[nicknaz]

Originally Posted by BwoodBMW

Ha, exactly. Sets up awesome for the track with the right tires. Wish I was a track rat but I'm not that cool. Instead I spend my 3 mile commute trying to keep the back end of the car pointing backwards (which again, heckuva good time but adding more power would be futile)

Run your nt01 or cup 2 tires on the street then. Such a short commute

Edit: modulate throttle too

[mWHO]

Here is the solution: Re-brand the M3 as the M5, and give the M2 some more luxury and re-brand it the M3. Perfect solution to keep all of us happy

[georgere]

Originally Posted by mWHO

Here is the solution: Re-brand the M3 as the M5, and give the M2 some more luxury and re-brand it the M3. Perfect solution to keep all of us happy

What are they going to do with m5 then?

[Agent11br]

If there is one car that should be the last vehicle on the planet to not have a 6MT option, it's the 911... with the M3/4 right on its @ss.

[bmwmnation]

Sounds like a bunch of added weight to me.

[rockymtnpilot]

Originally Posted by ssquared

Then why not go to a dealer and buy any M that is currently offered.

LSD+Winter Tires+Manual Transmission will give you more control in the snow than 90% of the cars on the road, including the idiots in the subarus with no season tires

The climb is the problem. I live in the mountains. There are numerous mountain roads that you simply can't climb in the snow without AWD.

[440xiGCMsport]

Originally Posted by Chicken_Joe

Fucking garbage. Nobody wants any of that electric nonsense or all wheel drive.

While electric turbo will be great for performance I am definitely a little concerned about longevity of the electric motor on it due to the extreme heat to the electric motor on it.
Hybrid AWD on the other hand is great. I also own an F Pace which I believe has it already and it allows for grip when accelerating because it is AWD mode but in normal driving and in certain corners the car is in RWD mode. So the AWD mode only turns in when grip is in question. It also does not upset the balance mid corner either.

[wknddrivr]

Originally Posted by rockymtnpilot

The climb is the problem. I live in the mountains. There are numerous mountain roads that you simply can't climb in the snow without AWD.

Assuming they're paved roads, thats unlikely. If you're going uphill the axle load will shift to the rear of the car. AWD provides some but not much benefit in this situation.

Thats why when its raining and you see FWD or AWD cars that are FWD biased stopped at a light on a hill start to accelerate the tires chirp and they slide a bit. The front of the car doesn't have much weight so the contact patch of the front wheels is very small. Stand on a corner in Seattle or SF and just watch people spin their tires, its somewhat amusing.

Never happens with a RWD car in the same situation

The only challenge I've ever had driving to a ski resort was ground clearance. I've had AWD and RWD cars in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest and that has made absolutely no difference in my ability to get up steep and icy hills. If I were on unpaved roads then it would have been another story, but driving to Whistler or Vail or Stowe has never taken me off the beaten path

[Bowser330]

Maybe thy will keep the m3 rwd and instead pimp the m brand more and create a m340i w/xdrive

That way you get an extra m-inspired tuned version of the new 3series chassis and b58 engine. They could also offer an extra powerkit so it would be just as quick as its rwd m3 cousin.

They appease both markets while preserving the m3 as rwd only

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ssquared

Assuming they're paved roads, thats unlikely. If you're going uphill the axle load will shift to the rear of the car. AWD provides some but not much benefit in this situation.

Thats why when its raining and you see FWD or AWD cars that are FWD biased stopped at a light on a hill start to accelerate the tires chirp and they slide a bit. The front of the car doesn't have much weight so the contact patch of the front wheels is very small. Stand on a corner in Seattle or SF and just watch people spin their tires, its somewhat amusing.

Never happens with a RWD car in the same situation

The only challenge I've ever had driving to a ski resort was ground clearance. I've had AWD and RWD cars in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest and that has made absolutely no difference in my ability to get up steep and icy hills. If I were on unpaved roads then it would have been another story, but driving to Whistler or Vail or Stowe has never taken me off the beaten path

I am not sure I agree with your here.

It takes a fair bit of acceleration to have a meaningful weight transfer from the front axle to the rear axle. In low grip scenarios, there is not much acceleration and hence not much weight transferred off the front wheels. In low grip situations (Cf<0.3), a FWD car with 60% front weight bias will have better off the line traction than a RWD car with 50-50 weight distribution. AWD will always be at an advantage, because all 4 wheels are pulling the car.

In the same manner, it takes a rather steep incline to transfer a meaningful amount from one axle to the other.

[Tacoma]

Originally Posted by ssquared

Assuming they're paved roads, thats unlikely. If you're going uphill the axle load will shift to the rear of the car. AWD provides some but not much benefit in this situation.

Thats why when its raining and you see FWD or AWD cars that are FWD biased stopped at a light on a hill start to accelerate the tires chirp and they slide a bit. The front of the car doesn't have much weight so the contact patch of the front wheels is very small. Stand on a corner in Seattle or SF and just watch people spin their tires, its somewhat amusing.

Never happens with a RWD car in the same situation

The only challenge I've ever had driving to a ski resort was ground clearance. I've had AWD and RWD cars in the Northeast and Pacific Northwest and that has made absolutely no difference in my ability to get up steep and icy hills. If I were on unpaved roads then it would have been another story, but driving to Whistler or Vail or Stowe has never taken me off the beaten path

I think ssquared is referring to going (forward) uphill in which weight is transferred to the rear giving RWD greater traction, all else being equal.

However, I don't agree with ssquared that AWD is "not much benefit" in uphill situations. Certainly the eye test agrees where up here in Canada, AWD vehicles do much better going uphill during/after ice or snow storms.

Beyond the eye test, there's physics. Each tire has a given amount of grip before it starts to slip. With AWD, you're less likely to hit that slip threshold per tire because you have 4 tires sharing the load to move the car instead of just two (i.e., each tire has less weight to move). The difference is not small and result is you can accelerate much better with AWD, especially going uphill. Stopping or going downhill though is another story.

[Crazykoh]

Originally Posted by Tacoma

I think ssquared is referring to going (forward) uphill in which weight is transferred to the rear giving RWD greater traction, all else being equal.

However, I don't agree with ssquared that AWD is "not much benefit" in uphill situations. Certainly the eye test agrees where up here in Canada, AWD vehicles do much better going uphill during/after ice or snow storms.

Beyond the eye test, there's physics. Each tire has a given amount of grip before it starts to slip. With AWD, you're less likely to hit that slip threshold per tire because you have 4 tires sharing the load to move the car instead of just two (i.e., each tire has less weight to move). The difference is not small and result is you can accelerate much better with AWD, especially going uphill. Stopping or going downhill though is another story.

Exactly. That slip threshold is the coefficient of static friction CanAutM3 mentioned in his post. Once that is exceeded, you start to slip and are then under the coefficient of kinetic friction, which is lower. That's why you have to get the wheels to slow way down to regain grip once you start to slip. With all four tires providing thrust, you are less likely to overcome that static friction.

I think CanAutM3 also did understand the scenario meant going uphill, his comment was that the slope has to be pretty high to transfer significant weight to the rear wheels. And what we interpret at a steep slope when driving or skiing really isn't.

The other problem you run into in rear wheel drive is that with the rear wheels driving, the car can rotate if the fronts have too much resistance and the rears aren't directly behind them. AWD helps limit this and FWD doesn't have the problem because the rears will always be pulled behind in line with the fronts.

[F22_Raptor]

The front looks like the 3.0 CSL homage from 2015, which I like alot.

The rear..... well the rear lights should look more like the current 7 series and i think it will look a lot better.

[spatterson007]

I like the hood a lot, but the futuristic rendering makes the car, as a whole, look less aggressive in my opinion.

[wknddrivr]

Originally Posted by Crazykoh

Exactly. That slip threshold is the coefficient of static friction CanAutM3 mentioned in his post. Once that is exceeded, you start to slip and are then under the coefficient of kinetic friction, which is lower. That's why you have to get the wheels to slow way down to regain grip once you start to slip. With all four tires providing thrust, you are less likely to overcome that static friction.

I think CanAutM3 also did understand the scenario meant going uphill, his comment was that the slope has to be pretty high to transfer significant weight to the rear wheels. And what we interpret at a steep slope when driving or skiing really isn't.

The other problem you run into in rear wheel drive is that with the rear wheels driving, the car can rotate if the fronts have too much resistance and the rears aren't directly behind them. AWD helps limit this and FWD doesn't have the problem because the rears will always be pulled behind in line with the fronts.

All fair points. On a steep enough grade AWD would be a benefit, but I've just never really experienced public roads which were unmanageable.

[shiv.nandak]

Originally Posted by kevinlevrone

It seems that the 500hp Giulia Quadrifoglio for the price of a regular M3 really woke BMW up, they can't just add 10-20hp and call it a new M3...

But... the M3 was never defined by HP figures. As long as it had improved driving dynamics, sound and all the things that made the old M3's great - it could have literally had the same HP as the E92. Everyone would have loved it.

[anotheran]

I think the possibility of xdrive on a M3 is 50/50 but i'd buy one with xdrive as long as weight gain over F80 is minimal (<100lbs). I'd love the extra traction and preferred for my DD in the winter. I really hope I don't end up with a X3 M before the G80 is out

[seis-speed]

Originally Posted by mWHO

Here is the solution: Re-brand the M3 as the M5, and give the M2 some more luxury and re-brand it the M3. Perfect solution to keep all of us happy

TBH. What drew me to buy an M2 was the lower price point with fewer options?

[norMcal]

If the last M3 wasn't already an M5, then surely this one is.

Hope they keep making the M2 and not let it get too big.

[gprgeorge]

I agree with most of you guys, that's a ugly futuristic rendering. If it looks like, that I need to look at another car company.

[LukeM15]

I really hope it doesn’t look like that but at this point is anyone guess on how the next Gen will look. Let’s just enjoy our F80’s for now.

[DBACE]

While I plan on keeping my F80 for quite some time, I do not believe it is out of the question I might upgrade. These renders look pretty bad to me. The car looks way too slim to be believable.

Regardless to how it looks, I am pretty sure I will hold out for the 1st LCI before I buy, since I hear they will be using incandescent lighting in the rear when the car is released in 2021.