The M Division sells its soul

[FStop7]

Having driven both a 997 GT3 and a GTR through the mountains and canyons, I have no doubt the GTR is faster in every measure.

I haven't driven the revised GT3 or any GT2, so I have no informed opinion on those.

[330CIZHP]

I am talking about the 997.2 GT3, which is significantly faster than the 997.1 GT3.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/porsche-...l-fastest.html

GT2 has unanimously been faster than GT-R in every single test (Stig driving both cars back to back as well). The only party claiming GT-R to be faster is Nissan itself.

I really hope they will run GT3 997.2 vs GT-R with Stig driving both back to back.

Originally Posted by FStop7

Having driven both a 997 GT3 and a GTR through the mountains and canyons, I have no doubt the GTR is faster in every measure.

I haven't driven the revised GT3 or any GT2, so I have no informed opinion on those.

[Surfclown]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

I'm feeling warmer and fuzzier already!

Seriously, it's a very pragmatic post, and since I'm always beating the "it's a preference thing", and not "good and evil, right and wrong, black and white" drum I'm biased in liking it.

On the other hand, I think Ruff does have a point about the ///M division. It was all about high-revving N/A motors--that was an essential part of what their design mission revolved around, a core value if you will. It formed a main part of the “soul” of the division.

I mean seriously, what is the ///M philosophy now? That's my main issue at the moment. Not whether FI is good or bad, or if N/A is better. (I have a preference which most know by now). But I simply have no idea what ///M is.

What makes up the heart and soul--or should we say "new" heart and soul--of the division? I can't answer that question. Can anyone? Can the ///M Division? Is it "Efficient Dynamics"? What the hell does that actually mean (aside from guys in white in white rooms with white cars screwing in white fluorescent bulbs in all white commercials)?

I need more than a slogan—I need to know that the core values are. Okay, if they've sold their soul did get a new one in the bargain? Or is it more the case that they now simply have no soul?

What is the ///M philosophy—what is the soul of what makes an ///M car now?

• Standard FI?
• High-revving FI?
• High-tech mixed FI (small/large turbo; s/c/large turbo, hybrid/electric assist, diesel powered electric motors which max torque, compressed gas assist)?
• Performance through lighter weight (e.g. a core value like "we will deliver high-performance by keeping weight to a minimum
• M for Marketing (sell more, whore out the badge)?
  
• Bloated land yachts with ///M badges?

I guess time will really tell on this one. Porsche has the Turbo Cayenne, which is certainly not in the Porsche tradition. On the other hand, that vehicle has, from what I understand, brought in enough revenue to allow the brilliant vehicles like the Cayman, GT3, and others to continue to have a place in this world.

If there are some less than ///M ///M’s out there that allow us to have really pure ///Ms, that may be a price worth paying. (That’s assuming we can define what ///M is going forward of course). For now, I'm going enjoy my M3 and its joyous song, and see what the future brings when it gets here. Hopefully as time goes by, and we see what the new M3 actually is, ///M will actually define who they are and what they're about.

Maybe I've been watching too much "Madmen". But the "soul" of BMW is marketing - a feeling that they've created to get us to buy cars, like every other company we buy from. The bottom line has been and will always be about maximizing profit. Though their current marketing strategies may fail - I'm too skeptical to think that BMW ever made decisions for the purists, at least ones that weren't directly related increasing profits.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by aus

The prior head of ///M said in an interview with Roundel about a year ago that:
An M car must be relatively light, so that rules out an SUV or 7 series.
An ///M car will have a high reving normally aspirated engine for linear power delivery, and the high rev limiter will allow fewer gear changes on the track.
An ///M car will be rear wheel drive.
An ///M car will have a manual type tranny, ie no slush box.

Obviously, there's a new head of ///M now.

Originally Posted by Surfclown

Maybe I've been watching too much "Madmen". But the "soul" of BMW is marketing - a feeling that they've created to get us to buy cars, like every other company we buy from. The bottom line has been and will always be about maximizing profit. Though their current marketing strategies may fail - I'm too skeptical to think that BMW ever made decisions for the purists, at least ones that weren't directly related increasing profits.

That's a point I'll concede. However, the old ///M marketing did have an articulated philosophy behind it as Aus pointed out (that philosophy was in place for many years). And all they seem to have now, as Don Draper would say, is a slogan ("Efficient Dynamics").

Like I said in my other post, I really don't know what ///M is anymore. And whether we like where it seems they're going not having some core set of values (which do have a marketing purpose) is a marketing fail IMO. Not to mention a fail on many other levels as well.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by ruff

The turbo powered M5 will likely have the same same basic motor as the turbo powered X6M yacht. The prosecution rests its case.

Anyone who has followed the M Division for more than a few years knows unequivocally the soul of the M car is its high revving normally aspirated motor. These motors have been considered engineering masterpieces, even by BMW critics.

I have been a member of this forum since 07. Prior to that, I followed the the discussion here consistently in silence. If you want to see an interesting phenomena, just read what was said on the forum by the same people, even a year ago, in the turbos vs normally aspirated debate. You will see even a more profound change on this debate going back two years or more. A drastic change of heart, shall we say, thanks in part to the marketing genius of BMW and the blindness of the BMW cult who feed at its trough.

Those of us not persuaded by BMW's slick marketing are now having to downgrade to Porsche, where naturally aspirated high revving motors are still appreciated.

This reminds me of the luxury watch market. The quartz movement came out and most every one jumped on its band wagon due to its accuracy and cost while abandoning the expensive, labor and R&D intensive in house movement. Yet years later, watches with quartz movements are, shall we say a dime a dozen and worthless. A watch with an in house movement today is a highly valued asset that will be passed on as a heirloom to future generations.

Those who have been here awhile know I am a fan of the turbo charged 335, given its price point to performance ratio. It is amusing to still see M3 fans vehemently argue with 335 owners over who's car is faster. The reason threatened M3 owners reacted so negatively was because the performance numbers are remarkably close, given the price gap and of course because the 335's power is delivered through those lame engineering challenged turbo chargers just like the GT-R. No mystery as to why the 335 crowd wanted to challenge the M3 owners or why M3 owners gobbled up the 335 wannabe's bait, hook line and sinker.

The S65 is simply the finest racing motor available in it's price range. Given the nature of the beast, I don't understand M3 owners complaints about its "lack of torque." The torque curve is as flat as a table top. Those who bought the M3 and are unhappy, didn't do their do diligence beforehand or do not appreciate the treasure that lies beneath.

Amen. Period. Don't forget to tip your bartenders.

Cheers,
Mark

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by rldzhao

So what if it has turbo?!

The Ferrari F40 has twin turbo, and it is still celebrated as one of the most hardcore Ferrari ever built.

The Mclaren MP4 has twin turbo, and that revs to 8,500 RPM... while having the highest HP-to-CO2 ratio in the world.

The Nissan GTR has turbos, and NA GT3s are having a hard time catching it on the 'ring.

Come on, with technological advances, turbo does not nessesarily mean losing the true character of sports cars. With proper development it could be just as good.

Stop bashing BMW M just because it is putting turbos into their engines... this is a childish argument.

Originally Posted by URBAN LEGEND

Finally someone who knows whats going on.

Finally someone who doesn't (no offense intended). Comparing a high revving turbo'd F40 to a low revving-turboed is comparing apples to oranges. Its not just the FI, its that its an FI engine, but that its some low-revving turbo.

Cheers,
e46e92

[footie]

So what have we all learned from these multiple threads and thousands of posts?

1: The N/A fans will never want their M cars to be equipped with FI no matter how good it could possibly be.

2: The FI fans welcome the switch because they want more low end torque.

Wow.............................progess.

[bobbyd1961]

i had the 335xi and now an M3.
ok ill make as clear as possible. the M3 blows the doors off the 335 . the omnly chance the 335 has is at the initial start if with the power button on the car doesnt get a clean start . but if it does i got 2 words to 335. good bye

[BMWCadet]

Originally Posted by bobbyd1961

i had the 335xi and now an M3.
ok ill make as clear as possible. the M3 blows the doors off the 335 . the omnly chance the 335 has is at the initial start if with the power button on the car doesnt get a clean start . but if it does i got 2 words to 335. good bye

LOL thanks, i don't think we knew that stock for stock a M3 is faster than a 335. Much appreciated.

[BMWCadet]

This debate probably will never end. Even when the Fxx M3 is destroying the E9x model in every test imaginable, there will still be N/A guys complaining...

[LiM3y]

Originally Posted by bobbyd1961

i had the 335xi and now an M3.
ok ill make as clear as possible. the M3 blows the doors off the 335 . the omnly chance the 335 has is at the initial start if with the power button on the car doesnt get a clean start . but if it does i got 2 words to 335. good bye

Same here..this is true.

[///FCB]

Of course many can disagree with my comment, but do you really think if the economy/environment favored BMW to make the future M3 a better peforming N/A V8 and sell with high profit margins, they wouldn't? The move to turbo's is not BMW M's "admitting" turbocharged engines is the way to go. IMO, it's not a decision made from an automobile-passionate perspective, it's a decision top management makes according to the current and upcoming situation

For an M car, I prefer N/A engine with high revving power. There should be no doubt in everybodies head that the future M3 will have incredible performance, simply because of the combination of lower weight + turbocharged engine. Cars with turbo's nearly always perform better than similar cars without. But in the end, I think it's a question of taste. Is driving a high revving N/A engine such as the current M3's S65 more fun than a turbo? I personally believe it is. The adrenaline rush I got the first time I accelerated in this M from 4k-8k was amazing, and still is everytime. Perhaps in the upcoming years E9X M3 will become a legend, similar to the first E30 M3. It will probably go down in history as the last and definately best N/A M3. I plan on keeping this car forever but don't rule out also owing the next M3 if I can afford it, simply because I think it will kick ass. However the E9X will most likely be my favorite M3 ever, simply because it best defines what I want from an M3

If I wanted a turbo engine, I'd simply look elsewhere..GT-R or even a modded Evo(I know many will disagree ). I think with the M3 it's not so much about how fast you go, but rather the way you do it

[Dannys M3]

I will never again buy a BMW turbocharged vehicle until they prove they can make a fuel pump that won't break.

[satinghostrider]

Originally Posted by Dannys 335i

I will never again buy a BMW turbocharged vehicle until they prove they can make a fuel pump that won't break.

Ditto to that!

[URBAN LEGEND]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Except they're no fun to ride. What you want is an engine that produces great power very low all the way to a reasonably high redline. Look no further than MV Agusta (thanks to the original Ferrari 4 cyl design pumping out nearly 200 hp per liter these days...and via a NA rotary valve inline 4 with individual throttle bodies). Ride this engine and you'll never look at another high-revving Japanese inline 4 with essentially zero power in the 1st third of the rev counter.

No thanks. I like to rev to 14000 rpm on my 1000.

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

That's a point I'll concede. However, the old ///M marketing did have an articulated philosophy behind it as Aus pointed out (that philosophy was in place for many years). And all they seem to have now, as Don Draper would say, is a slogan ("Efficient Dynamics").

Like I said in my other post, I really don't know what ///M is anymore. And whether we like where it seems they're going not having some core set of values (which do have a marketing purpose) is a marketing fail IMO. Not to mention a fail on many other levels as well.

///M Never was solely about the high revving concept- people branded it that. The original ///M cars were not all that high revving. Over time they became high revving as a means to use cheaper/lighter transmissions and rear ends. They had developed the basic structure of a motor and used it over and over again. The original ///M inline six lived on for a LONG time with incremental updates. They did reuse the same motor across many lines. What ///M is, is simple. It is a sports car that is as good at the track as it is in the day to day commute- there is little trade off when compared to other marquees attempts.

Just for the record as well- Ludwig Willich was the head of ///M when the X5/X6 were created- he was replaced shortly after the launch by Dr. Kay Zegler (current head of ///M and former boss at MINI). The X5/X6 ///M models were NOT the first time ///M messed with an SAV there was the one off V12 Lemans. The X5/X6 ///Ms were used as a way to feature technology they could not otherwise feature- DPC and to bring in the age of turbos. They are examples of what ///M can do with performance technology. Many people forget that patents/exclusivity agreements play key roles into vehicle construction. BMW could not add these technologies into any other model at the time so the SAVs were born. Top Gear was pushing the Range Rover in that episode and Clarkson needed something to pick on- Drive an X5 ///M and you will be amazed that something so big drives better than the previous E46 ///M3.

The push to turbo actually costs them more per motor than high rev did, so it is not for cost cutting- it is for emissions and getting more power out of less displacement for fuel economy. The higher the rev in NA the lower the fuel economy it is a corollary effect. Turbo helps that.

[mkoesel]

You're right of course, but it won't stop there.

You see, when the 2020 M3 arrives with four cylinder diesel hybrid power with CVT, the same people who are all geeked up about the turbocharged F3x M3 will be up-in-arms about the switch. When queried about how the change is any different from the switch to FI a generation earlier the answers will be something like "yeah - but at least it wasn't electric" or "the M3 cannot have a Prius motor!". This, despite the new power-train offering 500 hp and 500 ft-lb.

For that matter, many of the same people who do not have issue with the low revving turbocharged motors going into future M cars will nevertheless dismiss those same cars with extreme prejudice if they offer no traditional manual transmission option. These people would also never think of owning a GT-R or F458, even though they are/will be arguably two of the most celebrated performance machines ever to exist.

What's the point? Well, just that there is much more to a car than how fast it is or how much better it is than its outgoing counterpart. To me this fact is elementary. People simply like what they like. Everyone has preferences, philosophies, beliefs, wants and desires. Everyone - even those who seem to think that the people expressing these ideals are being silly or childish.

Originally Posted by BMWCadet

This debate probably will never end. Even when the Fxx M3 is destroying the E9x model in every test imaginable, there will still be N/A guys complaining...

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by mapezzul

///M Never was solely about the high revving concept- people branded it that. The original ///M cars were not all that high revving. Over time they became high revving as a means to use cheaper/lighter transmissions and rear ends.

Cheaper in comparison to what? Certainly not immediately cheaper in comparison to their predecessors, given that each generation gets more power and, yes, more torque too.

I think that the primary reason that the cars became more high revving over the years is that it is a direct side effect of keeping them naturally aspirated and still incrementally increasing the power in successive generations. Well, they could have simply upped displacement and cylinder count on more aggressive schedule as well, sure. But presumably that option would not give them the character and dynamics they were looking for in their products, similar to how forced induction would not fit the bill either.

The push to turbo actually costs them more per motor than high rev did, so it is not for cost cutting - it is for emissions and getting more power out of less displacement for fuel economy.

The question is not about what was cheaper in the past, but what is cheaper going forward. Under the umbrella of new, increasingly tighter emissions and fuel economy regulations, building an efficient and clean motor with forced induction absolutely becomes a cheaper solution than building an efficient and clean motor that is naturally aspirated and must rev high to make power. This is not a BMW-specific phenomena. Most every auto manufacturer is in the process of replacing naturally aspirated motors with smaller displacement turbocharged ones.

The higher the rev in NA the lower the fuel economy it is a corollary effect. Turbo helps that.

Yes, but this is a direct result of cost. It's not that you cannot build an efficient motor that is high revving and naturally aspirated. It's just that as the constraints on emissions and efficiency become tighter the costs to do so become higher than to do so using forced induction.

[DiVinci]

imo this will never end because alot of people are scared of change. Each and every time bmw or any other manufacturer dont do EXACTLY as they did yesterday, somebody bitches and this causes a knee jerk reaction and then everybody starts bitching (probably without even knowing why)

e30 to e36 to e46 to e92... same ols sh*t day by day, constant complaining about size, weight, vanos, double vanos, power,etc etc . There were people complaining about M going with a V8 powerplant, because the old striaght was godly. Now we have die hard V8 fans, some of who were whole heartedly against it just a few years ago.

and when M goes F/I and delivers like they always have... what then, yep you guessed it.... you wait for the next thing to b*tch about

I personally love the V8 and the way it delivers its power but at the same time i welcome the change, because without evolution we would still be driving model T's

[footie]

Originally Posted by DiVinci

imo this will never end because alot of people are scared of change. Each and every time bmw or any other manufacturer dont do EXACTLY as they did yesterday, somebody bitches and this causes a knee jerk reaction and then everybody starts bitching (probably without even knowing why)

e30 to e36 to e46 to e92... same ols sh*t day by day, constant complaining about size, weight, vanos, double vanos, power,etc etc . There were people complaining about M going with a V8 powerplant, because the old striaght was godly. Now we have die hard V8 fans, some of who were whole heartedly against it just a few years ago.

and when M goes F/I and delivers like they always have... what then, yep you guessed it.... you wait for the next thing to b*tch about

I personally love the V8 and the way it delivers its power but at the same time i welcome the change, because without evolution we would still be driving model T's

In my honest opinion, if you complain about the evolution of the M brand and threaten to switch loyalities then you can't rightly call yourself an M fan at all.

So based on the reations we have had over the last few months I imagine this will be a very lonely place in a couple of years.

[Dascamel]

Originally Posted by footie

So what have we all learned from these multiple threads and thousands of posts?

1: The N/A fans will never want their M cars to be equipped with FI no matter how good it could possibly be.

2: The FI fans welcome the switch because they want more low end torque.

Wow.............................progess.

Based on threads like these, I never would have bought the current M3. Perfect summary Footie! Important thing is lets see how the final product comes together. If in todays world FI is a must for fuel economy and other concerns, then lets see how well its implented before bashing it. I'm leaning towards point 1, but with an open mind.

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by DiVinci

Now we have die hard V8 fans, some of who were whole heartedly against it just a few years ago.

And some of who were not . I'm on an M3 just because it has a NA V8. I don't like anything other than a NA V8 on my 'toy' car, so this is my first and last M3. To me is more about how it sounds and drives than all out power and performance. I couldn't care less if a quad-turbo Civic SSi blows my doors off; my M3 has all the performance I'll ever need. Yeah, it's not perfect by any means, but all cars have shortcomings. For the money, it's a great value IMO. Just hope it turns out to be reliable so I can keep it for a loooooong time .