looks like new m3 will go away from v8...

[ky_soldier]

...per some rumblings i heard at the m driving experience last week, i think munich isn't happy with the fuel consumption on the upcoming M3 and current M5/6. Rumor has it the M3 and M5 will move towards turbo charging in the near future. also heard the performance x5 will be a v8 turbo. speculation, but makes sense if fuel prices rise.

[skierman64]

The M3 has never changed the motor during the run of a particular body style. I doubt it will change during the E92 body style run either.

[TheDreamer]

Rumors and Rumblings is what cause you to make this assumption? The cars are probably already on the production line, or if not, very near. I really doubt that they will make the switch from regular to turbo. Of course, I would love that, but I've never thought BMW to half ass anything, and if this late in production they decide to do this, then they'll basically just be bolting on a turbo and calling it a day.

[m_bazeepaymon]

especially after we had a press release yesterday lol

[SpencerM3]

Yeah, someone also told me that gullible wasn't in the dictioanry

[335d coupe]

Originally Posted by ky_soldier

...per some rumblings i heard at the m driving experience last week, i think munich isn't happy with the fuel consumption on the upcoming M3 and current M5/6. Rumor has it the M3 and M5 will move towards turbo charging in the near future. also heard the performance x5 will be a v8 turbo. speculation, but makes sense if fuel prices rise.

Wouldn't surprise me either. The V10 is well heavy on fuel. The last time I had a drive I got 10.4mpg (UK) - and that was only caning the car a THIRD of the time....... The new V8 ain't gonna be much better if you give it some beans.... (and why else would you buy one?).

Mike

[Steved]

Originally Posted by 335d coupe

Wouldn't surprise me either. The V10 is well heavy on fuel. The last time I had a drive I got 10.4mpg (UK) - and that was only caning the car a THIRD of the time....... The new V8 ain't gonna be much better if you give it some beans.... (and why else would you buy one?).

Mike

I also own a 6.3L V8 in my AMG ML63 and drive it swiftly most of the time, yet I still average 16mpg and achieve 18-19mpg on longer runs. There's no reason why the new M3 shouldn't achieve at least as much.

The M5's V10 is 'unusually' thirsty (I normally get around 12-14 in the M5) so before someone says that the M3's V8 is a cut down version of the V10 and therefore will behave identically, please read the press-release, pause, think and re-consider.

[335d coupe]

Originally Posted by Steved

I also own a 6.3L V8 in my AMG ML63 and drive it swiftly most of the time, yet I still average 16mpg and achieve 18-19mpg on longer runs. There's no reason why the new M3 shouldn't achieve at least as much.

The M5's V10 is 'unusually' thirsty (I normally get around 12-14 in the M5) so before someone says that the M3's V8 is a cut down version of the V10 and therefore will behave identically, please read the press-release, pause, think and re-consider.

The last V8 I had was an S4 Avant 4.2 and that used to average out at 17mpg pretty well all the time. As such and given your Merc has a far bigger (6.3) and much more powerful V8 propelling a heavier car, 16mpg is good economy.

Whilst I certainly don't profess to possess anywhere near your level of knowledge and engineering expertise, I remain of the opinion that the new V8 will be pretty heavy on fuel - certainly a lot heavier than the current S54 (mine does a steady 23mpg and whilst no hero, I ain't light-footed either). We'll no doubt soon see.

Mike

[Steved]

The M5 remains an anomally amongst BMWs in my experience. I owned three X5 4.8is and when driving them back to back with the M5, even the X5 was considerably more economical. The biggest problem with the M5 though was not its thirst, but the lack of a decent fuel tank. 200 miles or less between fill-ups made it just overbearingly annoying to live with. My Z4M Coupe averages 24mpg and my M4 CSL is nearer to 19-20mpg on average (but then it's impossible not to rev it hard). Provided the new M3 can provide similar levels of economy to my CSL then that will be fine for me.

Rememeber some key differences between M3 and M5 engines, namely; brake regeneration (i.e. a disconnected alternator), the use of the spark plugs as a knock sensor and the 'low-pressure' Vanos. In press discussions BMW have been been clear that the V8 isn't just the M5's V10 minus two cylinders.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Steved

The M5 remains an anomally amongst BMWs in my experience. I owned three X5 4.8is and when driving them back to back with the M5, even the X5 was considerably more economical. The biggest problem with the M5 though was not its thirst, but the lack of a decent fuel tank. 200 miles or less between fill-ups made it just overbearingly annoying to live with. My Z4M Coupe averages 24mpg and my M4 CSL is nearer to 19-20mpg on average (but then it's impossible not to rev it hard). Provided the new M3 can provide similar levels of economy to my CSL then that will be fine for me.

Rememeber some key differences between M3 and M5 engines, namely; brake regeneration (i.e. a disconnected alternator), the use of the spark plugs as a knock sensor and the 'low-pressure' Vanos. In press discussions BMW have been been clear that the V8 isn't just the M5's V10 minus two cylinders.

The spark plug operates as an ion flow knock sensor in the exact same way on the M5 as the new M3. Unfortunately not a new innovation for the M3/V8.

[Steved]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The spark plug operates as an ion flow knock sensor in the exact same way on the M5 as the new M3. Unofrtunately not a new innovation for the M3/V8.

True. My bad.

[RandyB]

I'm not buying an M3 for fuel economy. Why would they compromise on the M series?

[devo]

Originally Posted by ky_soldier

...per some rumblings i heard at the m driving experience last week, i think munich isn't happy with the fuel consumption on the upcoming M3 and current M5/6. Rumor has it the M3 and M5 will move towards turbo charging in the near future. also heard the performance x5 will be a v8 turbo. speculation, but makes sense if fuel prices rise.

W.T.F.; I was going to comment, but I thinkk the triple belly roll does the trick

[SpencerM3]

I doubt that many people would opt against the M3 because of the gas mileage.

Not even a thought on my end.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by ky_soldier

Rumor has it the M3 and M5 will move towards turbo charging in the near future. also heard the performance x5 will be a v8 turbo. speculation, but makes sense if fuel prices rise.

Fuel price isn't really an issue with $60k and over cars.

The successor to the N62 is indeed rumored to be a turbo-charged V8, supposedly displacing 4.4L initially. So I would not be surprised to the see the X5 get that motor or perhaps even a higher-displacement version in the "X5 4.Xis" model.

As for the M3 and M5, IMHO, they have three basic strategies:

1) Squeeze even more power from short stroke high revving motors. I.e. the next M V8 would need F430-besting volumetric efficiency. HPI will be the key to this. So will camless valvetrains too, going further out. But durability, reliability will eventually become the limiting factor. You can't rebuild the motor every thousand miles (or less) like you do for a race car.

2) Put the S85 (or some other future V10) in the next M3, and develop a new short stroke V12 for the M5/6. This would actually be really cool and might happen eventually anyway when they run out of room with (1).

3) Forced induction. Not out of the question eventually, IMHO, For now though the N54 (and the upcoming N6X turbo also) is not yet exploited to the point where it outpaces the high revving M motors.

Some will say (3) cannot even happen. But, lets face it, you can only build "short stroke" motors of up to about 6L-6.5L or so (if you go up to V12). But you can build forced induction motors of any displacement really. That said the I6 can't really get much bigger in displacement. But they can probably get 500hp/500ft-lb from it eventually (give it a couple generations). And besides that, the upcoming N6X V8 can get much larger in displacement over time - like 5L+. And I'm sorry but a fully exploited 5L+ turbo V8 is going to really put the hurt on any high-winding 100+k-mile capable naturally aspirated motor.

[Head]

Originally Posted by ky_soldier

...per some rumblings i heard at the m driving experience last week, i think munich isn't happy with the fuel consumption on the upcoming M3 and current M5/6. Rumor has it the M3 and M5 will move towards turbo charging in the near future. also heard the performance x5 will be a v8 turbo. speculation, but makes sense if fuel prices rise.

Rhymes with 'idiot'. Duh... idiot!

Sounds to me like you have been listening to Tim Pollard of Car Magazine who immediately after releasing their 'official' pics (yeah right, nice number plate placement) of the E92 M3 also told me that BMW are doing some work around putting four sets of pedals in the car so everyone can be involved in the propulsion system. Only on M cars, obviously.

[MI6]

You may see Twin turbo V8's for the next 750/550 but doubtful for the M's as fuel consumption is not usually an issue for M owners.

Not too say I wouldn't mind a twin turbo V8- I love the 335i coupe and thought I would hate a turbo in a bimmer but the engine is very sweeet.

Let's not kid ourselves here- the technology is either available or will be shortly that will allow 400+HP cars to get at least 25mpg's or more........it just depends how much pressure the European Union is going to put on them to get it done..............

Oh, and Spencer............gullible is NOT in the dictionary............

[The CSL]

The turbo could suffer from too narrow a power-band for an M-car.