The future of M

[footie]

Originally Posted by enigma

Been there, done that, didn't like it.

I have driven Evo's, Supra's, 320i (aftermarked turbo), 633csi (Dinan turbo), Maseriti Bi-Turbo, and a few other turbos I cannot remember right now. On the NA side, Z06, lots of BMWs, Elise, Miata, Gti, S2000, numerous FWD imports, and one Porsche.

Now if all you do is loaf around on the street, sure, get the turbo. However, if like me, you take your car to play either at the track or autocross on the weekend, I prefer NA.

Well this was my point exactly, if you are going to trackday the car then by all means a N/A engine is you more control but as for normal driving on public roads then there is not a thing wrong with forced induction.

I suppose there would be quite a few M3 drivers who would go on the track occasionally so might BMW are right in keeping their M cars solely N/A, as so far they are matching all the other brands on performance without having to go down the FI route.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by footie

Well this was my point exactly, if you are going to trackday the car then by all means a N/A engine is you more control but as for normal driving on public roads then there is not a thing wrong with forced induction.

I suppose there would be quite a few M3 drivers who would go on the track occasionally so might BMW are right in keeping their M cars solely N/A, as so far they are matching all the other brands on performance without having to go down the FI route.

Congrats, you just discovered what really seperates the M3 from the 335

[footie]

Originally Posted by enigma

Congrats, you just discovered what really seperates the M3 from the 335

But that's not why I picked the M3 over the 335i, I had already looked at the 335i prior to picking the S5 and the reason I didn't pick it then is the same reason I didn't pick it now. The 335i is a brilliant car, no question about it but it's nothing special to look at and with not special panels to separate it from the rest of the range.

The reason most people pick the M3 over the 335i is because they can afford it, but apart from that it drives better than the 335i, it looks better, more special and it sounds sssssssssoooooooo much better.

I couldn't care less if the M3 had been turboed or not.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by footie

The reason most people pick the M3 over the 335i is because they can afford it, but apart from that it drives better than the 335i, it looks better, more special and it sounds sssssssssoooooooo much better.

I couldn't care less if the M3 had been turboed or not.

You want a status symbol, got it.

Some of us want the car to enjoy driving it.

[footie]

enigma,

Yeah you are probibly right, I will possibly never trackday the car and apart from the odd blast through the gears the thing won't be used in anger.

But I have still bought the car for the enjoyment of driving.

[Pimp Star]

Originally Posted by chicagobimmerboy

Let's face it BMW has made some of the best race bred cars around, doing it the old fashoned way, small high revving engines and a balanced chasis. The German HP war has had BMW increasing engine size and cylinder count like crazy, examles M5 V10, M3 V8 etc. This however leaves BMW at an interesting crossroads, M division want only light high-revving engines but part of that is having a rather small displacement. Here is the problem, there is only so much play you have with an engine before you have to increase capacity (which means bigger, heavier internals, garbage MPG and not so high rev's. The current M straight six is maxed out, the current V10 is going to be upgraded soon and the M V8 well it's brand new, the problem concerns the M5, rumors have started that a TT M5 is in the wings for the next generation. Belive me I would have no problem with a 600-650 HP V10 but its against M heritige to have forced induction, the M boss even said "M cars have been and will always be high revving and NAURALLY ASPERATED", and remember that engine will have to be completely rebuilt with heavy duty parts to withstand that kind of boost. To be honest turbocharging is a lazy way to make power, M always has put more effort into their cars than that!!! However I can see one direction BMW M might take; they switch to direct injection wich boosts HP and MPG's massively, they make the cars lighter and give only modest increases in engine size (this way we can get 600-650 HP, good MPG's and have an 8300 plus redline. A possible mid-life upgrade for the M3 could be direct injection, can anyone say 450 HP or more !!! which route do you all think BMW will take? stay true to M heritge and invest in new technology or do the Audi quick fix and bolt on some turbos?

I completely agree. I miss the days of ///M Cars (BMW's, actually) being small cars that you could flick into corners and be amazed. I am taking nothing away from the E92 M3, but, I mean... a V8? Come on, they could have EASILY gotten 400hp from a V6 (~3.6L V6 with some brilliant engineering). For God's sake, E92 335i's with PROcede have more torque than the M3.

It looks like they are taking the easy way out by just putting bigger and bigger engines, hell, I don't even want a bigger engine, I want a RAW BMW. I want an M3 CSL, I want a 2002, I want something light, fast, and nimble.

The only place to go from here is... V12. Then it's no longer the BMW I grew up knowing...

--

To answer your question: I have no idea, but I hope BMW stay true to the ///M roots.

[mesier1111]

Originally Posted by footie

Yeah, but are you willing to pay the cost of such a course of action. At present CF is very expensive to produces and though alloy is lighter than most steels the R8 and Aston Martins have proved one thing, being built entirely from aluminium don't always make for a light car. I think if the weight can be reduced cheaply it will be done in a combination of ways, from lighter engines to more suspension and steering parts being made from either alloy or CF. Less luxuries could save a lot but are we willing to give them up and of course more use of H/S steels like what Porsche do should gain a small but important amount.

As for the end of the power war, I very much doubt we have reached the end of that, from either BMW, Mercedes or Audi.

The M-division was never about being cheap. The power war is over, because gas is gonna be over $5 for 93 in many parts of this country before you see M-DCT on the the M3.

[aerisolphaln]

Originally Posted by Pimp Star

It looks like they are taking the easy way out by just putting bigger and bigger engines, hell, I don't even want a bigger engine, I want a RAW BMW. I want an M3 CSL, I want a 2002, I want something light, fast, and nimble.

You know, those cars all still exist and I'm sure you could get into any one of them for less than the e92 M3 (it may be close on the CSL, but who knows). The demographic of the M purchaser has changed, and BMW is simply giving the masses what they want.

[Pimp Star]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

You know, those cars all still exist and I'm sure you could get into any one of them for less than the e92 M3 (it may be close on the CSL, but who knows). The demographic of the M purchaser has changed, and BMW is simply giving the masses what they want.

Their are 500 M3 CSL's in the world. All of them were sold before they officially came to dealers. They are all in Europe, and are all right-hand drive. I live in California, and I highly doubt it passes smog. However, I would absolutely LOVE to have an E46 M3 CSL; I would kill for one, it is my favorite car and my background, I think it is the most amazing thing ever.

I also have to agree with you on M3 buyers changing, so the car changes.

[Smoltz]

Originally Posted by Pimp Star

I completely agree. I miss the days of ///M Cars (BMW's, actually) being small cars that you could flick into corners and be amazed. I am taking nothing away from the E92 M3, but, I mean... a V8? Come on, they could have EASILY gotten 400hp from a V6 (~3.6L V6 with some brilliant engineering). For God's sake, E92 335i's with PROcede have more torque than the M3.

It looks like they are taking the easy way out by just putting bigger and bigger engines, hell, I don't even want a bigger engine, I want a RAW BMW. I want an M3 CSL, I want a 2002, I want something light, fast, and nimble.

The only place to go from here is... V12. Then it's no longer the BMW I grew up knowing...

--

To answer your question: I have no idea, but I hope BMW stay true to the ///M roots.

The V8 in the E92 revs higher than than the 6, makes more power and weighs less. I don't see what else there is to want from the engine.

-Adam

[Smoltz]

Originally Posted by Pimp Star

Their are 500 M3 CSL's in the world. All of them were sold before they officially came to dealers. They are all in Europe, and are all right-hand drive. I live in California, and I highly doubt it passes smog. However, I would absolutely LOVE to have an E46 M3 CSL; I would kill for one, it is my favorite car and my background, I think it is the most amazing thing ever.

I also have to agree with you on M3 buyers changing, so the car changes.

Next time you want to post, please check your facts, everything you say abou the CSL is wrong. There are more than 500, the real number is around 1000. Not all of them were sold before they arrived at dealers. And not all are right hand drive, in fact less than half are.

-Adam

[MrHarris]

[aerisolphaln]

M3 CSL (E46)
BMW made a limited run (less than 1,400 units) of the M3 CSL (E46) machines between June and December of 2003. The CSL (Coupe Sport Lightweight) received an aggressive weight reduction campaign, more power (up to 360 hp), and sharper handling characteristics than the standard M3, courtesy of semi-slick racing tires. From the exterior, the CSL is distinguished from its standard sibling with a different wheel design, larger integrated rear spoiler and a large air intake hole on the left side of the front bumper. Weight loss was achieved through use of a carbon-fiber roof, carbon-fiber trunk lid, lighter exhaust manifold, thinner rear glass, carbon fiber interior door panels and console, lightweight racing seats, and the removal of side air bags. Several other features available in a regular M3 as standard such as air conditioning and radio were also deleted, although these options could be added at the request of the owner. SMG II sequential manual gearbox was made standard. Owing to the small production run and the complications of clearing DOT and [United States Environmental Protection Agency|EPA]] standards for the North American market, BMW never exported the CSL to the United States, although some parts from it were later made available on the regular M3 as part of an optional Competition Package.

While the CSL was comparable in performance to theFerrari's 360 at half the price, this version of the M3 is often criticized as being too racing-oriented and significantly pricier than the standard model. Focusing on weight loss, the CSL became less of the "everyday car" that the M3 is known for. Another criticism was the unavailability of a manual gearbox.

[footie]

Originally Posted by mesier1111

The M-division was never about being cheap. The power war is over, because gas is gonna be over $5 for 93 in many parts of this country before you see M-DCT on the the M3.

Well considering we in the UK are paying in excess of £4.50 ($9.20) per gallon I reckon you have a long way to go before you can really start to complain about fuel prices.

[txusa03]

I say (if you are listening bmw) bmw should not worry about what audi or MB is doing. BMW should keep improving and staying in the innovative side of NA engine. Why? Well, this will make the M unique (it is already but not slapping turbos on it makes it rare to have such high performance engine without force induction)

Example, if you want a high performance NA car, where else could you get it but bmw and for that price that you are paying for M3. Audi's RS (version of M) are more expansive then M.

[footie]

Originally Posted by txusa03

Example, if you want a high performance NA car, where else could you get it but bmw and for that price that you are paying for M3. Audi's RS (version of M) are more expansive then M.

This must only apply to the US as Europe and the UK have both models on par with each other.

[The CSL]

Originally Posted by footie

I can see why die-hard M fans wouldn't want it as BMW are the only one of the big three not to chose that route for their top performance cars, but the facts are that N/A only really benefits professional motor racing when that fine throttle balance is truly required.

I have to disagree with that point. An N/A set-up doesn't have the artificial powerband nonsense or the likelihood of being caught off-boost. Turbos are great for diesels, but a petrol engine should be left au naturel. Ringing a car to 7, 8, 9 rpm to get its power is thrilling. A car doesn't have to be turbo to be quick in 'the real world'. Dropping to second is just as useful.

[footie]

Originally Posted by The CSL

I have to disagree with that point. An N/A set-up doesn't have the artificial powerband nonsense or the likelihood of being caught off-boost. Turbos are great for diesels, but a petrol engine should be left au naturel. Ringing a car to 7, 8, 9 rpm to get its power is thrilling. A car doesn't have to be turbo to be quick in 'the real world'. Dropping to second is just as useful.

I think your opinions on turbo-petrol engines are a little behind the times, car like the 335i and 997tt don't suffer from turbo lag anymore, their respective powerbands are almost as board as a good N/A engine, look at the E92 M3 it's powerbands (torque) runs over 6250rpms, that's 80% of it's peak torque. But wait the new RS6 has a torque band which runs from 1750rpm ~ 6250rpm, only 750rpm less but this time is 100% and not 80% you are getting, plus the hp band extends this from 6250rpm ~6750rpm. With such a wide powerband I doubt you will ever be caught off-boost.

I think the best thing to say is you dislike the manner in which a turbo engine delivers it's power but to disregard them altogether and reckon the technology only suits diesels is wrong. I am not disagreeing with you only highlighting that the modern turbo engines are just as good as the best N/A engines only different.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by footie

I think your opinions on turbo-petrol engines are a little behind the times, car like the 335i and 997tt don't suffer from turbo lag anymore, their respective powerbands are almost as board as a good N/A engine

BS

If you don't know the difference between lag and powerband, then don't talk about it.

Lag is the time between throttle application and when that power is delivered for any given RPM.

Powerband is a description of how much power an engine makes at any given RPM.

All turbo cars lag to some degree, its basic physics. A turbine can not go from spinning slowly to fast in zero time.

[footie]

Originally Posted by enigma

BS

If you don't know the difference between lag and powerband, then don't talk about it.
Lag is the time between throttle application and when that power is delivered for any given RPM.

Powerband is a description of how much power an engine makes at any given RPM.

All turbo cars lag to some degree, its basic physics. A turbine can not go from spinning slowly to fast in zero time.

Another pleasant member of M3POST.

I know there is a delay, but when I wrote they don't suffer from lag I thought everyone would understand what I meant by that (lag is so small as to not be really relevant in day to day driving). The day of a noticeable turbo lag are almost at an end, the cars I named above are all examples of the new improved turbo technology which suffer from virtually no turbo lag and offer a similar performance in a smaller more efficient package.

I feel many people here are sold on the non-turbo thing completely and think all turbo engines are bad and unsuitable to be placed in a sportscar. The facts are that turbo engines have been in numerous supercars as well as sportscars. I understand the reluctance of change because BMW M engines have done a wonderful job is matching the equivalent rivals which have gone the FI route, but the fact are things are getting more difficult to compete without resorting to the same technology as the rest, BMW say they are finished with the power war, that statement proves what I am saying is right and they have all but reached the limit and will either have to change or look for other way to compete. They say reduce weight but at present the cost of this is surely to high to be considered an option.

If you reckon the lag is too much for you then I won't try and convert you and as for the rest, I reckon you will have to accept in the long run, regardless of what the head of M-Division says forced induction engines are the future in this ever increasing world which concerns itself with Co2 levels and ever increasing fuel costs.

If BMW's next range of M cars happens to have forced induction engines I reckon they will be among the best available and we will all learn to live with and love. But clearly some will adapt a bit sooner than other from the reactions that this thread has produced.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by footie

Another pleasant member of M3POST.

I know there is a delay, but when I wrote they don't suffer from lag I thought everyone would understand what I meant by that (lag is so small as to not be really relevant in day to day driving). The day of a noticeable turbo lag are almost at an end, the cars I named above are all examples of the new improved turbo technology which suffer from virtually no turbo lag and offer a similar performance in a smaller more efficient package.

Words have meaning. Don't make a claim and then say "I thought everyone would understand I didn't mean what I wrote".

I completly understand the upsides of FI. However, I would hope that BMW M would go the route of a supercharger instead of turbo if they ever make the leap to FI.

I am much, much more worried about the ability of BMW to design a motorsport worthy suspension than I am about their engines. As you move to wider tires, mac-struts become more and more of a problem.