BMW M Division CEO confirms next M3 will get turbo 6-cylinder engine

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by zuggerat89

good points. i wouldn't mind seeing a return to the E46 size.

what would be the effect of reducing the literage of the S65 to 3.0 and increasing the revs, it would obviously be more F1-esq. im playing devils advocate obviously, but what would that do for reliability, fuel economy, performance ranges etc?

High revs are not good for economy or longevity, but sure are fun. As in the McLaren example, high revs and turbos are not neccesarily mutually exclusive with good engineering and these factors can be evened out. I have faith that BMW can produce an efficient but fun turbo M. Hope I'm not wrong.

[zuggerat89]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

High revs are not good for economy or longevity, but sure are fun. As in the McLaren example, high revs and turbos are not neccesarily mutually exclusive with good engineering and these factors can be evened out. I have faith that BMW can produce an efficient but fun turbo M. Hope I'm not wrong.

me too. meeeee too

[aus]

Originally Posted by mvagusta

Wrong bmwcadet. With all do respect. A third sense will always steer you right. Porsche did it right and so did Amg. Never did they ever do anything like this to their people. You don't scrap a free reving engine like this to a turbo. M3's were known for reving forever. My sense is telling me to bail. My last m3 e 92 is in my garage. Thay have a good discusion on m3forum about this. Check it out. I believe it is about sticky giving up on bmw ...

Sticky had some good points, but it still doesn't explain why he sold the CURRENT car that he reportedly loved so much. It bascially boiled down to he wanted something with more speed and a better image since he could afford something more expensive and BMW doesn't offer anything to satisfy him. Problem is, these are bad economic times and a CSL is not the wise thing to do a this time and BMW has not done well with a premium image cars. The Z8 sold for crap and the 850 was a disasster in terms of sales.
He's definitely right about the M brand being watered down, especially with these damn 5,000lb SUV's with non-M engines and slush boxes. What a joke.

Porsche has had a turbo forever and now Ferrari has a turbo. What's everyone so panicked about? It'll be a sweet car, as long as they drop a few hundred pounds.

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

High revs are not good for economy or longevity

The more appropriate words would be high piston speeds IMO, which is what really stresses components. A high revving, short stroke engine should have similar wear and tear than a longer stroke/lower rpm engine with the same piston speed, but they're going to produce power very differently. But yes, most engines have lower piston speeds than the M3 (less stressed), therefore offering better fuel economy, but not necessarily better longevity; that depends on how the engine is built. Take care.

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by aus

Sticky had some good points, but it still doesn't explain why he sold the CURRENT car that he reportedly loved so much. It bascially boiled down to he wanted something with more speed and a better image since he could afford something more expensive and BMW doesn't offer anything to satisfy him. Problem is, these are bad economic times and a CSL is not the wise thing to do a this time and BMW has not done well with a premium image cars. The Z8 sold for crap and the 850 was a disasster in terms of sales.
He's definitely right about the M brand being watered down, especially with these damn 5,000lb SUV's with non-M engines and slush boxes. What a joke.

Porsche has had a turbo forever and now Ferrari has a turbo. What's everyone so panicked about? It'll be a sweet car, as long as they drop a few hundred pounds.

What turbo does Ferrari have?

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by zuggerat89

good points. i wouldn't mind seeing a return to the E46 size.

what would be the effect of reducing the literage of the S65 to 3.0 and increasing the revs, it would obviously be more F1-esq. im playing devils advocate obviously, but what would that do for reliability, fuel economy, performance ranges etc?

It depends on how much higher you want to make it rev. In my opinion decreasing the displacement will definitely lower peak torque so you'd need even more aggressive gearing. Power will potentially go up assuming you have a head and valve-train design and intake system that can take advantage of the higher RPM. I don't think overall performance will be appreciably better and more importantly, I don't think the engine will be more efficient. Now obviously if you are talking seriously high RPM, like the Hayabusa-based V8 and similar motors, performance will improve but then you are probably talking even worse fuel economy. Of course if you add turbos into the picture you might have something. Then you can lower peak RPM to, say 8000, and raise peak torque to say 350 to 400 ft-lbs.

The McLaren is definitely encouraging in this regard, however there is a big caveat. First off its an exotic with a high development budget, however it is true that M cars have traditionally had exotic-like drivetrains in a more affordable package. But secondly, and more importantly, so far indications seem to be that the next engine from BMW (For the M5) will be based on the S63 and not the S65. This is the part that has most people so discouraged, including me. The S63 is not designed from the ground up as a high revving engine and I am very skeptical they will go that route with this engine. If the S65 were still in the picture then I would be much more excited. Granted that is all rumor so far, and plus the M5 needn't dictate the route the M3 will go. But the news of the M5 getting a version of the S63 that is in the M SUVs is discouraging. I do remain optimistic that they will completely re-engineer it with a shorter stroke and higher RPM in mind, but I have a lot of doubts about this.

[MrHarris]

Let's have a quad-turbo 4 cylinder that revs to 8k and has 800 tq at 900rpm, and 850hp at 7950rpm.

[mixja]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

Im sure that McLaren will be a performance monster,


And this is a GREAT example that high revving F/I engines are possible

Unfortunately the article didn't say at what RPM peak power was made...

You might be surprised to find that the Japanese versions of the Subaru STI feature a 2.0L turbocharged engine with an 8000RPM red line - unfortunately peak power is made at 6400RPM so anything above 7000RPM is a waste of time in the stock configuration with stock turbo and stock cams...

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by mixja

Unfortunately the article didn't say at what RPM peak power was made...

You might be surprised to find that the Japanese versions of the Subaru STI feature a 2.0L turbocharged engine with an 8000RPM red line - unfortunately peak power is made at 6400RPM so anything above 7000RPM is a waste of time in the stock configuration with stock turbo and stock cams...

True but I highly doubt that the power in the McLaren falls off anywhere near that early. This is a still a 600hp 3.8L V8 we are talking about. I would be willing to bet peak power is made very near the max RPM of 8500.

[mixja]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

True but I highly doubt that the power in the McLaren falls off anywhere near that early. This is a still a 600hp 3.8L V8 we are talking about. I would be willing to bet peak power is made very near the max RPM of 8500.

Yeah true - given 433ftlb peak torque, the lowest engine speed peak power of 600HP can be made is ~7300RPM - however this would assume the engine is making its peak 433ftlb torque at this RPM. In reality, you'd expect peak power to be made some time after peak torque starts declining, so it is feasible peak power could be made in the high 7k or low 8k range...amazing considering the article indicates 80% of torque is available from 2000RPM....

Hmmm, this is exactly what you'd want in a FI M Car

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by mixja

Hmmm, this is exactly what you'd want in a FI M Car

I think so too - that's why I immediately thought of this thread when I saw the press release. The thing is, like I said in my other post above, you'd really want to start with the S65 as the basis for such a motor, not the S63, (which itself started life as the N63). Hopefully BMW is still keeping things open, but realistically the M5/M6 engine is already decided upon and in development and early testing. Plus, we have no idea what kind of fuel economy this McLaren will get. Class leading sounds great and all, but doesn't mean much, and plus this is a 2500lb-3000lb car, not a 3500lb+ M3, or 4000lb+ M5/M6.

There also seems to be little hope for a V8 in the next M3, even a small displacement one. So whether they settle on a V6 or an I6, hopefully they are looking for ways to keep the high revving nature in tact.

[zuggerat89]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

It depends on how much higher you want to make it rev. In my opinion decreasing the displacement will definitely lower peak torque so you'd need even more aggressive gearing. Power will potentially go up assuming you have a head and valve-train design and intake system that can take advantage of the higher RPM. I don't think overall performance will be appreciably better and more importantly, I don't think the engine will be more efficient. Now obviously if you are talking seriously high RPM, like the Hayabusa-based V8 and similar motors, performance will improve but then you are probably talking even worse fuel economy.

Good points, the engine stuff is really interesting to me...

Maybe I should join a F1 team, then i'd be satisfied with the engine choices...

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Class leading sounds great and all, but doesn't mean much, and plus this is a 2500lb-3000lb car, not a 3500lb+ M3, or 4000lb+ M5/M6.

Another good reason to get the weight back down to the 3200 to 3300 range, wooot wooooooooot. It was in that range about 10 years ago, ahahah.

[footie]

Originally Posted by mixja

Hmmm, this is exactly what you'd want in a FI M Car

It makes my laugh when some here totally dismiss even the idea of a FI M car without seeing what M-Division bring out for the next M3. The technology is here today to produce this type of engine as proven with the new McLaren, heck even drive the RS6 and you will know that turbo engines have come on a long way from those early days.

[footie]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

There also seems to be little hope for a V8 in the next M3, even a small displacement one. So whether they settle on a V6 or an I6, hopefully they are looking for ways to keep the high revving nature in tact.

Given that BMW took out a patent on the new turbo configuration on the X5/6M I can't see how the next M3 will use anything other than a Vee 6. Placing the turbos so close to the inlets improve response, it's an ingenious design and one that other manufacturers will be looking to use in the future.

[zuggerat89]

Originally Posted by footie

Given that BMW took out a patent on the new turbo configuration on the X5/6M I can't see how the next M3 will use anything other than a Vee 6. Placing the turbos so close to the inlets improve response, it's an ingenious design and one that other manufacturers will be looking to use in the future.

When it goes to a V6, it will be interesting to see what aftermarket tuners come up with for upgraded intakes.

[footie]

I would love to know who designed this engine, we know it's a British company but I would find it interesting to know exactly know.

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by zuggerat89

When it goes to a V6, it will be interesting to see what aftermarket tuners come up with for upgraded intakes.

Plenums, intakes, turbos with a variety of different housings and VT technologies, perhaps even improved internals for even higher RPM and boost, you name it. It could be wild.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

It makes my laugh when some here totally dismiss even the idea of a FI M car without seeing what M-Division bring out for the next M3. The technology is here today to produce this type of engine as proven with the new McLaren, heck even drive the RS6 and you will know that turbo engines have come on a long way from those early days.

True. Though, the RS6 isn't the best example for a high revving turbo engine.

Originally Posted by footie

Given that BMW took out a patent on the new turbo configuration on the X5/6M I can't see how the next M3 will use anything other than a Vee 6. Placing the turbos so close to the inlets improve response, it's an ingenious design and one that other manufacturers will be looking to use in the future.

Am I the only one wondering how they would channel the exhaust of 6 cylinders into the 4 separated channels of the patented exhaust manifold? I haven't thought about that in detail yet, but the whole idea behind that manifold might be less utile in a V6.


Best regards,
south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

True. Though, the RS6 isn't the best example for a high revving turbo engine.

Agreed but as a FI engine it's bloody good, my point was more to show that FI isn't the devil when it comes to hi-performance cars as so many here believe.

Originally Posted by southlight

Am I the only one wondering how they would channel the exhaust of 6 cylinders into the 4 separated channels of the patented exhaust manifold? I haven't thought about that in detail yet, but the whole idea behind that manifold might be less utile in a V6.


Best regards,
south

I'm sure BMW have already thought this one out.

Best not bother South or you'll need a couple of painkillers and a damp towel to rap around your head.

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by footie

Agreed but as a FI engine it's bloody good, my point was more to show that FI isn't the devil when it comes to hi-performance cars as so many here believe.

I'm sure BMW have already thought this one out.

Best not bother South or you'll need a couple of painkillers and a damp towel to rap around your head.

Both NA and FI have there good and bad points. Unfortunately we can´t have it all in one!!! At least not yet. Agree entirely that both ways are good, it all depends on how you want to achieve it. I have both NA and FI perofrmance cars and love the both.

Also agree that M will figure something out in terms of coming up with a fantastic V6 turbo engine. Its going to be exciting for sure.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by footie

Agreed but as a FI engine it's bloody good, my point was more to show that FI isn't the devil when it comes to hi-performance cars as so many here believe.

Plenty of great FI engines under the BMW umbrella already as well - N54, N55, N63, N74, S63. None rev higher than 7k.

Nothing wrong with FI. But a modern M car - an M3 at least - should be high revving. I think that the number of people who don't want FI at all is much smaller than the number of people who don't want FI if it means a low redline.

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by footie

Given that BMW took out a patent on the new turbo configuration on the X5/6M I can't see how the next M3 will use anything other than a Vee 6.

Why not? Not because they have that patent means they have to use it in every M engine... nor that it'd work the same on a V6 .

Originally Posted by mkoesel

So whether they settle on a V6 or an I6.

I can't see BMW going to a V6, and AUTOMOBILE magazine couldn't have said it better: 'Rumor has it BMW is also toying with a twin-turbo V6, which would be lighter and more compact, but those advantages are unlikely to offset shortcomings concerning prestige and heritage'.
I agree. We should find out soon enough .