|
|
|
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
05-30-2011, 09:50 AM | #89 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
But as we've discussed before, why bother? With the turbo (or two, or three), you can tailor a power and torque curve to get pretty much whatever you want. 450 HP (or whatever) would work just fine with a 7000 rpm limit. Yeah, I know that some of the faithful swear they'll never buy a turbo M3 that only goes to 7K, but hey, BMW folks know what they're doing. Once the torque curve in the new one shortens up their eyeballs by a couple of diopters, the current religious faithful will see the (new) light. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2011, 09:59 AM | #90 |
Been There, Done That.
656
Rep 4,728
Posts |
991.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-30-2011, 01:38 PM | #91 |
Been There, Done That.
656
Rep 4,728
Posts |
2 sources claiming the next gen M3 is going to have some version of the N55. Scott, can you shed some light on this please?
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2011, 03:27 AM | #92 | |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
The rumors I have heard that sound the most likely are that BMWs Valvetronic system can not keep pace past 7000 rpm (or perhaps 7000 + some safety factor). Of course Valvetronic is likely in the the next M3 but its successor could very well yield a faster responding system. I'm guessing the new M3 will have a "compromise" redline of about 7,500. A compromise between the F10 M5 in the low 7k range and the existing S65 screamer at 8400.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2011, 07:37 AM | #93 |
Brigadier General
435
Rep 3,888
Posts |
You guess the M3 F32 will have a "compromise" redline of about 7.500 RPM. I hope it will get a COMPROMISE redline at 8.000 RPM. The M3 F32 is said to be lighter than the M3 E46, so let it rev at least as high as it: 8.000 RPM!
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2011, 08:00 AM | #94 | |
A70
8
Rep 258
Posts |
Quote:
Secondly, the often quoted weight of 3700lbs for the current M3 is not entirely fair. Going off of inside line and their "curb weight, as tested" puts the 2002 M3 at 3472lb vs the 2010 M3 at 3556lb. Not much of a difference as a lot of people would believe. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2011, 08:04 AM | #95 | |||
Moderator
7517
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2011, 08:09 AM | #96 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
My point was that since the S54 went to 8000 rpm, the M version of the N55 would also be OK at that rpm, since it has a slightly shorter stroke. In regard to Valvetronic, I assume that the M folks will want to use it, since it in theory improves fuel economy by reducing pumping losses. However, I admit that I have no clue in regard to this technology. From my perspective, having a restriction at the valve is essentially no different than having a restriction at the throttle body, so obviously I'm missing something. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-31-2011, 12:22 PM | #97 | |
Been There, Done That.
656
Rep 4,728
Posts |
Quote:
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/31/b...-model-coming/ 3rd source. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|