Next Gen 2014 (F32) M3 Performance Simulations/Predictions - She'll Be Fast!

[swamp2]

At a glance - F32 M3 Performance Predictions:

• 0-60 mph: 3.7 - 3.9 s
• 0-100 mph: 8.6 - 8.8 s
• 0-200 kph: 13.2 - 13.6 s (for our metric friends!)
• 1/4 mi time: 11.9 - 12.1 s
• 1/4 mi trap: 116 - 119 mph
• top speed: 190 - 193 mph (of course true, not indicated, indicated should be just shy of 200 mph)
• Nurburgring Nordschleife lap time (SportAuto): 7:53-7:58

Now that we have a pretty good idea of the next generation F32 M3s engine I wanted to try to answer the performance question. Weight was a key missing factor. Even though we don't have any really good guesses for the next 3er base model weight, I did find one figure. It is actually LESS than the existing base 3er, which is consistent with BMWs claims. Finally real weight savings rather than minimizing weight growth! This is also impressive since the new 3er is going to be a bit bigger than the existing car. I also looked at the rumors, speculation and released information about the new F10 M5 as well as what BMW achieved for the 1M.

Now you might argue the specifics of my calculations and BMW very well might not do all of the things I've mentioned. But my approach here is to bracket mean values with realistic ranges and then put those into a physics based vehicle performance simulation (I use CarTest). CarTest has been show to be accurate within a couple tenths on most key performance metrics and within a couple mph on speed results.

The weight estimate I was able to locate for the new 3er is here. Sure not the best nor most reliable source of automotive rumors and intelligence, but again a start. I do know I have read other places that the next gen car will be lighter than the current model. Perhaps BMW is indeed getting more serious and productive under its Efficient Dynamics efforts.

In short I do think the F32 M3 will also be lighter than the existing model. Somewhere in the range of about 3490 - 3650 lb curb weight.

The F32 "N55" (N55 variant technically) version engine will also be about 100 lb lighter than the existing S65 engine, contributing to the overall savings in a big way.



OK on to performance now. I have used what I feel are realist ranges for power, torque, weight, parasitic losses, aerodynamic constants, gearing, etc. Here ar the inputs I've used in CarTest.




I did not bother to customize the torque and power curves as CarTest does a reasonable good job of fitting a realistic curve given the information about the rpm peaks for torque and hp. Thanks to member Pete_vB for some solid educated guesses on some of these values in another thread.

Below are the results from the nominal (best guess) simulation as well as some bracketing analysis to get best and worst case scenarios. For those I have simply used the bracketed values for power, torque, redline, rpm, weight, aero, etc. as mentioned above.




In short: (not the exact bracketed values shown, as I have applied some further guessing/filtering and knowledge about how well CarTest can actually predict)

F32 M3 Performance Predictions:

• 0-60 mph: 3.7 - 3.9 s
• 0-100 mph: 8.6 - 8.8 s
• 0-200 kph: 13.2 - 13.6 s (for our metric friends!)
• 1/4 mi time: 11.9 - 12.1 s
• 1/4 mi trap: 116 - 119 mph
• top speed: 190 - 193 mph (of course true, not indicated, indicated should be just shy of 200 mph)

Just for the sake of comparison, this puts the car very close to the Porsche 997 GT3 (of course for straight line results...)

Last but not least, based on prior regression analysis work by member Lucid and myself here on Nurburgring lap time vs. power to weight, I will even offer a prediction here.

Nurburgring Nordschleife lap time (SportAuto): 7:53-7:58. Of course this assumes the car does not get something close to race rubber.

I suspect the new car is still way too far in the future for folks to get too excited, but perhaps this will still stimulate some good discussion. Cheers.

[mrad01]

They are not going to use the N55 (or varient) in the next M3. The design of the N54 and N55 mills doesn't have the tuning and reliability creds they need for a e9x M3 V8 beater.

Pretty sure it will be a 8cyl TT putting out less than the nextgen M5 version.

[GOLFFRR]

Very well put together if it pans out the way you have it that would be awesome! You would think that they would have to come out with something that would set the M3 as the bench mark and those hypothetical number def would make it a contender. I guess we will have to wait and see. It will be cool to come back to this thread when the new m does come out so we can see how close you were

[Tim B.]

Well put together. Ofcourse it's fun to speculate and discuss, but i prefer to wait and see. Heck, i've only had this one for a year now Usually we can tell alot about the M3 based upon the new M5, so hopefully that won't be too far off. But i do think those 0-60 times are a bit optimistic. I'm also curious as to where the price will be. I paid about $53k for my E46 M3 in '01 and about $70k for my E92 M3 in '09.......about $17K in 8 years.....not huge but still i wonder how much higher they will bring a 3 series car.....hmmmm

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Just my honest opinion...a lot of that sounds too optimistic.

This was simulation/prediction combined with a bracketing exercise. Which figures in particular do you think were too optimistic? What range of values for those figures do yo think is reasonable? Is your basis for this anything but a hunch or speculation?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by mrad01

They are not going to use the N55 (or varient) in the next M3. The design of the N54 and N55 mills doesn't have the tuning and reliability creds they need for a e9x M3 V8 beater.

Pretty sure it will be a 8cyl TT putting out less than the nextgen M5 version.

Evidence is abound here in the forum, directly from BMW insiders, that this is absolutely not correct. Read up!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Tim B.

Well put together. Ofcourse it's fun to speculate and discuss, but i prefer to wait and see. Heck, i've only had this one for a year now Usually we can tell alot about the M3 based upon the new M5, so hopefully that won't be too far off. But i do think those 0-60 times are a bit optimistic. I'm also curious as to where the price will be. I paid about $53k for my E46 M3 in '01 and about $70k for my E92 M3 in '09.......about $17K in 8 years.....not huge but still i wonder how much higher they will bring a 3 series car.....hmmmm

Thanks. It is fun to wait and see, but also fun to have a bit of a crystal ball as well. I'll certainly continue to enjoy the heck out of my E92 M3 for a long time also. Not that I care enormously about the 0-60 but do keep in mind the current car has already put down a 4.1. The new car, being turbo charged with way more torque (and wider tires) will be putting down significantly more torque to the wheels than the existing car.

[Tim B.]

Yeah, that's true. Guess i was looking more at the 3.7 time.......3.9 certainly seems attainable.

[kaykay]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Evidence is abound here in the forum, directly from BMW insiders, that this is absolutely not correct. Read up!

Sorry guys, so-called "BMW insiders" on a car forum are the last people I'd listen to when it comes to what engine will be in the next-generation M3.

NOBODY and I repeat, nobody knows what engine will be in this car. To date, all of this engine talk is pure speculation to keep the forum heads occupied.

I'm pretty sure it won't be a variant of the N55, there will most likely be a new engine in the M3.

Evidence, speculation, insider info, all bullshit until we here the official news from BMW AG themselves.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by kaykay

Sorry guys, so-called "BMW insiders" on a car forum are the last people I'd listen to when it comes to what engine will be in the next-generation M3.

NOBODY and I repeat, nobody knows what engine will be in this car. To date, all of this engine talk is pure speculation to keep the forum heads occupied.

I'm pretty sure it won't be a variant of the N55, there will most likely be a new engine in the M3.

Evidence, speculation, insider info, all bullshit until we here the official news from BMW AG themselves.

Do keep in mind the the simulations do not really depend heavily on the engine configuration. It is the power and torque that matter along with the rpms where they peak. This is not debatable...

Anyway do read posts by SCOTT26. By "insider" I literally mean insider, he works for BMW and is authorized to let loose some details now and again on the forum well in advance of any official comminications. The things he has shared in the past have been almost universally right on the money. He has made the claim that the next gen M3 engine will be an N55 variant. See here.

[double_j]

Those specs would allow BMW to set a base price around $75,000. I'll take a 0-60 of 4.1 if it'll save me 10 grand.

[duk]

11.9-12.1 qtr mi? that would be great, but a bit optimistic i think. 12.1-12.4 is what i am thinking

[mkoesel]

Swamp, I firmly believe a 3.5L I6 based on the modern BMW I6 architecture is not feasible in a production car, especially with a 7000 RPM rev limit.

At the same time, I think they will exceed 150hp/L with this motor, so it will be 450hp at a minimum with the likely 3L displacement, and I suspect it will be 470hp or more.

[NYCMCBM3]

i just wanna see the real thing

[kaykay]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Swamp, I firmly believe a 3.5L I6 based on the modern BMW I6 architecture is not feasible in a production car, especially with a 7000 RPM rev limit.

At the same time, I think they will exceed 150hp/L with this motor, so it will be 450hp at a minimum with the likely 3L displacement, and I suspect it will be 470hp or more.

I agree, we're not going to see an N55 or variant thereof on the new M3 (which is still 3(?) years away??)

BMW is known for innovation and creating great engines, they're not going to keep re-using the same motor (basically an N54 that lost a turbo, became an N55, now the 1-M is using a variant thereof, etc.) Not going to happen. Thank God.

I'm pretty confident (based on trends, competition, specs, etc.) that the new M3 will have:

1) Minimum 475+ HP
2) Minimum 365+ lb ft. / torque
3) DCT again
4) Sub 4.0 second 0-60 time
5) Higher price tag
6) Better engine than the new AMG TT V8s

BMW has the upper hand in competing with the AMG TT V8 (this motor is here for another 4-5 years and we have NO idea what the BMW M motor will hold, so that's really good).

Also, it's really NOT about efficiency, being green and all that other bullshit when it comes to M cars guys. Think about this: BMW has sold about 17,000 M3s (all variants) to date and they closed the M5 production line with about 22,000 units sold. This is NOTHING, peanuts. ((BMW sells about 200,000 cars per year in the US alone).

These cars are very laser targeted towards us and other "enthusiasts," times are tough, people can barely justify a $300 / month car from Ford, Toyota, etc. We're dropping $1,000+ / month on these cars. They're going to make us happy, as they always have.

The C-Class AMG is pushing 475 horsepower, a boatload of torque and be in no doubt that the new M3 will smash all over that car.

The new M3 is still farrrrrr away, so who knows what the future holds, but I do know one thing with pure certainty:

It will be BETTER than the current E9x M3, which as we all know, is truly on amazing car.

[swamp2]

Thanks for all of the comments. Good discussion.

Originally Posted by double_j

Those specs would allow BMW to set a base price around $75,000. I'll take a 0-60 of 4.1 if it'll save me 10 grand.

I have no doubt the price of the car will continue to rise. Though they are making the 1M and possibly another car between the 1M and M3. As such I doubt a $75k base price. That would be over a 35% jump just in the base price. That's very unlikely based on historical generational prices. I think it will be a lot closer to $65k than $75k.

Originally Posted by duk

11.9-12.1 qtr mi? that would be great, but a bit optimistic i think. 12.1-12.4 is what i am thinking

The current car has done a 12.5. Your mid to upper range of 12.2-12.4 is unrealistic simply based on the power to weight. Unless it has quite a bit less power or quite a bit more weight than I have predicted, my numbers should be pretty close.

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Swamp, I firmly believe a 3.5L I6 based on the modern BMW I6 architecture is not feasible in a production car, especially with a 7000 RPM rev limit.

At the same time, I think they will exceed 150hp/L with this motor, so it will be 450hp at a minimum with the likely 3L displacement, and I suspect it will be 470hp or more.

And you don't buy a modified N55 that is stroked? The 1M is an N55 with 3.0l and 7k rpm. I do think 470 is a bit on the high side, especially since SCOTT26 has already hinted at 450. However, it certainly is not out of the realm of possibility.

Originally Posted by kaykay

I agree, we're not going to see an N55 or variant thereof on the new M3 (which is still 3(?) years away??)

BMW is known for innovation and creating great engines, they're not going to keep re-using the same motor (basically an N54 that lost a turbo, became an N55, now the 1-M is using a variant thereof, etc.) Not going to happen. Thank God.

I'm pretty confident (based on trends, competition, specs, etc.) that the new M3 will have:

1) Minimum 475+ HP
2) Minimum 365+ lb ft. / torque
3) DCT again
4) Sub 4.0 second 0-60 time
5) Higher price tag
6) Better engine than the new AMG TT V8s

BMW has the upper hand in competing with the AMG TT V8 (this motor is here for another 4-5 years and we have NO idea what the BMW M motor will hold, so that's really good).

That's all pretty reasonable. Though based on the estimated torque figures for the F10 M5 I think 365 ft lb torque is way too low. Also, just as the new 1M is, the next M3 has to "mind its place in line", with 475 hp its power to weight would probably be way too close to the new 550 hp F10 M5. Then again that car might be more than 550.

Originally Posted by kaykay

Also, it's really NOT about efficiency, being green and all that other bullshit when it comes to M cars guys. Think about this: BMW has sold about 17,000 M3s (all variants) to date and they closed the M5 production line with about 22,000 units sold. This is NOTHING, peanuts. ((BMW sells about 200,000 cars per year in the US alone).

These cars are very laser targeted towards us and other "enthusiasts," times are tough, people can barely justify a $300 / month car from Ford, Toyota, etc. We're dropping $1,000+ / month on these cars. They're going to make us happy, as they always have.

BMW still needs to meet new green regulations in the EU and in NA. A small amount of very polluting cars hurts the average. They are not going with a lower displacement turbo for their M cars just for fun. More reuse across cars and better efficiency. More power from a lighter motor as well. Of course weight loss is both good for manufacturing costs, good for performance, track and strip, good for the corporate image and lastly good for mpg. A total win, win, win.

Originally Posted by kaykay

It will be BETTER than the current E9x M3, which as we all know, is truly on amazing car.

+1

Originally Posted by GhostRideTheWhip

Swamp, I honestly expect it to get heavier. The new amount of tech that will be on the next gen 3er is simply amazing. Next gen ///M will be pushing 3800 pounds, IMO. With each generation M3, it's gotten bigger and fatter. The next gen, won't be an exception.

Yes, it is true, electronics, telematics, gadgets, luxury, automation etc. They all continue to grow and the car itself will be larger. That makes it very hard to manage the weight gain. My lower weight numbers might be optimistic. However as I mentioned above weight reduction is a huge endeavor at many car companies these days. BMW recently bought a carbon fiber production facility so their is some good possibilities there, both for things like hoods, trunk lids, doors and maybe even frame/body/structural component (certainly not an entire unibody though due to the huge time and labor costs). I'm absolutely just as interested in the weight of the new car as its engine and power. The final weight of the F3X 3er will be very telling as to a neutral, weight gain or weight loss being most likely for the new M3.

Do note the "sanity check" in my spreadsheet. The 1M is indeed lighter than the 135i. This bucks the trend you are calling universal!

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by double_j

Those specs would allow BMW to set a base price around $75,000. I'll take a 0-60 of 4.1 if it'll save me 10 grand.

Price and 0-60 time are not related. If they were then a C63 or CTS-V would cost a lot more than they do today and an RS5 a lot less. And those examples just happen to be cars that are in the M3's class. You can find dozens of examples of cars in price classes much higher and much lower than the M3 that also refute your point.

Even if you were to generalize and say that the overall performance of a car determines its price point, that still is not true with many examples available to use as counterpoints.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by swamp2

And you don't buy a modified N55 that is stroked?

No. A 3.5L N55 will have a stroke over 100mm, and will wreck the engine geometry (rod ratio). It's just not realistic in my opinion.

The 1M is an N55 with 3.0l and 7k rpm. I do think 470 is a bit on the high side, especially since SCOTT26 has already hinted at 450. However, it certainly is not out of the realm of possibility.

I think SCOTT is throwing out a rough figure. I consider it a lower bound of the target range - a safe number, if you will, so as not to "over-promise". Certainly no one knows the exact final figure yet since the engine still has at least a year worth of development yet and probably more than two years. But I suspect they will come up with a very advanced turbo system that allows them to get all the power they need and then some from the current 3L block.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by GhostRideTheWhip

Swamp, I honestly expect it to get heavier. The new amount of tech that will be on the next gen 3er is simply amazing. Next gen ///M will be pushing 3800 pounds, IMO. With each generation M3, it's gotten bigger and fatter. The next gen, won't be an exception.

I'm not sure it will hit 3800lbs, but I tend to agree that it will get heavier. Or at best the weight saving measures BMW employs will serve only to keep the car at about the same weight as it is today. I look to the F10 vs. E60 5 series for a predictor - a little bit bigger and a little bit heaier. I'll bet the new F2x 1 series hatchback debuting late next year follows that same pattern.

One thing I do think is likely is that the F3x M3 will be closer in weight to the series car on which it is based than today's E9x M3 is.

[kmarei]

I doubt it will be lighter, maybe the same
I'd guess power will be 450
I just pray to the engine gods we don't get another rehash of the N55 like the 1m

[Vbcarguy]

I think the next M3 needs the twin turbo v8 to compete with the AMG offerings. A small turbo 6 just does not get me going.

I would pay big bucks for a 500 hp M3 with a twin turbo v8.


Also for the love of God they better offer a MT.

Are they taking crazy pills considering not offering a MT.

If they dont I am going to have to consider switching to porsche. The only problem is my surf board does not fit inside.

[ruff]

Swamp,

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to stimulate discussion. Nice work and write up.

Porsche seems to be the only sports car manufacture who's actions speak louder than their marketing, at least in the weight department. They dropped 408 lbs on the the new Cayenne Turbo. The seats in the GT3 and Cayman are light because they are not loaded with electronic gizmos. That is because most Poschephiles abhor the comfy adaptive sports seats option due to the weight penalty.

On the other hand, the vast majority of new BMW enthusiasts won't buy an M car that isn't loaded to the gills with heavy comfy options, audio systems and and electronic do dads. And these same "enthusiasts" then complain about wanting BMW to build cars that are lighter and perform better on the track. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

It reminds me of complaints about elected officials. We want them to bring the deficit under control but the second they cut one of our entitlements, we throw them out of office.

The simple adage remains true: "you can't have your cake and eat it to."