05-19-2011, 02:23 PM | #23 |
Been There, Done That.
663
Rep 4,728
Posts |
S65 Bi Turbo! Do It!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:23 PM | #24 |
Captain
81
Rep 639
Posts |
cANT WAIT
__________________
'11.5 SG E93/6MT/ALL BOXES CHECKED BLACK GRILL/BLACK SIDE GILLS/15% TINT/PAINTED REFLECTORS/SPACERS/ANGEL iBRIGHTS/20'' VOSSEN CV3/VINYL WRAPPED SHADOW LINE TRIM/ETS-POWER TUNE/ ///M-FLIGHT MEMBER |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:26 PM | #25 |
Mr. Nice Says Hello
638
Rep 16,662
Posts
Drives: BMW M3 | X5 xdrive 35i MSport
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: USA
|
good info, very interesting
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:26 PM | #26 | |
Captain
91
Rep 825
Posts |
Quote:
A twin turbo V6? On paper, it works for Nissan GTR, but we are BMW fans, not Nissan fans. The workhorse I6 is what brought us to this flame. Don't cheat us mid flight!
__________________
Down for Maintenance
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:33 PM | #27 | |
Brigadier General
1920
Rep 3,223
Posts
Drives: 2018 BMW 440i GC
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Eastern MA
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:37 PM | #28 | |
Major General
689
Rep 6,845
Posts
Drives: 2018 Audi RS5 coupe
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Reston, VA
|
Quote:
turbocharging the S65 while keeping a gap between M3 and M5 (assuming the M5 puts out 575hp) and what was said in the article about a small jump in hp, but big jump in torque i'd guess 475 HP and closer to 400lb/ft damn nice!!
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:37 PM | #29 |
Brigadier General
3838
Rep 4,672
Posts
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
...And everyone is excited again!
BMW doesn't want to be AMG in terms of engine configurations but they're sure acting like AMG by slapping an M badge across all models which I still think is wrong. As awesome as the specs are, an X5/X6 M is so wrong and by adding a M variant of the X3, I think they're diluting the M brand. I know it's a business and it's about making money but come on now... |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:38 PM | #30 |
Second Lieutenant
6
Rep 291
Posts |
How about a twin turbo S54 variant...
A 3.3L turbo could easily put down 450bhp (136bph/L) with some good tuning and a high redline on a good breathing engine. I would be surprised if the new M3 had 8 turbocharged cylinders. Probably even more surprised by a V6 given BMWs history and gospel of straight 6 perfection.
__________________
2009 Spacegrau 335i |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:43 PM | #31 |
Converted
30
Rep 920
Posts |
With so many aftermarket SC S65 options why wouldn't BMW consider this route over turbo charging? Seems to be working with Audi's 3.0T.
__________________
'11 BMW M3 E90 Jerez - Fox | '17 BMW i3 BEV Protonic - Dalbergia |
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:44 PM | #32 | ||||
Moderator
7526
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Here's my take (whether you want it or not)
Quote:
Why? We already have two turbo V8s - the S63 and N63 - so I don't how it will make a good business case to build yet another one. Quote:
Why? An "S55" would follow on logically just like the N63->S63 evolution. And I personally think 160hp/L will be very feasibly for M division. Granted, there is still a discrepancy as far as the N55 vs. the N54 forming the basis. When it comes down to it, the primary difference is turbo setup and Valvetronic. But those two will be weighed independently by M either way. Quote:
Why? While this would make a lot more sense than the turbo'd S65 would, I still don't think BMW will go through with it. They need to play up the greener image that people have of engines with lower cylinder count. Make no mistake, they are going to do all they can to tie the Efficient Dynamics story into the M3 as tightly as possible. Quote:
Why? I just don't think it makes any sense. As I see it, fitment issues with the V8 as far as an X3 M or Z4 M are due to the turbos, intercoolers, plumbing etc, most likely. If you are going to have to move them no matter what the cylinder count, then you could just as easily relocate them for the V8, and not spend all the money developing a V6 block, crank, cams, heads, not to mention testing all that. And for less displacement, no need to lose cylinders - just destroke/debore the V8. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:44 PM | #33 | |
Captain
68
Rep 883
Posts |
Quote:
I think BMW should do what's right for the car and not worry about the critics. Just make the thing fly and embarrass the competition and it will be a hit. I have no doubt that it will be fantastic.
__________________
'12 E92 M3 | 6MT | ZCP
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:48 PM | #34 | |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 44
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:51 PM | #35 |
Captain
37
Rep 636
Posts |
+1 for keeping a v8 (even if it has to be turbo)
Just leave the M5/M6 with the bigger v8 in it and all in the world will be right.
__________________
2009 e92 M3 - AW DCT - Apex Arc8s - Corsa
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:52 PM | #37 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
113
Rep 1,772
Posts |
Quote:
I think it is very possible for BMW to do a 6-cylinder M3 in the next generation without worrying about it competing with the V8s. History shows that they compete anyway and generally win. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 02:57 PM | #39 | |
Moderator
7526
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Quote:
Yes. A little excitement for the board is a good thing. The big-bore I6 requires the iron block though. You end up killing the weight up front, and you need more power to compensate for that weight to boot. I'd rather just see them detune the 3L aluminum I6 if they had to. But as I said, I don't think they do have to - I think they know exactly how to get big power from this engine. BMW's gonna build themselves their modern day RB26DETT or 2JZ-GTE. You will see. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:00 PM | #40 |
Major
32
Rep 999
Posts |
I don't think they care about BMW fans. If they did, we would have NA engines with KERS. For a six figure car, that is totally doable. Marketing just cares about money.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:03 PM | #41 |
Moderator
7526
Rep 19,368
Posts |
MB is definitely (well almost definitely - remember when the C55 went to C32? Who knows - it could happen again) going V8 turbo for the next C AMG, I am not convinced at all that is where Audi is headed with the RS4/RS5. You could very easily see a SC or turbo 6 in the next version (B9+) of those cars, IMHO. Even the B8 RS4 Avant may get such an engine (if/when it arrives) though I think the RS5 N/A V8 is probably more likely for now.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:13 PM | #42 |
Banned
871
Rep 6,248
Posts |
N54/N55 just doesn't make that much sense to me, especially since the N54 design will be almost 10 years old by the time the F3x M3 comes out. If they keep that engine throughout the F3x M3 lifecycle (typical), you'd be looking at a 15 year old engine by the end of the F3x. Way too old!
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-19-2011, 03:24 PM | #44 |
First Lieutenant
11
Rep 331
Posts |
If mitsu can get 300hp from 2.0 turbo, BMW should be able to extract 400+ from N54. I like the idea of a lighter 6-cylinder car. The M3 engine is also light, the M5 engine is too heavy for this applicaiton.
What AMG does is irrelevant, M3 and any AMG car are in a different segment. |
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
|
|