New Speculations on the F30 M3 / F32 M3

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by erhanh

Of cource we will want it. It will handle even better than E9x M3 and who knows it may even be lighter. It will be more luxurious and comfortable as well.. BUT all that will be ruined with a retarded (personal opinion) engine, which is really the sad part and a deal breaker for me.

Your crystal ball is certainly more clear and more precise than mine. Throttle response is very important to the M development team and modern turbos certainly are not like those from past generations.

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I think you are probably correct swamp, but I would add that the next generation C63 and ISF and perhaps others (next gen Mustang, ATS-V maybe?) may very well get a lot of emotion from the M enthusiast camp as well. As you point out, the competition made up a lot of ground this generation. It will be interesting to see if that difference shrinks even more in the next five year.

There is certainly a constantly moving target and the competitors are closer than ever. This makes is all exciting.

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Bingo, great point on the "evolution" vs. "revolution".......I think people are forgetting just how many of the core tenants that ///M Division has run under are being thrown out the window in just one generation.

Wow, talk about hasty/premature conclusions... I can't believe that so many "purists" have already decided that an engine whom no one has driven, let alone one for which we have very little technical detail, is already damned as an utter failure. That's almost comical... Oh well its fun to complain

Last but not least do keep in mind how many folks have complained about the lack of torque in the current M3! That complaint, although not typically phrased in the correct fashion, has some merit. I call it the lazy drivers desire... It will certainly be very well addressed in the next generation car.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

The discarding of precedent is not evolutionary rather revolutionary.

Certainly agree, their move is not without risk.

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

While it is true that M enthusiasts, purists, et al are a relatively minor slice of the overall M ownership pie, I think it would be a mistake to understand their importance to M Division’s long term viability since that group is, to revert back to the structural example, the foundation. While I am not privy to the mindset that’s driving the decision-making in M Division, it is probably fair to say that not everyone in M Division is thrilled about the prospect of the division attempting to reinvent itself via revolution.

Good points and agreed!

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Wow, talk about hasty/premature conclusions... I can't believe that so many "purists" have already decided that an engine whom no one has driven, let alone one for which we have very little technical detail, is already damned as an utter failure. That's almost comical... Oh well its fun to complain

Not premature......how this engine performs has nothing to do with my statement. They have added turbos, and plan on putting the same engine in the X as well and unless they come out with some exotic high-revving FI engine, which has all been ruled out for a multitude of reasons, then the tenants have been abandoned.

Its the philosophy they are abandoning, and that is what I have an issue with. The the 10th time, the engine might be a great engine, but great is not special, there is a difference.

Cheers,
e46e92

[BlackLight]

that the attributes that make it such a desireable car, need to stay if you want to keep your desireablility.

The opinions of the purists, enthusiasts and the motor-heads are what leads the mass market to desire the vehicle.

I foresee that my next vehicle will be all-electric, just an appliance for commuting. I will save a lot of money and push my other hobbies harder.

[duk]

most of this talk was the same when ppl were speculating about the E9x M3s and it turned out to be a hit...

[duk]

Originally Posted by shift@red

By BMWs own calculated target, the E9X m3 isnt nearly as much a 'hit' as they had hoped it'd be.

Maybe but why is that? Market conditions? Competition? E9x doesn't perform well vs previous gen?

[duk]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Its always going to be a multitude of factors.

I personally think the two biggest have been the competition as well as price point. There are many good alternatives in this segment, and as for price, there are so many higher end cars that people have moved to (new or used) that are within short reach for the price an e9X m3 fetches.

Agreed, it's a multitude of factors.

Doesn't take anything away from the E9x however as comparison tests have shown it to remain the segment standard.

[duk]

One thing I have great hopes for is the next M3 being lighter yet stronger than ever before. BMW investing in the CF plant making CF reinforced plastic and trying to make the process cheaper and simpler puts a smile to my face. Maybe in 3-4 years time, when the next F3x M3 is here, we'll get body parts that are CF reinforced plastic while the main structure is aluminum.

[Sick Speed]

This is great info but for ONCE...for ONCE I would love for BMW to make the M3 be the FIRST with the most HP and torque in its class and stop playing second fiddle to Mercedes.

Know what I mean? These numbers are numbers Mercedes was posting 3 YEARS AGO. Come on M group...take the damn lead in this area for once.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by duk

One thing I have great hopes for is the next M3 being lighter yet stronger than ever before. BMW investing in the CF plant making CF reinforced plastic and trying to make the process cheaper and simpler puts a smile to my face. Maybe in 3-4 years time, when the next F3x M3 is here, we'll get body parts that are CF reinforced plastic while the main structure is aluminum.

This should be a good thing for the next M3. Keep in mind that the existing bumpers and fenders on the E9X M3 are already a fiber reinforced plastic that is quite light. CF is a much better material for a structural component that needs to be both light and strong (or stiff). It is also way more expensive. Since the M3 has always been (and for the foreseeable future will be) based off the regular base model chassis an aluminum or CF main chassis is unlikely. The near term way to make these lighter is more and more use of special high strength steels. However portions of those probably will evolve to aluminum or perhaps CF.

I think CF is most likely for things like hoods and trunks where it is a bit more than just a cosmetic "cover" like a fender - these parts move (hinge) and need some more structural strength and rigidity. CF in the chassis is a much more complex and long term endeavor (and cost prohibitive as well).

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Not premature......how this engine performs has nothing to do with my statement. They have added turbos, and plan on putting the same engine in the X as well and unless they come out with some exotic high-revving FI engine, which has all been ruled out for a multitude of reasons, then the tenants have been abandoned.

Its the philosophy they are abandoning, and that is what I have an issue with. The the 10th time, the engine might be a great engine, but great is not special, there is a difference.

This is absolutely premature. We only have confirmation of turbo charging not even absolute certainty of cylinder count yet (although this seem 95% certain to me). As well the entire intake, exhaust and turbo system will almost for sure be unique and solely for the M3.

Also, as I have argued, calling the engine identical when it shares a block and perhaps many internals is neither fair nor accurate. The engine system will be quite different and certainly radically different from an experience perspective than the base 3er or X3. I have no doubts that it will be much more able to cope with track abuse on the engine level (well again engine SYSTEM level to be precise) as compared to the base car or existing 335i. There is also good indication of a redline in the range of 7200-7500, which is reduced but certainly not low revving.

NA itself is not and has never been an M philosophy. Perhaps it's been the status quo but definitely not something as rigid as a "philosophy". As far as I am aware there is no official philosophy of M. Granted they have spoken at length about the importance of throttle response and the race car/motorsport experience for its M cars. We have no reason to believe that these features of the next car will not be excellent. Can it match the S65 specifically for the throttle response and redline, probably not, will it be darn close - probably. That is not really what defines an M. Maybe it's your definition but it is not THE definition.

The core important tenet of BMW M (IMHO) is to offer race inspired coupes and sedans that lead the competitive field in all around performance, with an emphasis on handling, track performance and the fun to drive factor. At the same time keeping ahead in the price to performance ratio, wrapping it all up in a classy European package.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by swamp2

This is absolutely premature. We only have confirmation of turbo charging not even absolute certainty of cylinder count yet (although this seem 95% certain to me). As well the entire intake, exhaust and turbo system will almost for sure be unique and solely for the M3.

Also, as I have argued, calling the engine identical when it shares a block and perhaps many internals is neither fair nor accurate. The engine system will be quite different and certainly radically different from an experience perspective than the base 3er or X3. I have no doubts that it will be much more able to cope with track abuse on the engine level (well again engine SYSTEM level to be precise) as compared to the base car or existing 335i. There is also good indication of a redline in the range of 7200-7500, which is reduced but certainly not low revving.

NA itself is not and has never been an M philosophy. Perhaps it's been the status quo but definitely not something as rigid as a "philosophy". As far as I am aware there is no official philosophy of M. Granted they have spoken at length about the importance of throttle response and the race car/motorsport experience for its M cars. We have no reason to believe that these features of the next car will not be excellent. Can it match the S65 specifically for the throttle response and redline, probably not, will it be darn close - probably. That is not really what defines an M. Maybe it's your definition but it is not THE definition.

The core important tenet of BMW M (IMHO) is to offer race inspired coupes and sedans that lead the competitive field in all around performance, with an emphasis on handling, track performance and the fun to drive factor. At the same time keeping ahead in the price to performance ratio, wrapping it all up in a classy European package.

I will spend the next week looking for the quotes of heads of BMW ///M past who said "nein" when asked about FI on ///M cars. Trust me, it was a tenant. And when you cast aside lightly the fact that it will have less throttle response then the current ///M, you must really have your head in the sand if you believe that is not compromising a MAJOR tenant of ///M. Are you really going to argue that throttle response wasn't one of the basic foundations of ///m? To do that would to be to throw out every interview & statement ever made by anyone from that division, EVER.

As one thread just started by a member of these forums states it best, people are more concerned with whether their car has Active Cruise Control and as one guy already stated in this thread, whether it has the most hp & tq in its class, rather than the overall experience, performance and soul of the car. Basically, the majority of the people buying these cars don't know of its heritage and tradition, nor have any other clue about the car other than "I got an ///M3". So with that being said, I guess BMW is doing the right thing, and the only thing left for enthusiasts to do is shut up, keep their old cars and pray they last forever.

Cheers,
e46e92

Cheers,
e46e92

[PKL]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

As one thread just started by a member of these forums states it best, people are more concerned with whether their car has Active Cruise Control
Cheers,
e46e92

When I saw that thread I just SHOOK MY HEAD. I would never want active cruise control... these cars are meant to be driven!!! SMH!!!

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by swamp2

NA itself is not and has never been an M philosophy. Perhaps it's been the status quo but definitely not something as rigid as a "philosophy". As far as I am aware there is no official philosophy of M. Granted they have spoken at length about the importance of throttle response and the race car/motorsport experience for its M cars. We have no reason to believe that these features of the next car will not be excellent. Can it match the S65 specifically for the throttle response and redline, probably not, will it be darn close - probably. That is not really what defines an M. Maybe it's your definition but it is not THE definition.

Swamp, yes, NA has never been advertised as M Philosophy per se. OTOH, neither has 100bhp/liter. Both aspects greatly lend themselves to promoting the notion that a given motor is special; race car special. However, in practice, M Division has made NA a constant to its motor building program, and if that's all there has been to date for the M3, it makes it a little difficult to attempt to argue that NA has never been part of M Philosophy in practice.


For M Philosophy see below

Originally Posted by swamp2

The core important tenet of BMW M (IMHO) is to offer race inspired coupes and sedans that lead the competitive field in all around performance, with an emphasis on handling, track performance and the fun to drive factor. At the same time keeping ahead in the price to performance ratio, wrapping it all up in a classy European package.

Close, but no cigar for you.

M Philosophy defined (See starting @ 16s)..."M Philosophy is to basically take a production car with all the utility, amenities of a production car, and add to this the performance of a real sports car; almost a race car."


From the same video starting at 5:08 on what M Division wants to deliver to the M driver...and how to bore M drivers...which is where some of us are coming from since everyone else (i.e. the competition) is already doing what M now appears to be prepared to do (i.e. turbocharge ).

[regensburg94]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

I will spend the next week looking for the quotes of heads of BMW ///M past who said "nein" when asked about FI on ///M cars. Trust me, it was a tenant. And when you cast aside lightly the fact that it will have less throttle response then the current ///M, you must really have your head in the sand if you believe that is not compromising a MAJOR tenant of ///M. Are you really going to argue that throttle response wasn't one of the basic foundations of ///m? To do that would to be to throw out every interview & statement ever made by anyone from that division, EVER.

Cheers,
e46e92

Cheers,
e46e92

I agree with almost all of your ideas. I'm personally very unhappy with the way things are going over at BMW M.

Hate to be grammar police, but I think you mean TENET, not TENANT. No one's living over at or renting an apartment from M Division.

[BMW269]

The secret of success lies not in the highest horsepower, but in the best power-to-weight ratio.
A lighter vehicle weight provides considerable advantages in terms of performance and driving dynamics.

It is not about HP, so why use FI? Then even if it would be about power, 500 is not to much for the M3 F32, the M5 F10 is getting to up to 600 HP. Power will not make a heavy car handle better, but a light car with even more power will handle even better.
1550 kg (EU) M3 F32 with 450 HP = VERY NICE
1550 kg (EU) M3 F32 with 500 HP = EVEN BETTER

The distinctive note of the double-flow stainless steel exhaust
system with fan-type manifolds is music to the ears.

The M3 always had a distinct sound, a Motorsport sound. However good a FI engine can be - McLaren MP4-12C, Porsche 911 GT2 RS - it will never sound as good as a NA engine - Ferrari 458 Italia, Porsche 911 GT3 RS. The 1M E82 just does not sound as the M3 E46, and will never ever.

THE HIGH ART OF HIGH REVS.
High performance through high revs. That’s the formula that shaped every single component in the V8 engine. The result is a 4.0-litre unit, which releases an impressive 420 hp of spontaneous, turbine-like power. The powerful 4.0-litre V8 engine responds instantly to the first touch of the accelerator. The trademark M high-revving concept pushes the 420 hp
powerplant effortlessly all the way up to 8,300 rpm. Only a high-revving induction engine like the powerplant in the BMW M3 performs its task so effortlessly and responds so eagerly to a touch of the accelerator.

M going FI means losing credibilty.

Breathe out, switch off. As the engine quietly ticks into silence, the soul of Formula M can still be felt in every fibre of your being.

At the moment the next M3 F32 looks like this:



BMW M will do everything to make the M3 F32 desirable:
-RS5 details, seats, beauty
-C AMG aggressivity
-M5 comfort
-911 price
But in the end, it will lack one vital thing: a TRUE Motorpsorts engine.

The fourth generation of the BMW M3 was lined up ready to exceed not just the performance figures of its predecessors but also drivers’ expectations for uncompromising sportiness and absolute everyday utility. A completely new development, this car not only represented the continuation of the unique
success story of motorsport technology use in production models – it also sounded the starting signal for a new legend.

The new M5 Sedan. Performance enters a new era.

The rumoured M3 F32 with FI I6 is a car that would not continue the legend of the M3. It would start a new legend, a very short one.


An example that the M3 should follow (to some extend):
Ferrari 360 Modena (NA 3.6l V8)
Ferrari F430 (NA 4.3 V8)
Ferrari 458 Italia (NA 4.5l V8) (no manual )

Going from NA 4.0l V8, 8.400 rpm redline to FI 3.0l/3.5l I6, 7.000 rpm redline is not continuing the legend. Continuing the legend would be a NA 4.5l V8, 9.000 rpm redline.

Actually for what reason should the M3 get a FI I6 over a NA V8?
V8 is shorter, more compact, lighter, no heat issues. Emissions? Direct injection like the last Ferrari.
An other problem it that the M3 engine will not be special, as put into cars as X3 M.
BMW M can do what it wishes, but let it leave the M3 in peace.

[Erhan]

+1

[ruff]

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...sizing-feature

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by ruff

http://www.caranddriver.com/features...sizing-feature

Haha awesome article!

[happy187]

I would rather have NA anyday. After my 335i experience, I am not fan of bmw FI engines.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by regensburg94

I agree with almost all of your ideas. I'm personally very unhappy with the way things are going over at BMW M.

Hate to be grammar police, but I think you mean TENET, not TENANT. No one's living over at or renting an apartment from M Division.

My bad, that is what happens when you don't proof your posts past spell check, spell check doesn't correct stupidity as long as its spelled right

Cheers,
e46e92

[BMW269]

BMW M3

Chassis: F32
Engine: S66
Configuration: 4.5l V8
Power: 500 PS (111 PS/l)
Torque: 475 Nm (105 Nm/l)
Redline: 9.000 RPM
Gearbox: GS6 [GS7] (+ 20 kg)
Weight: 1550 kg (EU)
0-100 km/h: 4.2 [4.0] sec
V-max: 300 km/h
N-Ring: 7:45 min (DCT)
Price: 75.000 €


BMW M3 CSL

Chassis: F32
Engine: S66
Configuration: 4.5l V8
Power: 525 PS (116 PS/l)
Torque: 500 Nm (111 Nm/l)
Redline: 9.000 RPM
Gearbox: GS6 [GS7] (+ 20 kg)
Weight: 1450kg (EU)
0-100 km/h: 4.0 [3.8] sec
V-max: 320 km/h
N-Ring: 7:25 min (DCT)
Price: 105.000 €