Good night, sweet prince.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The new engine makes peak power from 5500 thru 7300 rpm, which means you MUST rev it past 7300 to get max acceleration. In fact, as with any automotive engine, you must rev it past the power peak before you shift, so as to get more power in the next gear, and therefore get max average acceleration over whatever distance. In this area, the new mill has the advantage in that you can rev 400 rpm past the power peak, instead of merely 100 rpm past peak with the current engine. This new car will run comparatively like a striped ape after every shift.

Lastly, the new powerplant makes peak torque from 1850 thru 5500 rpm, whereas the current S65 doesn't peak until 3900 rpm, and starts losing torque after that. Admittedly that curve is extremely flat, losing only around 11% over a 4400 rpm window, which is terrific for a smog legal street engine. However, this new super six will make approximately the same power after each shift as it did before each shift (except for the 1-2), which means the car will accelerate just as hard in the next gear. This is almost unheard of.

You are correct in assuming the new one won't charge to redline with the same brassy, blaring, clarion-call-to-battle that the current car does, but it sure as hell won't be feeling weak, either. And with 406 pound feet at low rpm, it'll have that effortless feel that the current one lacks. Come around that 90-degree corner in third, and just pull away on a low-noise tsunami of torque.

Bruce

Torque drops right past 5,500 RPM about....Rev past it and it'll fall flat on it's face. You'll be doing a lot of shifting. HP does keep increasing but that's not surprising.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

If 8400 rpm is what does it for you, I get it - but are you sure the "loss" of 700 rpm at the top end more than offsets the gain in power, torque and mileage?

I admit that sound may be an issue, as everyone loves the noises the 4-liter V8 makes. As for me, I loved the trademark sonorous snarl from the E36 3-liter that graced our garage, but really didn't like the noises the E46 made - except for when it was fast-idling after cold startup.

Oh well. Here's hoping the new one will make that trademark snarl.

Bruce

the new car is not going to sound like previous 6 cylinder m3. thos turbos kills noise. specially in stock forum.

car sounds bad to the point where BMW knew it wasn't good so they added the active sound.

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by Ezio

the new car is not going to sound like previous 6 cylinder m3. thos turbos kills noise. specially in stock forum.

car sounds bad to the point where BMW knew it wasn't good so they added the active sound.

+1
I had an FBO 335i back in the day and keeping it in gear without upshifting, above 6k rpm when letting up on the gas, those small turbo's and engine sounded horrible, like in pain.

Have you guys noticed, on the E9X M3 intro videos the engine sound was loud, the F80/82 videos it's as if the engine sound is muted?

When the E36 M3 came some owners said good night to the E30 M3 even though the E30 M3 is more special. And the ones that kept their E30 M3, boy! Arent they glad they did.

imo two of the most desirable M3's, one is a NA 4 and the other is a NA V8 in a sea of inline 6's. Hahaha

[Bemo]

The new car will be great, there are no doubts about it. Well, looks wise, the front hood/line hopefully get addressed with an LCI. I'm dying to get a V8 and hopefully will pick one up in a year or so.
For a current M3 owner, I just don't understand why one would "upgrade" to the newer model given that, as stated, both are already too much car, unless your lease is up.
I've been fortunate enough to have been piloted around in an M3 at LRP and the sound of that motor or magical and will NEVER EVER be replaced with a twin turbo. We have a 5GT in the family and it sounds good but it's not even close...
As for issues with the turbos, if you worry about maintenance, perhaps you shouldn't drive a BMW!
Cherish your cars and take good care of them, questionable looks and 150 less pounds of weight aren't reasons enough to drop another 30-40K to upgrade to the new model...

[Vanmarsenille]

Originally Posted by Lute

And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

8400 to 4959?!?!?
No. Just no.

And this guy is shifting extremely slowly. Further emphasizing the drop in rpm.

I'm having a little trouble trying to figure you out. You've made some posts that make me believe you get things, and then you post this video.

Look, it ain't rocket science. Figuring rpm drop, gear to gear, is as easy as dividing the gear ratio in the next gear by the ratio of the gear you're in, and multiplying that number times the rpm at the shift point.

So, getting as accurate as I can with the ratios of the current car, you divide 2.396 (second gear ratio) by 4.065 (first gear ratio), giving you a one-two relationship of .58942, times the shift-point rpm of 8400, giving you 4951 rpm after the one-two shift. Easy.

As for the video, it shows a slightly surprising two-step drop in rpm on the one-two shift, which I assume is either from wheelspin or momentary clutch slip, or both.

The thing is, during that momentary drop, hesitate, drop period of time, the car is still accelerating, so the tach will never drop back to 4951 rpm, but only back to something higher than that due to the acceleration that occurred during that transition from first to second.

Capiche?

Bruce

PS - As far as I can tell, KennyPowers is the guy in this string who absolutely gets it.

[<-3VOM]

in the video, he shifts well before 8000, and lands well above 5000.
Maybe you're ratios are wrong. I haven't looked into it.
I know how to calculate gear trains and ratio and proportion. I'm just not confident in your numbers.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

in the video, he shifts well before 8000, and lands well above 5000.
Maybe you're ratios are wrong. I haven't looked into it.
I know how to calculate gear trains and ratio and proportion. I'm just not confident in your numbers.

Look into it.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Thik

Wished they incorporated direct injection to the S65. 10% increase in power and fuel economy without turbo.

Given all the issues the VW guys are having with carbon build up in their DI engines, I'm glad they *didn't* incorporate DI into the S65, otherwise, I would not have purchased the car.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...-up-Megathread

[<-3VOM]

Meth injection=no carbon problem.
A couple occ's mitigates it quite well.

[LarThaL]

Until people have the opportunity to really drive the new M3/4 and give an honest comparison to the e9x, this is all mental masturbation.

That being said, there was no other direction to really go if the straight line speed capability was going to be improved upon. The car simply needed more torque in order to do this. That could only be acheived with forced induction or larger displacement. Larger dispalcement means more weight and even worse fuel economy, so it was obvious that was not about to occur.

Let's just wait and see.

[<-3VOM]

They should have implemented a di/pi injection system like the brz.

[Candide13]

Originally Posted by LarThaL

Until people have the opportunity to really drive the new M3/4 and give an honest comparison to the e9x, this is all mental masturbation.

Along these lines, today I joined the armchair pilots who drove the `old' and `new' M3/4 side by side in Gran Turismo 6. The new car is faster, of course, and having all the power available upwards of 5500 revs makes shifting harmless, which you do at around 7200 from 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th. (The first two shifts are at redline.)

But one thing that struck me is that unless you are a very good driver, the new turbo M3/4 is going to be a handful when trying to get to the limit, and that is precisely because of the crazy amount of instant torque at all revs. Very easy to overdo it and lose traction.

By comparison, for an intermediate driver, the long squeeze on the throttle of the current M3 is a lot easier to modulate and to anticipate. So the hell-fire cat that is the current M3 might actually be the more suitable car for track beginners!

Walter Roehrl, of rally and Porsche fame, said something similar about the Porsche 911 turbo: great in a straight line, but racing other cars on a twisty track he said he preferred the non-turbo 911.

At any rate, it's gonna be great having five fantastic generations of the M3 on the road after all these years!!

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

I'm expecting endless amounts of threads that have the words Limp Mode, Overheated , track, and turbo lag in them. Should be interesting.

[whats77inaname]

Originally Posted by Tokay444

Meth injection=no carbon problem.
A couple occ's mitigates it quite well.

*lol* Really now. Source?

[<-3VOM]

Source=any other di platform, running meth and or catch cans...

[LarThaL]

Originally Posted by Candide13

Along these lines, today I joined the armchair pilots who drove the `old' and `new' M3/4 side by side in Gran Turismo 6. The new car is faster, of course, and having all the power available upwards of 5500 revs makes shifting harmless, which you do at around 7200 from 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th. (The first two shifts are at redline.)

But one thing that struck me is that unless you are a very good driver, the new turbo M3/4 is going to be a handful when trying to get to the limit, and that is precisely because of the crazy amount of instant torque at all revs. Very easy to overdo it and lose traction.

By comparison, for an intermediate driver, the long squeeze on the throttle of the current M3 is a lot easier to modulate and to anticipate. So the hell-fire cat that is the current M3 might actually be the more suitable car for track beginners!

Walter Roehrl, of rally and Porsche fame, said something similar about the Porsche 911 turbo: great in a straight line, but racing other cars on a twisty track he said he preferred the non-turbo 911.

At any rate, it's gonna be great having five fantastic generations of the M3 on the road after all these years!!

The subjective experience of an NA motor with its linearity of throttle modulation provides a much more satisfying back road or track experience. It is this precise connection of the input/output equation that contibutes to the wired-to-your-nervous system feel that the e9x M3 provides so nicely. Turbo motors just won't do this, and if they are designed to try and do this, then they won't be providing much overall boost.

High torque is also problematic to get to the ground without AWD, and if you do this, the overall steering feel and responsiveness gets dulled down. Certain pure sport cars obviouly have a design advantage in order to optimize this, but you are still constrained by the limits of physics. Bascially, a turbo motor is good for straight line power at the expense of a number of subjective driving elements.

I am still waiting eagerly to see what engineering tricks BMW will pull out of the hat to try and maintain the crisp throttle response that the e9x M3 was renowned for. They know that they can't miss the mark by too much or there goes the crown.

[LarThaL]

Originally Posted by Rev ///Me

Torque drops right past 5,500 RPM about....Rev past it and it'll fall flat on it's face. You'll be doing a lot of shifting. HP does keep increasing but that's not surprising.

It appears that the useable powerband will be much narrower. Off the line, the traction mechanisms will have to seriously cut power to overcome that initial torque swell. Later, as pointed out, the car starts to run out of steam.

[jaehshim]

Originally Posted by Dashman

Glad I still have one.

hell yea

[Haywood]

Originally Posted by Candide13

Along these lines, today I joined the armchair pilots who drove the `old' and `new' M3/4 side by side in Gran Turismo 6. The new car is faster, of course, and having all the power available upwards of 5500 revs makes shifting harmless, which you do at around 7200 from 3rd to 4th and 4th to 5th. (The first two shifts are at redline.)

But one thing that struck me is that unless you are a very good driver, the new turbo M3/4 is going to be a handful when trying to get to the limit, and that is precisely because of the crazy amount of instant torque at all revs. Very easy to overdo it and lose traction.

By comparison, for an intermediate driver, the long squeeze on the throttle of the current M3 is a lot easier to modulate and to anticipate. So the hell-fire cat that is the current M3 might actually be the more suitable car for track beginners!

Walter Roehrl, of rally and Porsche fame, said something similar about the Porsche 911 turbo: great in a straight line, but racing other cars on a twisty track he said he preferred the non-turbo 911.

At any rate, it's gonna be great having five fantastic generations of the M3 on the road after all these years!!

Well said. I've had both a N54 and N55 car and it dropped off pretty quickly up top. This is the reason I love the S65 so much. So much easier to predict the powerband and where to be. It's also the reason why if I ever buy a Porsche, it will be that sweet 3.8 NA motor and not a turbo one. I'd love to hear the sound at 9000 RPM's!

[Candide13]

Originally Posted by LarThaL

I am still waiting eagerly to see what engineering tricks BMW will pull out of the hat to try and maintain the crisp throttle response that the e9x M3 was renowned for. They know that they can't miss the mark by too much or there goes the crown.

I think the main trick is keeping the turbos spinning under braking, provided you are in the two highest engine mapping modes.

Otherwise I think you just get used to driving at constant power, ie anything above 5500 revs has full power. So shifting up leads to no drop off in the rate of acceleration, unlike in the present S65. On the other hand, accelerating in any gear after 5500 revs leads to a reduction in the rate of acceleration, again unlike the s65, which maintains constant rate of acceleration until redline.

It's different, that's for sure.

[<-3VOM]

Originally Posted by LarThaL

The subjective experience of an NA motor with its linearity of throttle modulation provides a much more satisfying back road or track experience. It is this precise connection of the input/output equation that contibutes to the wired-to-your-nervous system feel that the e9x M3 provides so nicely. Turbo motors just won't do this, and if they are designed to try and do this, then they won't be providing much overall boost.

High torque is also problematic to get to the ground without AWD, and if you do this, the overall steering feel and responsiveness gets dulled down. Certain pure sport cars obviouly have a design advantage in order to optimize this, but you are still constrained by the limits of physics. Bascially, a turbo motor is good for straight line power at the expense of a number of subjective driving elements.

I am still waiting eagerly to see what engineering tricks BMW will pull out of the hat to try and maintain the crisp throttle response that the e9x M3 was renowned for. They know that they can't miss the mark by too much or there goes the crown.

The Ferrari F-40 was twin turbo'd, has no drivers aids, and certainly wasn't only fast in a straight line. Not to mention it's on of the most sought after drivers cars, for the pure satisfaction of driving, ever produced, let alone in the Ferrari lineage.