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

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

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 .

Ideally this is true, however BMW may be forced into the V6 due to packaging advantages. Of course, that is for a V6 vs. an I6. For a V6 vs. a V8, especially a smaller V8, there would be no real packaging advantage. And for that matter a small V8 would make the turbo plumbing easier with respect to footies comments above. Too bad that's not in the plan. Makes me wonder if BMW are mostly concerned with the message a V8 in the bread-and-butter M car will send as they are increasingly trumpeting the efficient dynamics green message.

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

What makes you think it means a low redline?

I covered that in an earlier post. I am skeptical that they are developing high revving engines.

[ruff]

The M3-phile's mantra has always been NA motors with high rev lines equals the pinnacle of motor engineering and development. These same files also considered turbos and V6's the antithesis to everything the M Division stood for. Don't Buy that argument? Just read comments from these same philes on this forum dating back say a year or more. If I remember right, the GT-R is burdened by one of those lame V6's with turbos cheaply bolted to it. I find it fascinating how many of these so called philes now present the exact opposite argument favoring FI and V6s.

Which leads us not to the question of whether FI and the new technology surrounding it is the right choice for the next M3, but whether these so called M3-philes are motivated more by a flashy M badge for adoring eyes than concern over the character of the motor hidden beneath the hood.

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

For a V6 vs. a V8, especially a smaller V8, there would be no real packaging advantage. And for that matter a small V8 would make the turbo plumbing easier with respect to footies comments above. Too bad that's not in the plan. .

There will never be a turbo V8 M3 (IMO) for a simple reason: COST. Plus I doubt BMW would EVER put the same engine architecture on the M3 than M5/M6s, even if smaller and less powerful.

We were damn lucky to get a NA V8. I bet our V8 is one of the most expensive, compact, and better built around, including exotics . I'd never accept swapping my S65 for an F430 engine, even if it was for free. I want it to last more than 50K miles .

[southlight]

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.

Fair enough. Additionally, Audi has the advantage that their heritage doesn't contravene high performance turbo engines...

Originally Posted by footie

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.

You're right, why should I bother about these things.

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

What makes you think it means a low redline?

BMW used to have quite some problems with the 7,000 rpm redline in the N54. That doesn't mean these problems still do exist, but it does say that it's not as easy as raising the limiter.

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

The article which started this whole thing talks about a high redline, and if you look at some of the recently built turbo engines (McLaren for instance. ) they have a high redline.

Speaking of the McLaren, do we know if that engine has DI?

Originally Posted by ruff

The M3-phile's mantra has always been NA motors with high rev lines equals the pinnacle of motor engineering and development. These same files also considered turbos and V6's the antithesis to everything the M Division stood for. Don't Buy that argument? Just read comments from these same philes on this forum dating back say a year or more. If I remember right, the GT-R is burdened by one of those lame V6's with turbos cheaply bolted to it. I find it fascinating how many of these so called philes now present the exact opposite argument favoring FI and V6s.

As far as I'm concerned, this has more to do with making the best out of it than with anything else.

Originally Posted by ruff

Which leads us not to the question of whether FI and the new technology surrounding it is the right choice for the next M3, but whether these so called M3-philes are motivated more by a flashy M badge for adoring eyes than concern over the character of the motor hidden beneath the hood.

The shoe doesn't fit. Ever heard of the factory debadge option available in Europe?


Best regards,
south

[ruff]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

There will never be a turbo V8 M3 (IMO) for a simple reason: COST. Plus I doubt BMW would EVER put the same engine architecture on the M3 than M5/M6s, even if smaller and less powerful.

We were damn lucky to get a NA V8. I bet our V8 is one of the most expensive, compact, and better built around, including exotics . I'd never accept swapping my S65 for an F430 engine, even if it was for free. I want it to last more than 50K miles .

You do love your BMW. The 4.3 litre flat plane V8 is the epitome of sonic and performance perfection.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

There will never be a turbo V8 M3 (IMO) for a simple reason: COST.

Well, I'm not sure that a turbo V8 will be less costly to develop than a turbo V6 though. After all, the V6 will require a new engine altogether. BMW already has V8s.

Plus I doubt BMW would EVER put the same engine architecture on the M3 than M5/M6s, even if smaller and less powerful.

Probably not, unfortunately. However, speaking of costs, sharing the same basic engine between multiple cars is a good way to cut down on them.

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by ruff

The 4.3 litre flat plane V8 is the epitome of sonic and performance perfection.

First, I don't 'love' any car or thing, and have never nor will ever be 'brand loyal' to anything, to set the record straight.
And no, Ferrari is far from 'sonic' perfection to me; I hate that exhaust note (and yes, I know I'm in the minority here ). And there's nothing perfect; even the much improved 458 won't be perfect , but as far as having better comparable performance than the S65, it obviously does. BUT talking about performance while disregarding longevity is not acceptable to me, and THAT's what Ferrari still has to prove. And that's the reason I prefer my S65; there's a balance for everything.
Ferrari is not the best car for the money by a long shot, period. Most people buy it for its 'status'. People without ego problems () would never pay tens of thousands above MSRP, and that includes multimillionaires like Jay Leno. If I had the means, I'd add a GT3 and an R8 V8 to my garage (hate how V10s sound too ), that's it (plus a few motorcycles , but those are cheap by comparison). That'd give me one of each: FF (DD), FR, MR, and RR. Good day.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

Not the sound, at least to me (and yes, I know I'm in the minority here ). And there's nothing perfect; even the much improved 458 won't be perfect , but as far as having better comparable performance than the S65, it obviously do. BUT almost any automaker could make a very powerful engine if you disregard longevity, and THAT's what Ferrari still has to prove. And that's the reason I prefer my S65.
Ferrari is not the best car for the money by a long shot, period. Most people buy it for its 'status'. People without ego problems () would never pay tens of thousands above MSRP, and that includes multimillionaires like Jay Leno.

You are awfully smiley.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

The M3-phile's mantra has always been NA motors with high rev lines equals the pinnacle of motor engineering and development. These same files also considered turbos and V6's the antithesis to everything the M Division stood for. Don't Buy that argument? Just read comments from these same philes on this forum dating back say a year or more. If I remember right, the GT-R is burdened by one of those lame V6's with turbos cheaply bolted to it. I find it fascinating how many of these so called philes now present the exact opposite argument favoring FI and V6s.

Which leads us not to the question of whether FI and the new technology surrounding it is the right choice for the next M3, but whether these so called M3-philes are motivated more by a flashy M badge for adoring eyes than concern over the character of the motor hidden beneath the hood.

There is pretty major hyperbole here. I do not counter with a point that BMW and especially M fanboy-ism doesn't exist. However, to say that M3 and NA engine fans have anywhere claimed the GT-R is burdened with a lame V6 with turbos cheaply bolted to it is absurd. No one ever went that far on this forum.

I think it pretty simple - I like, and I know others do as well, crisp, immediate throttle response. This is a good attribute for feeling/excitement and performance. It is a good reason to be a M fan. Similarly I think serious M3 fans hope and even expect that BMW will be able to maintain some reasonable semblance of quick throttle response in the FI M3.

The massive exaggeration which makes everyone out to be a blind (or uninformed) fanboy always tires me. You can do much better Ruff.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by swamp2

There is pretty major hyperbole here. I do not counter with a point that BMW and especially M fanboy-ism doesn't exist. However, to say that M3 and NA engine fans have anywhere claimed the GT-R is burdened with a lame V6 with turbos cheaply bolted to it is absurd. No one ever went that far on this forum.

I think it pretty simple - I like, and I know others do as well, crisp, immediate throttle response. This is a good attribute for feeling/excitement and performance. It is a good reason to be a M fan. Similarly I think serious M3 fans hope and even expect that BMW will be able to maintain some reasonable semblance of quick throttle response in the FI M3.

The massive exaggeration which makes everyone out to be a blind (or uninformed) fanboy always tires me. You can do much better Ruff.

The only massive exaggeration here is your own use of those words.

You conveniently forget that not so long ago, you were stalwart in your defense of of M3's NA motor over the GT-Rs turbo fest. You were thee biggest critic of the GT-R on the forum and continued to try and minimize it's world class turbo-ed performance numbers, despite the facts. You hammered the 335 fanboys for the N54's low red line and lack of throttle response in comparison to the S65. Am I correct in stating that the N54 was developed by the very same company that will build the next M3?

Never thought I would see the day when Swamp would hang up his jacket and argue in support of a V6 turbo charged M3. Surprising transformation my friend.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

''Purists dont take turbo's" well purists don't drive 3800lb sports cars either.

Correct. Mine weighs 2,976 lbs. How about yours?

[ruff]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

An Accord doesn't quite count.

Why not? Sounds a bit snobby.

Besides, a little do diligence on your part would confirm that a 91 Accord is not that porky.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

No snob, but an Accord is hardly a sports car.

Does Porsche make sports cars?

[AMOCHOSTO]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

First, I don't 'love' any car or thing, and have never nor will ever be 'brand loyal' to anything, to set the record straight.
And no, Ferrari is far from 'sonic' perfection to me; I hate that exhaust note (and yes, I know I'm in the minority here ). And there's nothing perfect; even the much improved 458 won't be perfect , but as far as having better comparable performance than the S65, it obviously does. BUT talking about performance while disregarding longevity is not acceptable to me, and THAT's what Ferrari still has to prove. And that's the reason I prefer my S65; there's a balance for everything.
Ferrari is not the best car for the money by a long shot, period. Most people buy it for its 'status'. People without ego problems () would never pay tens of thousands above MSRP, and that includes multimillionaires like Jay Leno. If I had the means, I'd add a GT3 and an R8 V8 to my garage (hate how V10s sound too ), that's it (plus a few motorcycles , but those are cheap by comparison). That'd give me one of each: FF (DD), FR, MR, and RR. Good day.

I'm not trying to debate wether or not I have an ego problem or not, but I'll buy a Ferrari one day when/if I can ever afford one.

Ferrari has been my favorite car company and my favorite F1 team since I was 10 and earning a Ferrari is one of my life's goals.

The M3 has a sweet sounding engine for sure, but for me Ferrari V12s and the Lambo V10 and 12s are the shizzle!

[SlammedR8]

Originally Posted by ruff

Does Porsche make sports cars?

I would love to see where you are taking this, so Ill bite the bullet on this one,


Yes, Porsche does make sports car ?


(whats the point of this question )

[aus]

Originally Posted by slammedm3

I would love to see where you are taking this, so Ill bite the bullet on this one,


Yes, Porsche does make sports car ?


(whats the point of this question )

[spicoli024]

Jesus ruff, what the hell are you talking about, really?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ruff

The only massive exaggeration here is your own use of those words.

You conveniently forget that not so long ago, you were stalwart in your defense of of M3's NA motor over the GT-Rs turbo fest. You were thee biggest critic of the GT-R on the forum and continued to try and minimize it's world class turbo-ed performance numbers, despite the facts. You hammered the 335 fanboys for the N54's low red line and lack of throttle response in comparison to the S65. Am I correct in stating that the N54 was developed by the very same company that will build the next M3?

Never thought I would see the day when Swamp would hang up his jacket and argue in support of a V6 turbo charged M3. Surprising transformation my friend.

No, period.

Come on now, this is simply too much. This could not be further from the truth. I never even bothered comparing the GT-R to the M3 from an engine perspective. I have argued that the M3, even price independent is personally a better choice for me. I have also argued vehemently that the GT-R is a technological tour de force. The engine itself is nice, but not nearly as special as the chassis, tranny, AWD and traction control systems. What I have been overtly critical of is Nissans under rating of the GT-R and the lengths to which they went to obtain the N'Ring times they did.

Similarly goes the 335. I have lots of praise for the car. I even briefly considered buying one. The vehement argument I have made here in the forum in comparing the M3 vs the 335i is that you can not spend less than the price difference between the cars on modding the 335i and get a car that will outperform the M3 everywhere. I have complimented the 335i engine by saying BMW did a good job of hiding the turbos and minimizing lag but they certainly have not eliminated it. I do personally prefer the high reving and instant throttle response of the M3s engine over the 335i and over many other FI engines but I never made much of this point at all, neither through repetition nor through vigor.

Last but not least I have never come out in favor nor support of a FI V6 for the M3. I have said I have great confidence in the M division to continue to make wonderful cars, nothing more.

So in short EVERYTHING you have said above is utterly and absolutely false. I directly challenge you to provide any proof of those accusations (and quotes with context, not some silly partial sentence out of context). I'll go so far as to say the accusations above are outright lies. Put up or shut up. Your memory has completely failed you here.

Lastly, I stick to my post calling you on your hyperbole. It's plain for anyone to see.

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by GatorBlue371

Blah blah, blah blah blah, blah.


Who cares? Its going to happen and the M3 will be a better car because of it. The article (the same ''credible source'' which your basing your entire tantrum on) talks about retaining a high red line, and recent developments have taken throttle response to another level on turbo cars.

Hopefully the M-division can do a turbo M3 that can go more than 5 laps without a limp mode. 335i can be a pain in the ass to track.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by ruff

Correct. Mine weighs 2,976 lbs. How about yours?

So you finally got the Cayman S? Did you get PDK?

Pics, pics, pics!

[footie]

I'm with swamp on this one ruff. I have probably debated the GTR with him more than anyone else and I can't recall any negative comments regarding the engine. Maybe a claim that the engines don't produce the quoted figures instead producing more than that but apart from that I can't think of anything.

As for the 335i I honestly don't know, I would say that swamp prefers the throttle response of the M3 and considers that N/A is the only way to go but whether he openly doesn't rate turbo engine is something I haven't read in his posts.

BMW are in a catch 22 with the next M3, do they run with an inline 6 turbo unit which will please those purists that believe no M3 should have a Vee engine knowing that is will be compromised with such a setup or do they build the best turbo engine they can which must be a Vee and to hell what people think, letting the performance speak for itself.

[zuggerat89]

Originally Posted by footie

BMW are in a catch 22 with the next M3, do they run with an inline 6 turbo unit which will please those purists that believe no M3 should have a Vee engine knowing that is will be compromised with such a setup or do they build the best turbo engine they can which must be a Vee and to hell what people think, letting the performance speak for itself.

I'm glad I'm not on that engine development team, haha. Tradition means a lot, but so does the advancement of performance. I hate to continually make an example of the same company but Porsche comes to mind immediately.

They have a strict tradition and certain things have come to be expected from them. When they switched from air cooled to water cooled engines people were furious. Lots of Porschphiles say, yeah their cars are good but they just arent the same.

BMW has these same traditions, it's going to be a big huge deal when they break with tradition. Now I think moving from Inlines to V configuration is a way bigger change than simply moving from air to water cooled engines, but still it is the same ideology.

If a porsche isn't a porsche, then what really is it? What would people say if Porsche said, you know what we are done with boxer engines? The same can be said for BMW.