BMW M Division CEO confirms next M3 will get turbo 6-cylinder engine

[Antinontoxic]

I have no idea how many cylinders the next gen M3 might have, but as I am working at BMW, I do know how much horsepower it will have... unfortunately I think it would not be wise for me to post that information. All I can say that no matter what the cylinder count will be, the power increase will not be significant. This goes as well for the upcoming F10 M5.

[mapezzul]

I love this weight argument when it comes to the smaller the engine, 6 cylinder versus 8 vs turbo etc.

The current ///M3 V8 is significantly lighter than the inline 6 it replaced, it is lighter than the N54 inline six with all of the turbo equipment and plumbing.

The next ///M3 motor will need to be more efficient and lighter than the current model.

The current ///M3 may be the heaviest ever but it still is the best performing, safety is the first priority when designing these cars. The additional weight comes from the basis of the car being stronger/ bigger than the E46 (chassis is ridiculously stiffer) then you add larger brakes, beefier transmissions, and rear diff then you get a weight increase- if they stripped the interior down they would have saved maybe 200 lbs. and sold no cars so what is the point.

The next generation will be the same sized car but will be forced induction (requiring plumbing and turbos and diesel strength case and heads) so I would bet that the weight if at all lighter will be slightly lighter.

Like I said before they are working on several versions of this motor an I-6 and a V6 a V5 (with a dampening system) to achieve the greatest efficiency and output.

If it is a V motor it will be reverse flow and with a CCM- though it would only have a burst every 120 degrees of crank rotation rather than the 90 on the V8.

The inline six will also be going by the wayside in most other applications as well, because of increased efficiency requirements. There are numerous 4 cylinders in development including twin turbos putting out a reported 265 hp.

From September 2008:

The chairman of BMW’s works council Manfred Schoch goes so far as to say “we are producing the wrong engines here,” and that the entire global demand for V-8 engines can be met through running just one shift per day, four days a week. In addition the interest in 10 and 12-cylinder engines found in BMW’s high-performance vehicles also continues to decrease. According to Schoch, BMW is working to retool plants to build more four-cylinder engines as quickly as it can. Supposedly BMW plans to phase out six-cylinder production at its Munich factory and begin building 320,000 four-cylinder mills a year starting in 2011. Schoch also claims the automaker is also developing an all-electric vehicle based on the 1 Series called the City Electric Sprinter, which may debut in 2010. As we already know, BMW will have electric Minis in California part of their plan to implement a zero emissions vehicle for use in cities.

[footie]

I actually never considered the idea of a 4 cylinder M3, I think this time round it would be too big of a jump for existing customers to take from the present M3 with it's mighty V8.

I love the idea of a V5 cylinder engine option, the off-beat note of a 5 cylinder is quite musical, only a short listen to the new TT-RS will tell you it's quite special. But again I can't imagine BMW going to this layout straight away, especially coming from a Vee 8.

I'm pretty confident that it's going to have six cylinders and it will be in Vee form.

P.S.

Are you sure about the 4cylinder twin turbo only producing 265hp, maybe in diesel form but in petrol that is child's play, maybe if you add another 100hp to that it would be impressive from a production engine with full warranty.

[ColoCane]

End of an era, will make the E90/E92/E93, even more of a keeper than Ms normally are.

It's funny that they talk about weight going to the 6 cyl. They said the same thing about the V8, as a success story in weight savings and performance output.

I look forward to new improvements and will keep an open mind (I remember thinking my '97 M3 was great), but I can't imagine a 6 cyl., will thave the throaty rumble of the current V8, that takes me back to my youth and turns heads with respectful nods...

We'll see. Thanks for the post.

[GnokGnik]

The MCoupe sounds amazing.

[XunXunDCT]

Originally Posted by slammedm3

E90/E92/E93 are all V8 M3

[GreenPlease]

Let's see how about... a 3.8-liter twin-turbocharged 24-valve V6;
485 horsepower @ 6,500 rpm and say...
434 lb-ft of torque @ 3,200–5,200 rpm
max 7500 rpm
Ultra low emission vehicle
Aluminum pistons and magnesium oil sump
Pressurized lubrication system
low back-pressure exhaust system
secondary air intake system to rapidly heat catalysts to peak cleaning efficiency
Rigid, lightweight carbon-composite main driveshaft
High-performance 1.5-way mechanical limited-slip rear differential

I knew that looked familiar Now if the GT-R only had a soul...

The idea of a V5 is very interesting especially if it was tightly packaged with the transmission. FWIW, the TT-RS uses an I5 (which are horribly balanced engines, naturally, no fault of Audi).

An I6, such as the N54, isn't heavy arbitrarily. It was designed to handle high pressures and VANOS is an overweight pig. I6 engines are structurally and harmonically superior to V engines. That's why they are used so frequently in commercial vehicles. The only things that are comprimised in an I6 are the bearings which have to be beefed up to handle such a long crank assembly (100 percent longer/heavier than in a V6 configuration, 50 percent longer/heavier than in a V8 configuration).

There is always the hope of a short stroke, high rev, I6 with an electronic valve train, direct injection, and forced induction

[BMW M Power Mexico]

I am all for N/A engines and its one of the reasons I love M.

However, I hope they can pull something interesting off because I'd like to stay with an M for my next car in 4-5 years. This is what I expect:

1. Dedicated M engines, NOT tuned versions of regular BMW engines.
2. High rev limits, flat torque curves, NO LAG.
3. Trackability, should be able to take a beating and not overheat or fail in any way.
4. Instant throttle response like we have today.
5. More hp/liter than comparable engines.

BMW engines have always stood out. The S54 six is a legend and our current V8 is extraordinary too. If they go turbo, they'd better outclass the competition by a mile.

[iveman89]

did they say the want to retain the high rev from the current M3?

[aus]

Why couldn't BMW just modify the S65 with Direct Injection, which should be good for 10-12% increase in HP and mileage. This would put power at 450HP, while improving fuel efficiency. They could also add Efficient Dynamics for another 1-3% improvement in gas mileage. Then, if they dropped the weight by 300lbs, that would be good for a little more mileage. It could be at 24-25mph HWY, which isn't too bad.

[Noodlefoxes]

Originally Posted by aus

Why couldn't BMW just modify the S65 with Direct Injection, which should be good for 10-12% increase in HP and mileage. This would put power at 450HP, while improving fuel efficiency. They could also add Efficient Dynamics for another 1-3% improvement in gas mileage. Then, if they dropped the weight by 300lbs, that would be good for a little more mileage. It could be at 24-25mph HWY, which isn't too bad.

[808E90]

All I can is ... 2013 is about the time I'll be getting a new car and if I don't like at least I'll have my NA V8

[mkoesel]

There is no way the M3 will trail the F30 3 series by only a year. It will be at least a year between the F30 sedan and the F32 coupe. And then the M3 will trail that by another year or so.

Figure the earliest you will get a an F32 M3 with a turbo six is about six years from today.

[Big Windy]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

There is no way the M3 will trail the F30 3 series by only a year. It will be at least a year between the F30 sedan and the F32 coupe. And then the M3 will trail that by another year or so.

Figure the earliest you will get a an F32 M3 with a turbo six is about six years from today.

Good point...although with the re-introduction of the M3 sedan for the e9x generation, it will be interesting to see how BMW decides to release the f3x M3, assuming that it will come in coupe, sedan, and vert forms as well. I don't think that it will necessarily be 1 year behind the F32.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Big Windy

Good point...although with the re-introduction of the M3 sedan for the e9x generation, it will be interesting to see how BMW decides to release the f3x M3, assuming that it will come in coupe, sedan, and vert forms as well. I don't think that it will necessarily be 1 year behind the F32.

They'll kill the current M3 sedan one year before the coupe - that's my bet. So coupe will go through MY2013 while the sedan will only go through MY2012. The reason is that the E90 sedan will go out of production a year prior to the coupe, just like with the E46 and E36. I do think that the F3x M3 (in any form) will still come a year after the F32 3 series, just as the E9x M3 (in all forms) came a year (more actually) after the E92 3 series.

Getting back to the possbility of a V6. To me, it only makes sense if they are planning to replace all corporate I6 with V6. We may learn yet that that is in fact what they are planning. I hope not, but it seems that BMW is going through a lot of changes and I suspect all options are on the table at this point.

[ebeem]

damn...soundwise,the high revving V8 with that sick sound in the higher rpms can`t be beaten by anything less than 8/10 cylinders hammering at 8k rpm

[MrHarris]

If the next gen is under 3400 lbs then I'd say they are starting to go the right direction. I don't want to hear another BS weight savings story when the car is heavier than before by more than 100 lbs.

[satinghostrider]

Originally Posted by aus

Why couldn't BMW just modify the S65 with Direct Injection, which should be good for 10-12% increase in HP and mileage. This would put power at 450HP, while improving fuel efficiency. They could also add Efficient Dynamics for another 1-3% improvement in gas mileage. Then, if they dropped the weight by 300lbs, that would be good for a little more mileage. It could be at 24-25mph HWY, which isn't too bad.

The current M3 engine we have now is actually an old engine. It was actually intended for the E60 M5 but when the RS4 came out, they realised that the V8 would not be good enough for the M5. They shelved the engine and developed the M5 V10. When the E46 M3 was up for replacement, they used the V8 they shelved. That explains why the M5 had a DME which was MSS65. When the M3 with the V8 came out, everyone thought that would be MSS70 or above. It was actually MSS60 which was even before the M5. At that point, I dont think that the S65 would have been able to be incorporated with DI. Simply because it was an engine that was developed a while back and introducing such tech would cost more money than developing a new engine itself. The same hold true for now. Incorporating such tech into an engine not designed for DI would only cost more money. And possibly more problems too. Its better they redevelop the whole engine from scratch to have these tech. Safer and more efficient.

[gr8000]

Originally Posted by elmariachi

At that point, I dont think that the S65 would have been able to be incorporated with DI. Simply because it was an engine that was developed a while back and introducing such tech would cost more money than developing a new engine itself. The same hold true for now. Incorporating such tech into an engine not designed for DI would only cost more money. And possibly more problems too. Its better they redevelop the whole engine from scratch to have these tech. Safer and more efficient.

In a sense I am glad that the S65 is not DI after reading about all these horrible stories related to oil / carbon residue on valves on DI Audi and other DI engines. Seems that even "properly" developed DI engines do not seem capable of protecting themselevs from this issue... Maybe BMW saw this comming and kept itself from delivering DI without first doing some serious development & testing to ensure this doesnt happen. Maybe they are ready now but not then.

[aus]

Originally Posted by Noodlefoxes

Please explain your worthless post.

[d3l0n]

It will out perform the turbo v6 gtr?????

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by elmariachi

The current M3 engine we have now is actually an old engine. It was actually intended for the E60 M5 but when the RS4 came out, they realised that the V8 would not be good enough for the M5. They shelved the engine and developed the M5 V10. When the E46 M3 was up for replacement, they used the V8 they shelved. That explains why the M5 had a DME which was MSS65. When the M3 with the V8 came out, everyone thought that would be MSS70 or above. It was actually MSS60 which was even before the M5. At that point, I dont think that the S65 would have been able to be incorporated with DI. Simply because it was an engine that was developed a while back and introducing such tech would cost more money than developing a new engine itself. The same hold true for now. Incorporating such tech into an engine not designed for DI would only cost more money. And possibly more problems too. Its better they redevelop the whole engine from scratch to have these tech. Safer and more efficient.

Good guess but not true based on everything I have ever been told.

The V8 was designed after the V10; the M5 was always to be a V10. The DME in the current M3 was also designed after the one in the V10 (hence the improvements); naming has nothing to do with when something was built/designed. Look at the new Z4- it is an E89, the F01 7 launched well before it; naming is not everything. The naming codes are established prior to productions or design.

The reason there is no DI in any of the ///M cars is simple: they can't get the DI motor to meet greenhouse gas emissions in the US, and there are secondary effects on the emissions systems (unless they FI it). The US is the largest market for ///M cars and that is the reason. The DME in the S65 is the most advanced (at launch) in any street driven vehicle. BMW ///M acknowledges the benefits to DI but the downfalls are greater in many cases (especially longevity). This was reconfirmed to me by those in the know last week- citing the the CTS-V, BMW says there will be more long term issues with that DI on those cars than not having the DI...

I love how people just make assumptions based on naming- the S65 also uses the spark plugs for engine computations (something they just transferred from Motorsport with the S65).

So no the S65 was not a shelved motor and was never intended for the ///M5, they share blood lines and design but it was not put to the side.

BMW does not care all that much about Audi, they care about BMW. Audi does not sell nearly as many performance models in terms of volume, and the Audis have always been nose heavy. BMW sets out to be more efficient and more powerful with each generation. The big plus with this motor was the weight savings. The concept of the cars are begun 5 years prior to the launch, with drivetrains going separate paths as well. And the RS4 is NOT even and ///M5 competitor; sounds like one of those urban legends to me.

They have made some serious breakthroughs over the past 2 years so when the next generation of motors is released it is going to be eye opening