The M Division sells its soul

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Exactly. Don't forget it is about pleasing the tree-huggers as well as building a bigger market for BMW cars. BMW has made it time and again clear that BMW wants to increase its market shares in all of its products. It also wants to sell lots of M cars in high volumes.

BMW is after sales and torquey, low-revving turbo cars will sell a lot more than high-strung, high-revving cars.

It is the perfect formula for BMW to maximize their profits while reducing cost on engine building through "cookie-cutter" turbo engines that could be used in many applications.

The sell out already had begun with the X5 M and X6 M. Anyone wants to see it should watch the top gear episode where Jeremy Clarkson ripped it apart and got killed by a Jaguar XF supercharged in a drag race.

It's a sound plan of attack for making money - which is what BMW is trying to do after all. I don't know that I would call the engines "cookie cutter" simply because they might be shared of tweaked slightly between models. That has an inherent negative connotation, and implies that they are a bit crap to some extent. Still, I know what you are saying. While that may bother true hardcore enthusiasts, I'm not sure their new expanded demographic really cares.

Ultimately, the proof is in the pudding. The driving experience still needs to be as engrossing and fun. Coming from two FI engines before this, I don't think BMW will have a problem delivering on this. Things are changing, and turbo motors are not at all what they were just a few years ago. That being said, there is a damn good reason I went with the M3 and why I don't plan on selling it : )

[JC919]

Originally Posted by Mark's M

Could I have waited for the '12/'13 M3 with probably 575-600 hp and loads of torque?

An out of the box M3 that will out run a GT2 or Scud, where do I sign

Congrats on the new M order

[URBAN LEGEND]

If you want high revving get a modern day 600 and rev to 16000 rpms all day.

[rzm3]

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.

[URBAN LEGEND]

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.

Finally someone who knows whats going on.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Singletrack

I think it has more to do with cost cutting personally. The cost to keep producting better and better NA engines is far more than producing FI.

True, but it is really the same thing he was getting at. Increased emissions and fuel economy regulations are what pushes the costs higher and higher until BMW can no longer build a naturally aspirated M3 that makes a business case. It is true that Porsche will continue to build naturally aspirated cars, but they also have a demographic who is willing to pay the higher sticker prices associated with them.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by rldzhao

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

Indeed. And if only BMW could give us something like this for the M3 (and M5 for that matter), I would be the first one in line. As good as BMW's turbocharged efforts are, I think this McLaren motor will be one of the all time greats. It just makes me .

[BimmerBoomer]

There are powerful arguments for going to direct-injected turbocharged engines, not the least of which - in this context - is better performance with lower weight. I'm looking forward to an F30 M3 that can challenge a GT-R, and get good fuel mileage.

[Takumi587]

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 Jim Pearce

There are powerful arguments for going to direct-injected turbocharged engines, not the least of which - in this context - is better performance with lower weight. I'm looking forward to an F30 M3 that can challenge a GT-R, and get good fuel mileage.

Seriously so what if the car is not going to be a NA engine? BMW is def. creating engines that are much more efficient and more powerful than the NA ones. Times are changing and I for one think it is about time BMW started investing some time to look into turbo and innovate the technology.

I for one think they truly will make the best M3 ever as they say they would.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

True, but it is really the same thing he was getting at. Increased emissions and fuel economy regulations are what pushes the costs higher and higher until BMW can no longer build a naturally aspirated M3 that makes a business case. It is true that Porsche will continue to build naturally aspirated cars, but they also have a demographic who is willing to pay the higher sticker prices associated with them.

That makes sense. I wasn't considering the direct relationship between one and the other.

[quackbury]

This is such a SILLY argument. Like someone else said, vote with your wallet.

Wait till the new M3 comes out. If you like it, get it. If not, hold on to your current M3. It's not like the government is going to show up on your doorstep and take your E90 / E92 / E93 away.

The same thing happened with P cars. The hard core enthusiasts held onto their air-cooled "classic" 911's, while the early adapters went water-cooled and never looked back. In the end, both sides were happy.

The only folks who lose if the M division goes FI are the trolls and poseurs who don't have an M3 to begin with. IMHO they should STFU anyway.

How's that for a warm and fuzzy post?

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by URBAN LEGEND

If you want high revving get a modern day 600 and rev to 16000 rpms all day.

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.

[aus]

It is sad when the M cars just get a messaged regular BMW engine.

Let's not forget that the N54 will still over heat at the track, AND BMW cut it's knees off down low because of bad boost valves, so all that "No lag" you read about on early cars is not the case anymore.

[mkoesel]

It is definitely lamentable after being spoiled by the M-specific S65 and S85.

But remember that before these motors all prior M motors were massaged regular series motors (to varying degrees, admittedly). And while in the latest case it would be natural to think that the S63 is simply an N63 with the boost cranked up, this isn't actually the case. AFAIK, the S63 has a very unique turbo charging system that routes the pressurized air to each piston separately as it reaches TDC just before its power stroke. Or something like that, anyway. One could point out that the 4.4L BMW motor making 550hp isn't necessarily state of the art as far as specific output is concerned. But then, the object is to combine efficiency with higher performance. And if you look at the economy figures for the nearly 3 ton M suvs, they are reasonably efficient for what they are. The M5, at 2 tons or so, should do that much better.

Originally Posted by aus

It is sad when the M cars just get a messaged regular BMW engine.

[Leozap]

From what I heard, the reason the M went with the turbos is that it will save gas also... I don't see how is it a problem.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by quackbury

This is such a SILLY argument. Like someone else said, vote with your wallet.

Wait till the new M3 comes out. If you like it, get it. If not, hold on to your current M3. It's not like the government is going to show up on your doorstep and take your E90 / E92 / E93 away.

The same thing happened with P cars. The hard core enthusiasts held onto their air-cooled "classic" 911's, while the early adapters went water-cooled and never looked back. In the end, both sides were happy.

The only folks who lose if the M division goes FI are the trolls and poseurs who don't have an M3 to begin with. IMHO they should STFU anyway.

How's that for a warm and fuzzy post?

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.

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by footie

I don't know whether your last paragraph was directed at me or not but I will address it as so anyway.

The M3 is a fine engine and I have said this on numerous occasions but it's not the best engine for road use and everyday driving which is generally conducted of part throttle and at low revs in higher gears.

I still think you are crazy. Driving around town couldn't be any better. I have plenty of grunt from my engine. What about people in an Accord? They must be in hell, they just have no torque. Fact is when pushing the car, it is the most enjoyable car in the segment. Driving slow around town leaves me with zero frustration, the car is perfect.

[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.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

I still think you are crazy. Driving around town couldn't be any better. I have plenty of grunt from my engine. What about people in an Accord? They must be in hell, they just have no torque. Fact is when pushing the car, it is the most enjoyable car in the segment. Driving slow around town leaves me with zero frustration, the car is perfect.

That's the way I look at it. Of course both my cars have the S54 and I realize the debate involves the S65, but both are very agile and perfectly suited to city streets. You definitely have to rev a bit more off the line versus cars predominantly suited to city driving (pick your choice). Whereas these less high-strung somewhat price competitive "city" cars are more effortless to drive at posted speed limits, they are not effortless at higher speeds comparatively.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

I'm looking forward to an F30 M3 that can challenge a GT-R, and get good fuel mileage.

You are living in a fantasy land. Maybe, it is time for YOU to come into the real world and understand the difference between the cars. It is again time to give you are reality check (like I have before time and again). I don't care if M3 comes with quad turbos. I had proven you wrong on this before for blatant inaccuracies that the R34 M3 was slower than an E46 M3 and by telling you M3 has never ever been competitive with the GT-R in 20 years of its existence and it will never ever will be. They both are built with completely different priorities and different focus. The R34 GT-R could run circles around a E46 M3 all day long and a Spec V could run circles all day around the E46 M3 CSL. An R34 GT-R stock ran 7:58 back in the late 90s that even the E90/E92 M3 cannot run today. Heck, a bone stock R32 GT-R with 300 HP used to run 8:22 back in 1990 when E46 ran it 10 years after that. The ATTESA AWD system was developed on the JGTC race track and the R32 was a homologation special for the JGTC racing series much like a GT3 and GT3 RS are to the cup car in Le Mans 24-hours series.

The GT-R of today will be history in the next few years and a new one will take its place with probably 600+ HP running probably under 7:20. The F30 M3 will not even do squat next to the current GT-R, let alone the next generation.

In short, if you think slapping a turbo on a 4000 + lbs M3 is going to make it an improvement of almost 50 seconds around Nurburgring, you are living in a fantasy land.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by rldzhao

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

Really? So you seem to believe the Nissan marketing department a lot more than what might be true? Nissan has made it so ludicrous that they actually claims GT-R is faster than the GT2 as well while all track tests show (Chris Harris, Top Gear etc.) the GT2 to be faster consistently in back to back tests.

Porsche claims they consistently run faster in 997.2 435 HP GT3 than Nissan GT-R with Walter Rohrl piloting both cars back to back.

Question is, who do you believe?