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

[kmac1980]

Originally Posted by Jake C

Reading this month's Roundel I think it's interesting that the new M3 will have less HP than the 414HP currently offered. So less weight and less HP.

- J

not that the m3 competes with the s4, but audi did the same when they went from V8 to supercharged 6, less HP....but more torque

[Ado]

This is a win win situation for all of us. It will cost us a lot less to mod the car.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

If its not high-revving, it ain't an //M to me. The high revving engines is a big part of what turned my liking of //Ms into an obsession. I never considered myself a porsche guy; never owned one and never really lusted after one (except for the GT3). But if they are the only ones left making high-revving engines under 200k, well I guess I will become a Porsche guy.

I don't mind FI as long as they they don't dump the high-revving characteristics. If they dump that, I dump ever buying an //M again.

Cheers,
e46e92

+1. I can live with less power as long as the P/W ratio doesn't go down. They've got to make it more fun than the 335i. That's a fast car, but I don't care for the engine characteristics compared to the M3.

[Antinontoxic]

Originally Posted by Jake C

Reading this month's Roundel I think it's interesting that the new M3 will have less HP than the 414HP currently offered. So less weight and less HP.

- J

Next M3 will have slighty more HP, not much, but still more

[JCtx]

Looks like this is my first and last M3 then (I'll never own an FI car if I have a choice; just not my cup of tea). Hope it turns out reliable so I can keep it for a looooong time. Glad I bought my M3 before the Cayman S (which will be my next car). So far the only issue I'd like taken care of before warranty expires is the idle control valve (too many failures); hopefully a recall will be issued before then. All other issues seem isolated so far, but with a fully optioned car, I've seen more problems than I like with the EDC and enhanced stereo (I already had a problem with the speakers blaring a full volume shriek for a fraction of a second while changing modes. Hmmm). With the Porsche, I'll pass on all the electronic crap (PASM, Nav, etc) to have a more reliable car. Good day gang.

[Lemans_Blue_M]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

+1. I can live with less power as long as the P/W ratio doesn't go down. They've got to make it more fun than the 335i. That's a fast car, but I don't care for the engine characteristics compared to the M3.

I think you meant to say that you don't want it to go UP. If the power-to-weight ratio goes down, that's a good thing. (8:1 is better than 10:1)

You always want it to go down.

[d3l0n]

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

+1. I can live with less power as long as the P/W ratio doesn't go down. They've got to make it more fun than the 335i. That's a fast car, but I don't care for the engine characteristics compared to the M3.

You are spot on. Can't wait for my //M to get here, because my 335i puts me to sleep, literally. Great everyday engine, but does not inspire. I love the usability of it and in an everyday commuter, its absolute perfection, but I have even been in 400hp 335is, and still, BORING. The characteristics are dominated by huge torque, quick shifting, and low rpms, but completely devoid of passion/excitement for me. Nothing beats watching that tach go, and go, and go.......

Oh, and on the track, the N54 is useless.....

Cheers,
e46e92

P.S.: as I find myself looking through the Porsche website I see the highest revving car they have is the GT3 with max hp coming at 7600rpms.....wow thats low. Last years (guess that was still the 997?) GT3 was 8400rpms for max hp. Damn, guess everyone is dumping the idea of a high revving engine.....that sucks.

[gr8000]

Originally Posted by Lemans_Blue_M

I think you meant to say that you don't want it to go UP. If the power-to-weight ratio goes down, that's a good thing. (8:1 is better than 10:1)

You always want it to go down.

P/W going down is a bad thing, not a good one. P/W going down means you got less power for a given/fixed weight = bad.

[Lemans_Blue_M]

Originally Posted by gr8000

P/W going down is a bad thing, not a good one. P/W going down means you got less power for a given/fixed weight = bad.

Power-to-weight in the fact that less pounds for every 1BHP the engine produces. (I.E. pounds per horsepower)

Unless you are saying that a lower number is going up, which is very weird...

So a 14:1 power-to-weight ratio for a typical family sedan, means it has to tote around 14lbs. of weight for every 1BHP the engine produces.

And by contrast, a 6:1 power-to-weight ratio for a Ferrari F430, means it only has to tote around 6 lbs. of weight for every 1BHP the engine produces.

You always want that number to go down. Down is good, up is bad.

A lower power-to-weight ratio improves bottom line performance and fuel economy.

[Georgeair]

LeMans - technically, you're quoting a weight to power ratio while calling it power to weight. Thus the confusion as up/down good/bad.

[gr8000]

Originally Posted by Georgeair

LeMans - technically, you're quoting a weight to power ratio while calling it power to weight. Thus the confusion as up/down good/bad.

+1

P/W = "power to weight": as power goes up (keeping weight constant) = good

W/P = "weight to power" = the inverse of P/W: as power goes up (keeping weight constant) = bad

Originally Posted by Lemans_Blue_M

Power-to-weight in the fact that less pounds for every 1BHP the engine produces. (I.E. pounds per horsepower)

Unless you are saying that a lower number is going up, which is very weird...

So a 14:1 power-to-weight ratio for a typical family sedan, means it has to tote around 14lbs. of weight for every 1BHP the engine produces.

And by contrast, a 6:1 power-to-weight ratio for a Ferrari F430, means it only has to tote around 6 lbs. of weight for every 1BHP the engine produces.

You always want that number to go down. Down is good, up is bad.

A lower power-to-weight ratio improves bottom line performance and fuel economy.

What you are saying here is essentially W/P

[JCtx]

Simply put, weight is your enemy: a truck with 400+HP is going to be A LOT slower than our 400+ M3. Similarly, a very light Lotus Elise with 200 HP can be as quick as our car.

To complicate things more, the less weight each HP carries, the better ... for all-out performance. However, a car with less HP but higher torque at lower rpm (eg 335 vs M3) will feel quicker on everyday driving. Both cars drive VERY differently. I'm not and never will be a FI guy, but people who don't like to shift or rev an engine much, might benefit from a smaller, torquier FI engine (not me though). Good day.

[Lemans_Blue_M]

Originally Posted by Georgeair

LeMans - technically, you're quoting a weight to power ratio while calling it power to weight. Thus the confusion as up/down good/bad.

You're right it's technically weight-to-power...

I don't know anyone including a large number of manufacturers that use the 'proper' terminology on a regular basis. If you do it the other way around (and follow the formula to the letter), you'll end up with nonsensical answer that it not easily digested by anyone. (0.315 hp/lb. for example)

That number means absolutely nothing to the average car enthusiast...

I'm sure the small percentage of Engineers on this board would be able to extrapolate what that means with their fancy calculators and scientific formulas, but the other 95% of us would be left saying. "Wait...what?"

This is why you see the technically backwords weight-to-power ratios quoted everywhere. (99% of the time)

The incorrect 'method' I use (which I didn't invent by the way) is much more straightforward, and easily comparable to any other car. And it is normally called power-to-weight, even though it's obviously not.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[richie11]

I hope M Division does not give up the tradition of NA engine legends for the M cars...
Well, even if they give up NA engine for the next generation M3, I guess e92 could have another fame, the very last and the most sofisticated NA engine that M Division made for M3...

[devo]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

You are spot on. Can't wait for my //M to get here, because my 335i puts me to sleep, literally. Great everyday engine, but does not inspire. I love the usability of it and in an everyday commuter, its absolute perfection, but I have even been in 400hp 335is, and still, BORING. The characteristics are dominated by huge torque, quick shifting, and low rpms, but completely devoid of passion/excitement for me. Nothing beats watching that tach go, and go, and go.......

Oh, and on the track, the N54 is useless.....

Cheers,
e46e92

P.S.: as I find myself looking through the Porsche website I see the highest revving car they have is the GT3 with max hp coming at 7600rpms.....wow thats low. Last years (guess that was still the 997?) GT3 was 8400rpms for max hp. Damn, guess everyone is dumping the idea of a high revving engine.....that sucks.

The MY2010 997.2 GT3 has a 100 RPM higher ceiling (8500 RPMs) than it's predecessor, the 997.1 GT3 (8400 RPMs). The 997.1 (last year 2008) and 997.2 both make max power -415 and 435, respectively- @ 7600 RPMs; the redline has been increased on the new one. The new engine is nothing but a better version of the gen 1 engine in numerous respects. The obvious reason for the higher redline relative to the max power is to shift above the power point thus keeping the engine singing at max power even when the revs fall between shifts. Porsche has hardly abandoned the high revving engine.

[Jake C]

Originally Posted by Antinontoxic

Next M3 will have slighty more HP, not much, but still more

Some inside info you want to share? I don't have any just passing along what The Roundel says. And it says less HP. I have to agree I would not mind less HP if the weight goes down and maybe the Torque goes up as Kmac suggested.

- J

[Robert]

LOL, every generation of M3 there's people who said BMW has done it and ruined the M3 and I am moving on to P-car. Feel the retribution, BMW! In reality there will plenty of people who steps up the plate, purchasing the next M3, and makes the churn a moot point. The kicker is the same people 7 years ago who championed the birth of a new M3 now becomes the same people they ridiculed.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Jake C

Some inside info you want to share? I don't have any just passing along what The Roundel says. And it says less HP.

I'm sure he was just speculating or basing it on some rumor he read. But, probably the Roundel is just speculating too, based on the bits of info they've been able to get from various sources. I'll bet the final M3 numbers are not even known yet because the platform for the car isn't even done yet. You can't really decide on the engine tune until you test it out in the car to see what it takes to get the performance you want.

[SlammedR8]

when do you think we can expect to see a new M3? or a new motor in the M3?

[mkoesel]

Yeah I hear ya PG. It's definitely a reliable source. I just think its pretty early to know anything for sure. I'm sure they know their targets and have a lot of the engineering groundwork layed. But who knows what the competition will be like by the time the car is scheduled to go on sale? They might need to bump the power up to remain in the game. We'll see. I'm sure that the reduced weight and using the use of forced induction six cylinder are set in stone. Of course on the latter - at least last we knew anyway - they weren't even sure what the engine layout would be yet.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by slammedm3

when do you think we can expect to see a new M3?

An educated guess might go something like:

E46 - MY2001, E9x - MY2008, F3x - MY2015

So figure release sometime in 2014 in the US, and maybe 2013 in Europe and some other regions.

or a new motor in the M3?

Almost certainly no sooner than the F3x release.