M3 E46 < Z4 M E85/E86 < (M3 CSL E46) < M3 E92 < Z4 M E89 < (M3 GTS E92) < M3 F32
How can the Z4 M E89 be a halo project if the previous wasn't? Also there wasn't any Z4 M CSL. And if the Z4 M will be faster than M3 GTS, it will be very hard for the M3 F32 to betten it.

C 55 AMG (W205): 5.5l V8, 540 PS, 800 Nm, ~200 kg
M3 (F32): 3.5l I6, 450 PS, 550 Nm, ~200 kg

I don't see how can the M3 keep its title of "KING OF THE RING" !

I can't understand how is it that only BMW has problems with fleet consumption, having all the 116d, 118d, 120d, 123d, 316d, 318d, 320d, 325d, 520d, 525d, 530d, 730d, 735d, etc, but Mercedes with SLS AMG, Audi with R8 V10/GT, Porsche with 911 GT3 /RS, do not.

South, if what you say is 90% true, so then M 100% dead. Porsche not, because there is still yet a Cayman R and a 911 GT3 /RS. If this is true, the next M3 F32 will be like the todays 1SMC:
A CAR WITH SOUL, BUT NO HEART.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by Levi

Scott said the Z4 M was not getting the S65 (S65 dies with M3), but it is going to get an upgraded version of the N54 of the 1SMC, which is an upgrade of the N54 of the Z4 35is, which is an upgrade of the N54 of the Z4 35i. But for this reason S65 makes more sense to me yet not as a limited production. Last generation Z4 M E85/E86 appeared as LCI and was produced till the end.
Will it be a limited production so that M3 F32 with turbo should sell?
M3 E46 < Z4 M E85/E86 < (M3 CSL E46) < M3 E92 < Z4 M E89 < (M3 GTS E92) < M3 F32
How can the Z4 M E89 be a halo project if the previous wasn't? Also there wasn't any Z4 M CSL. And if the Z4 M will be faster than M3 GTS, it will be very hard for the M3 F32 to betten it.

I remember that Scott said the Z4 M wouldn't get the S65, but I agree with you that another engine based on the N54 doesn't make sense for the Z4. Guess we have to wait and see.

The Z4 M would be a limited production for the same reasons the M3 GTS was.

Originally Posted by Levi

C 55 AMG (W205): 5.5l V8, 540 PS, 800 Nm, ~200 kg
M3 (F32): 3.5l I6, 450 PS, 550 Nm, ~200 kg

I don't see how can the M3 keep its title of "KING OF THE RING" !

I think the figures for the C55 are too optimistic. Remember that the new CLS63 gets 525 PS and 700 Nm (without performance pack), so I don't see how the C could trump this. Might be close to 500 PS though.

Originally Posted by Levi

I can't understand how is it that only BMW has problems with fleet consumption, having all the 116d, 118d, 120d, 123d, 316d, 318d, 320d, 325d, 520d, 525d, 530d, 730d, 735d, etc, but Mercedes with SLS AMG, Audi with R8 V10/GT, Porsche with 911 GT3 /RS, do not.

South, if what you say is 90% true, so then M 100% dead. Porsche not, because there is still yet a Cayman R and a 911 GT3 /RS.

All these cars are available right now, just like the E9x M3 is. Wait some years to see what all these companies do in regards to reduce emissions, starting with the Porsche 991. Even the GT3 getting some hybrid solution like the GT3 race version wouldn't surprise me.

Originally Posted by Levi

If this is true, the next M3 F32 will be like the todays 1SMC:
A CAR WITH SOUL, BUT NO HEART.

I heard BMW did great things with the new M5 engine, so I still have hope.

Merry Christmas!


Best regards,
south

[dpsfm3]

Though I've officially converted to MDCT from stick shift, I wouldn't be surprised to see manual transmissions (stick shift) eliminated all together in the M3.

If you look at most high performance cars these days, stick shift isn't offered as an option by many car manufacturers.