Why not compete with a GTR?

krnnerdboy · 10-26-2013, 11:58 AM

If BMW offered an m3 with awd and superior performance, I wonder how many of the M purists would opt for the rwd version....serious question, as I would be on the fence as well

TahoeM3 · 10-27-2013, 02:38 PM

If BMW put the S63tu in the M4 and added AWD it would be very competitive with the GTR. And it wouldn't require as much R&D as starting from scratch. The reason the GTR is a loss leader for Nissan is that it's completely different from all other Nissans with almost nothing shared. BMW could really benefit from using its big engine across platforms more like MB/AMG does. I'm hopeful that they will come out with an M4 variant with the S63tu...I think it would fit easily.

quiksi · 10-27-2013, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speedaddictM3

That cost is very high for companies like Nissan and Toyota that do not have previous supercar experience to rely on, and that is made worse by making those cars bespoke and not sharing their platform with the rest of the line up like what Porsche or BMW do. Limited production numbers also make it more difficult for those car makers to break even and recoup their costs while keeping the car's price reasonable. The GT-R really is one hell of a bargain.

radiantm3 · 10-27-2013, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krnnerdboy

If BMW offered an m3 with awd and superior performance, I wonder how many of the M purists would opt for the rwd version....serious question, as I would be on the fence as well

I'm not an M purist, but I'd never get an AWD car for the purpose of performance. I enjoy that it takes skill to drive a RWD car fast. It's more fun, and more rewarding. Probably the same reason I'm driving a 6MT over DCT. I would't be surprised if the same people who pick DCT over 6MT for performance reasons are the same who would pick AWD over RWD if it proved to be significantly faster on and off the track.

TahoeM3 · 10-28-2013, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I'm not an M purist, but I'd never get an AWD car for the purpose of performance. I enjoy that it takes skill to drive a RWD car fast. It's more fun, and more rewarding. Probably the same reason I'm driving a 6MT over DCT. I would't be surprised if the same people who pick DCT over 6MT for performance reasons are the same who would pick AWD over RWD if it proved to be significantly faster on and off the track.

It's always funny to me when people shun dual-clutch transmissions and AWD as being less fun and rewarding on a vehicle whose purpose is to go fast, while at the same time not shunning plenty of other modern tech that is there for the same reason or for safety. Here are some examples with added old-timer disgruntled responses...

- Direct injection ("I prefer my engines carburated!")
- DOHC/4 valves per cylinder/Vanos/valvetronic ("Turn off that damn valve chatter!")
- Airbags ("Adds weight and ruins the interface between my face and the steering wheel!")
- Complex locking diffs ("I like my diffs open and quiet, with all the power going through one wheel!")
- Wide sticky tires ("You kids with all your new-tangled traction...in my day the tires were as wide as a bicycle wheel and slippery as a banana peel. What fun is going forward when you can go sideways?")
- Power assist ("Wussies!")
- ASC, ABS, EDC, etc etc. ("WTH!? Is this a car or alphabet soup?")

For the record,with dual-clutch transmissions, you can still change the gears yourself, but you can just do it while having your hands on the wheel, which seems like a better idea. And most AWD systems have a rearward bias, so they function as a rear drive car most of the time, only shift a percentage of traction forward when they sense slippage. And most only add a small amount of weight.

CSanto · 10-28-2013, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I'm not an M purist, but I'd never get an AWD car for the purpose of performance. I enjoy that it takes skill to drive a RWD car fast. It's more fun, and more rewarding. Probably the same reason I'm driving a 6MT over DCT. I would't be surprised if the same people who pick DCT over 6MT for performance reasons are the same who would pick AWD over RWD if it proved to be significantly faster on and off the track.

+1 I for one would go for AWD and more power if it presented itself to be a better performer.

I'd just have a second car for my manual/RWD "fun" car. 997.2 GT3 =)

krnnerdboy · 10-28-2013, 09:48 AM

Bingo!

radiantm3 · 10-28-2013, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TahoeM3

It's always funny to me when people shun dual-clutch transmissions and AWD as being less fun and rewarding on a vehicle whose purpose is to go fast, while at the same time not shunning plenty of other modern tech that is there for the same reason or for safety. Here are some examples with added old-timer disgruntled responses...

- Direct injection ("I prefer my engines carburated!")
- DOHC/4 valves per cylinder/Vanos/valvetronic ("Turn off that damn valve chatter!")
- Airbags ("Adds weight and ruins the interface between my face and the steering wheel!")
- Complex locking diffs ("I like my diffs open and quiet, with all the power going through one wheel!")
- Wide sticky tires ("You kids with all your new-tangled traction...in my day the tires were as wide as a bicycle wheel and slippery as a banana peel. What fun is going forward when you can go sideways?")
- Power assist ("Wussies!")
- ASC, ABS, EDC, etc etc. ("WTH!? Is this a car or alphabet soup?")

For the record,with dual-clutch transmissions, you can still change the gears yourself, but you can just do it while having your hands on the wheel, which seems like a better idea. And most AWD systems have a rearward bias, so they function as a rear drive car most of the time, only shift a percentage of traction forward when they sense slippage. And most only add a small amount of weight.

Who said anything about shunning DCT? I think it's a fantastic option. But I have more enjoyment doing it myself, especially at the race track. I don't see how most of your examples change the driving experience like transmission and drive train differences. I drive a 6MT, RWD M3 with all of the nannies off. It is an extremely fun and rewarding experience at the track. If I make a mistake, I have to compensate for it or face consequences. Cars like the GTR correct most of your mistakes for you and make it easier to drive fast.

There are 2 types of people in this world. Those who want to succeed by things being handed to them and those who like the journey of working hard and earning it for themselves. Me? I like the journey.

UnaBomber · 10-28-2013, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiantm3

Who said anything about shunning DCT? I think it's a fantastic option. But I have more enjoyment doing it myself, especially at the race track. I don't see how most of your examples change the driving experience like transmission and drive train differences. I drive a 6MT, RWD M3 with all of the nannies off. It is an extremely fun and rewarding experience at the track. If I make a mistake, I have to compensate for it or face consequences. Cars like the GTR correct most of your mistakes for you and make it easier to drive fast.

There are 2 types of people in this world. Those who want to succeed by things being handed to them and those who like the journey of working hard and earning it for themselves. Me? I like the journey.

The GTR offers multiple level of nannies just like your M3 including VDC OFF mode which doesnt correct anything for you. Ive got extensive seat time in both and sorry to burst your bubble, driving the m3 is in no way more difficult than driving a GTR at 9/10ths or more on track

radiantm3 · 10-28-2013, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnaBomber

The GTR offers multiple level of nannies just like your M3 including VDC OFF mode which doesnt correct anything for you. Ive got extensive seat time in both and sorry to burst your bubble, driving the m3 is in no way more difficult than driving a GTR at 9/10ths or more on track

Considering you have more than double the HP of a stock car, I wouldn't disagree. But I don't think Randy Pobst himself would make full use of that much power on a race track.

Last time I checked, most GTR owners drive their cars at the track with most of the nannies on. Isn't there a warranty issue related to turning all the nannies off at the track?

smashhell · 10-29-2013, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brosef

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

First of all, none of the actual M cognoscenti would view this type of effort as anything other than a bastardization of what M cars are all about.

Second, none of the actual M cognoscenti would view the current M3 as having incredible handling. It's very, very good on the street, but falls into sustained understeer in a track environment.

Third, the M3 makes its mark because it does nearly everything well. In fact, it may be the best overall compromise car that anyone has ever offered for sale. What you are envisioning would pretty much destroy that carefully designed compromise. Amongst other things, the car would gain a lot of weight (mostly in front) because of the added turbo hardware, intercooling, oversize radiator, larger front brakes, etc.

Then you'd need to strengthen the entire driveline from front to back in order to stand up to the extra torque, plus bigger rear brakes, plus bigger wheels and tires...

Of course at that point you'd still be less than competitive with the Nissan because you'd lack the traction you'd need in order to stay up, never mind the sophisticated AWD algorithms Nissan is using to perfect overall cornering capabilities. So, what? Add AWD?

Sure, but now you're even further away from what M cars are all about.

Bad idea.

Bruce

PS - Sure, BMW could do this. Hell, Hyundai could do this if they wanted to. The point would be, why bother.

+1

BMW is in the business of making money, not making cars.

ALL business is in the business of making money.

1MOREMOD · 10-29-2013, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I'm not an M purist, but I'd never get an AWD car for the purpose of performance. I enjoy that it takes skill to drive a RWD car fast. It's more fun, and more rewarding. Probably the same reason I'm driving a 6MT over DCT. I would't be surprised if the same people who pick DCT over 6MT for performance reasons are the same who would pick AWD over RWD if it proved to be significantly faster on and off the track.

if they made one i would get awd and 1000 hp and ask for custom tune with automatic track setting that is dialed to annihilation mode. would allow for sub f1 times will watching youtube videos and checking your email on the infotainment center.

MSteve5036 · 10-30-2013, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

if they made one i would get awd and 1000 hp and ask for custom tune with automatic track setting that is dialed to annihilation mode. would allow for sub f1 times will watching youtube videos and checking your email on the infotainment center.

dont forget...room for your clubs in the boot as well

1MOREMOD · 10-30-2013, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSteve5036

dont forget...room for your clubs in the boot as well

i dont need to beat anyone to keep them away from my car and if i did a gun is easier to transport.

Edward · 10-30-2013, 12:08 PM

Fun thread.

BMW can't offer a GT-R competitor even though they are capable of building it with the exception of a real traction control launch program. Launch mode in DCT cars from the 335is to the M3/5/6 is a JOKE. revs to 5000 and dumps clutch while you spin tires until the car gets enough forward momentum to actually grab? That's the second fastest way to lose a race after launching the car in reverse.

Anyway, BMW is already pricing themselves out of the competition with the M4 if rumours hold true. The M3 was a category killer. An S5 in both engine trims was not even made as competition, the RS5 is not really competition despite having AWD and more tq and hp. The C63 is just a loud barking tire melter that is beat by the M3 in all but straight line speed.

M4 is coming up on the heels of a base Carrera which most people would prefer over a loaded M4 for many reasons even if it is likely slower.

If you add AWD, there goes your neutral steering and likely F/R weight dist. You introduce understeer to a car that is magnificently steering neutral. If you bump the power to compete by raising boost, you're cannibalizing an M6 very quickly. The M4 must never be faster than the M6 in BMW's eyes.

Do they simply raise M6 power? Maybe, maybe not. The car industry is backing off hp wars finally and investing in CFRP. The EPA has come in and made that decision for the auto industry. You can only get so efficient with combustion engines. Hence the turbocharging and now the diet that will hit all cars to lower weight and further increase MPG.

I don't know how well M6's sell but man, that car has got to be very difficult to sell despite being a powerful and good looking car. at 128k optioned, you're in PDK Carrera 4S territory. M6 has incremental utility over a Porsche and is overall more of a compromise car. Now if you compare the M6 to an actual GT car, most people in the market to spend that kind of money are going two ways. Power and speed, or big engine and cruising comfort. The 130k buyers split off to get the CL or now the S class coupe or even SL for that luxurious comfortable and powerful ride, or they split off and go after the Porsches and Maseratis etc.

So anyway, circling back, there's no need whatsoever to make a GT-R. BMW would get virtually nothing but enthusiast adoration if they created an expensive car that beats the GT-R. They can't do it cheaper because why should they? And they already have a car that costs about the same or more that can't beat it. Anything they sell to beat it would cost 160k and who'd pay that? With 160 virtually everyones getting a turbo S.

10-26-2013, 11:58 AM	#23
krnnerdboy Colonel 190 Rep 2,431 Posts Drives: v10 m6 Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: so cal iTrader: (10)	If BMW offered an m3 with awd and superior performance, I wonder how many of the M purists would opt for the rwd version....serious question, as I would be on the fence as well __________________ F80 m3, 997 gt3, 14 ram ctd, f15 x5, drz400sm Gone:z4m, boss 302, c6 z06, m6,z3m
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-27-2013, 02:38 PM	#24
TahoeM3 Major 410 Rep 1,025 Posts Drives: F-type R, GTR, X5 50i Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Tampa, Fl iTrader: (0)	If BMW put the S63tu in the M4 and added AWD it would be very competitive with the GTR. And it wouldn't require as much R&D as starting from scratch. The reason the GTR is a loss leader for Nissan is that it's completely different from all other Nissans with almost nothing shared. BMW could really benefit from using its big engine across platforms more like MB/AMG does. I'm hopeful that they will come out with an M4 variant with the S63tu...I think it would fit easily. __________________ 2017 F-type SVR Black/black 2017 Nissan GTR Red/black 2022 BMW X5M MBB/SO Gone but not forgotten: '12 X5M, '07 AM SuperVantage, '05 Boxster S, '01 BMW M3,...
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-28-2013, 09:48 AM	#29
krnnerdboy Colonel 190 Rep 2,431 Posts Drives: v10 m6 Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: so cal iTrader: (10)	Bingo! __________________ F80 m3, 997 gt3, 14 ram ctd, f15 x5, drz400sm Gone:z4m, boss 302, c6 z06, m6,z3m
	Appreciate 0 Quote

10-30-2013, 12:08 PM	#37
Edward Colonel 377 Rep 2,982 Posts Drives: 2013.9999 E92 Jerez ZCP Join Date: May 2010 Location: Los Angeles iTrader: (2)	Fun thread. BMW can't offer a GT-R competitor even though they are capable of building it with the exception of a real traction control launch program. Launch mode in DCT cars from the 335is to the M3/5/6 is a JOKE. revs to 5000 and dumps clutch while you spin tires until the car gets enough forward momentum to actually grab? That's the second fastest way to lose a race after launching the car in reverse. Anyway, BMW is already pricing themselves out of the competition with the M4 if rumours hold true. The M3 was a category killer. An S5 in both engine trims was not even made as competition, the RS5 is not really competition despite having AWD and more tq and hp. The C63 is just a loud barking tire melter that is beat by the M3 in all but straight line speed. M4 is coming up on the heels of a base Carrera which most people would prefer over a loaded M4 for many reasons even if it is likely slower. If you add AWD, there goes your neutral steering and likely F/R weight dist. You introduce understeer to a car that is magnificently steering neutral. If you bump the power to compete by raising boost, you're cannibalizing an M6 very quickly. The M4 must never be faster than the M6 in BMW's eyes. Do they simply raise M6 power? Maybe, maybe not. The car industry is backing off hp wars finally and investing in CFRP. The EPA has come in and made that decision for the auto industry. You can only get so efficient with combustion engines. Hence the turbocharging and now the diet that will hit all cars to lower weight and further increase MPG. I don't know how well M6's sell but man, that car has got to be very difficult to sell despite being a powerful and good looking car. at 128k optioned, you're in PDK Carrera 4S territory. M6 has incremental utility over a Porsche and is overall more of a compromise car. Now if you compare the M6 to an actual GT car, most people in the market to spend that kind of money are going two ways. Power and speed, or big engine and cruising comfort. The 130k buyers split off to get the CL or now the S class coupe or even SL for that luxurious comfortable and powerful ride, or they split off and go after the Porsches and Maseratis etc. So anyway, circling back, there's no need whatsoever to make a GT-R. BMW would get virtually nothing but enthusiast adoration if they created an expensive car that beats the GT-R. They can't do it cheaper because why should they? And they already have a car that costs about the same or more that can't beat it. Anything they sell to beat it would cost 160k and who'd pay that? With 160 virtually everyones getting a turbo S.
	Appreciate 0 Quote