05-19-2011, 03:24 PM | #45 |
Second Lieutenant
2
Rep 295
Posts |
BMW wouldn't be committing any bigger crime by going for bi-turbo V6 engine, more than they have already sinned with the turbos for their M cars. BMW M cars were known as high revving NA I6, V8 and V10 engines with supreme agility and control. Now they've chosen to use turbos in their M cars? BMW also used to be known for manual transmissions in their M cars. But now they use M-DCT. Now they even have X5/X6 M's but no Z4 M.....
I think everyone should get ready for a bi-turbo V6 in the F3x M3. It might just be another masterpiece engine from the M division. Look at the bright side - it would definitely be a unique BMW engine. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:28 PM | #46 |
Lieutenant Colonel
171
Rep 1,530
Posts |
__________________
2011 E92 JB/BL/DCT--->80K Miles
2015 F80 SS/SO/DCT?->28K Miles 2015 Porsche 911S |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:32 PM | #48 | |
Major
215
Rep 1,395
Posts |
+10 We don't need anymore downward expansion of the M brand.
Quote:
No to the V6 for sure. I'm not a fan of the N54/N55 either. And where did all the "NA only" guys go?? now you're all drooling over turbos? I thought it was the S65 or die? I don't mind having a turbo, as throttle response has vastly improved over older turbos, but decreasing redline??
__________________
Club 6MT 2008 E92 M3 6MT, AW/Blk Ext., brushed aluminum 2006 E46 M3 ZCP 6MT Carbon blk/blk(sold) 2001 E46 325Xi 5MT Jet Blk/Blk (sold) |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:35 PM | #49 |
Been There, Done That.
661
Rep 4,728
Posts |
They seem to be getting back on track. Changing their slogan back to The Ultimate Driving Machine, and now considering keeping the S65? Looks like the bitchin' and groaning got through to BMW.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:50 PM | #51 | |
Brigadier General
161
Rep 3,736
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:59 PM | #53 |
Brigadier General
1920
Rep 3,223
Posts
Drives: 2018 BMW 440i GC
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Eastern MA
|
about the X3 M, I personally like the idea of all BMW cars having an M version - gives even the SUV crowd something to shoot for.
I have always wanted an M7 in the lineup. if you look at the reviews for X5M and X6M they are all raves, so why not? |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 04:16 PM | #54 |
New Member
0
Rep 28
Posts |
I think it is important that the ///M division stated they did not want to stick to dogmas. If they stuck to dogmas, there wouldn't be the same level of innovation that we have today. As a result of this, I am almost sick of hearing about "heritage".
Look at the past with the M3. The e30 had an I4. The e36 and e46 both had I6 engines. The e92 has a v8. If they were sticking to dogmas, we would never of had the s65 that we love! Logically the e92 would have an I6. So this may be a good thing. Right now we are complaining about losing the v8, however the next engine might be better. If we were always scared to innovate with something disruptive, we would never of had the s65 engine that we love today placed in the M3. Maybe we do not like the sound of a turbo v6 because as the consumer, we do not know what we really want. If BMW always listened to exactly what we had to say, there would be no creative destruction. The consumer would never want the "next big thing" because as the consumer, they do not know what the next big thing is. In order to innovate and create a better ///M car all around, BMW may have to use something like a turbo v6 in an M car, even though some may say it is sacrilegious. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 04:22 PM | #55 |
Private First Class
10
Rep 101
Posts |
I'm loving the idea of a bi-turbo S65, but why throw two turbos on when the horsepower goal is 450-475hp? If they are only pushing a ~40hp boost with the turbos, the tuning potential would be insane with a simple remap.
If they can get the S65's consumption down to V6/I6 levels, I'm sure everyone would like to see it return in 2014.
__________________
1995 E36 M3 — Alpine White
2011 E92 M3 — Alpine White |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 04:23 PM | #56 | |
Major
24
Rep 1,033
Posts |
Quote:
C63 AMG & M3 are direct competitors. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 04:35 PM | #57 |
Colonel
345
Rep 2,928
Posts
Drives: 328i, 335i, M3, 535i, X5, 36M
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: OC
iTrader: (3)
Garage List 2014 Ford Raptor [0.00]
2012 328i E92 [10.00] 2013 X5 [0.00] 2013 335i F30 [8.00] 1990 Toyota Previa [0.00] 1997 E36 M3 [10.00] 2011 E92 M3 [0.00] 2011 535i [0.00] |
I'm jealous. I should have waited. Damn
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 04:50 PM | #60 | |
Major
32
Rep 999
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 04:53 PM | #61 |
Major
32
Rep 999
Posts |
I respectfully disagree. With weight increases and turbos, M no longer stands for motorsport.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 04:54 PM | #62 |
Major
115
Rep 1,347
Posts
Drives: 2011 335d
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
It'll be either the an N55 variant or the v6 probably. BMW has already committed to their efficient dynamics ploy. And since that's the case it's going to require cars to weigh less.
I'm actually betting on the v6 bi or tri turbo. Fan boys will cry then they'll drive it and thus the story continues... Just like the v8 haters 5 years ago. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 04:55 PM | #63 |
Major General
894
Rep 9,034
Posts |
BMW likes each cylinder to be 0.5L
BMW has a LONG history of I6 engines. A V6 is not acceptable to BMW people.
__________________
Let me get this straight... You are swapping out parts designed by some of the top engineers in the world because some guys sponsored by a company told you it's "better??" But when you ask the same guy about tracking, "oh no, I have a kid now" or "I just detailed my car." or "i just got new tires."
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 05:01 PM | #65 | |
///M
158
Rep 3,195
Posts |
Quote:
not the 4.4 V8 TT? but 3.5 I6 would even be better!
__________________
2011.5 AW/FR E92 M3 6MT
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 05:06 PM | #66 |
Lieutenant
106
Rep 585
Posts |
Nice thread South!
@mkoesel You could beleave it or not ... the most logical engine decision is the 3.3ltr. V6 derivate of the S63 ... only because of its mayor advantages ... its the lightest, shortest and most compact engine alternative ... together with some cost effective lightweight body panel its the best way to make the F3x M3 the far best sports car in its class. Second best engine decision was an modified S65 ... because this engine was one of the best (if not the best) the M-GmbH has developed ever. The engine has many fans in the M-GmbH and was an pure M baby. The engine was also light, very robust and also compact for an V8. Only third for the from all 335i fans favored N54/55 (S54/55) ... because its neither an compact fit nor its possible to bring this engine to 450+PS without more displacement and make the engine stronger (increasing weight) ... but the main reason is that the M-GmbH just making an chance in an more traditionel direction, this meen more unique engines and more lightweight issues ... and finding the perfect way between cost reduction and performence/"the spirit of M" ... and the N54/55 engine choice was one of the cost reduction over all times. I think the S63 is simple too big to be an nice fit for an F3x ... look athe the manhart E92 and its ultra large hood to fit the engine ... and I think the F3x would have an overall flatter front end ... so how this engine should fit in an proper way? @advevo ... the 1M was an nice little car and as good as the M3 ... but wait for the M3 EVO (and the 2012 M3CSL?), this would bring the "old" E9x M3 over all of his compeditors again .. also over the 1M. The really Supertrackcar would be the F2x 1M with real lightweight parts and an light and ultra compact R4 BiTurbo engine with 300+HP. Greet Uli_HH |
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|