BMW F80 M3 and F82 M4 Powered by More Than 425 HP

[turbolag]

Originally Posted by Snig

Might want to look at the price and weight gaps in that analysis as well.

E92 was roughly 70k. M5 was about 85k.

F80 should be <70k, F82 should be 75k. M5 is now 105k. M6 is 110k.

[Transfer]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Now you are getting me interested

Ugh. Dammit me too. If the F80 is significantly lighter than the E90, the lustre of my V8 E90 might start to fade.

[R N M]

Originally Posted by turbolag

E92 was roughly 70k. M5 was about 85k.

F80 should be <70k, F82 should be 75k. M5 is now 105k. M6 is 110k.

E92 at 70k was at the top of price range well optioned.

F80/82 will be at 85-95k well optioned (carbon fiber seats, ceramic brakes, etc)

Not much of a difference IMO.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by Jason

You will be very pleasantly surprised to be wrong.

oh man...he said pleasantly!! Question is how pleasant??? 3300 pleasant??

[PhillyNate]

...and faster around the Nurburgring than both the E92 M3 GTS and E46 M3 CSL. This car has me vacillating more than my marriage. Lol

[JRV]

I guess I shouldn't have posted that mods??My bad...anyway whoever missed the post it will have good weight target and over 425hp as stated

435 HP and Target Weight Less than 3300

Thanks for deleting my post twice, that's when you know you have the right info.

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

No it's not.

My buddy brought his high precision scales from work one day at the track last year. We weighed both our cars. His (E46 6MT, premium sound, full tank) came in just over 150lbs lighter than mine (E92, DCT, iDrive, premium sound, full tank). We were both quite surprised with the results that we re-weighed them just to be sure.

+1

[Roundown]

Originally Posted by R N M

E92 at 70k was at the top of price range well optioned.

F80/82 will be at 85-95k well optioned (carbon fiber seats, ceramic brakes, etc)

Not much of a difference IMO.

Loaded E92 was well over $70k

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by Jason

Yup But not much more.

So 426 HP - nice!!! We've gone up 1 HP in only a few hours!!

All joking aside - really excited
To hear other specs...

[OverDrive]

I'm betting it'll be a twin-turbo 3.0L I6 with 430 PS (roughly 425 hp) and 375 lb-ft of torque. Red line would be 7400 rpm but power will drop way before that at 7250 rpm. Weight will be 3349 lbs in a stripped version that likely includes ceramic brakes and carbon seats.

[Matski]

I really am far more interested in the weight than the horsepower, Hp and torque are fun, but weight reduction helps in every aspect of a good handling car.... And that's what the M3/M4 should be - a scalpel to AMGs Hammer, and Audi's Rubber mallet...

... Plus we'll start to see if all the expenditure by BMW on lightweight material production will really pay off on the road.

[dhoggm3]

Ah, stats make for good internet arguments. Let's DRIVE the thing and see how is dances. Then we'll argue. Given BMW M's track record, I'm very optimistic.

[noushy]

Agree it will probably be closer to 450 about 105 less than the M5. Follows a trend where the E39/E46 was around 66hp, the E60/E90 around 86hp, and now F10/F80 is 106. Seems the gap grows by 20hp and the price about the same.

Noushy

[pkimM3r]

i do'nt want to get too excited because I'm really expecting the such low weight based on the Civic M4. I'll get more excited once I find out its a fully optioned one weighing that little.

[IB M]

This car will be another incredible machine and total package. I am only holding my breath on the fake piped in engine noise. That would be like listening to porn on the radio vs actually having sex.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

is this before everyone ticks option boxes: DCT, TECH, PREMIUM, etc, blah blah?

CSiC Brakes, CF strut brace, CF seats, etc., etc.

Originally Posted by Mako

lets hope with the extra 10 horsepower, 70 torque and with the loss of a few pant sizes (both the car and myself), the M3 will be able to break that 4.0 0-60 range.

The E92 M3 already has as documented by on of the big American car mags.

Originally Posted by ES_TRADER

if bmw underrates hp, then whats the current hp and tq of the e9x m3?

As another person pointed out the trend is to do this with their forced induction vehicles not NA ones. The E92 M3 isn't under or overrated.

Which leads to

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

Basically, the benefit for any manufacturer is to cover their ass. If they rated their cars at the exact HP and performance numbers, there is bound to be some owners and reviewers/testers who may not be able to achieve those numbers on a dyno or at the track. There could be many variables why exact numbers may not be reached during a given test, so manufacturers will give themselves a safety cushion with underrated numbers.

There is much more to it than this. Most manufacturers, and BMW in particular with all models are known to be very conservative with the performance the car can obtain rather than on power. In fact I am a but surprised that there is not a more rigorous standard like the US SAE "certified power" standard (SAE J1349 / SAE J1995) that bascially says hp must be within 1% of the quoted figure. Another likely reason for this is skirting taxes. I think in Europe is is generally by displacement (which the new engine help with but some contries almost for sure have power based taxes)

Originally Posted by Mikecom32

Lack of actual car knowledge really shows when we start talking numbers. Looking at half of these responses, you'd think horsepower is the be-all and end-all of performance figures.

We're still gaining 11 hp and 70 lb-ft of torque. Consider the weight reduction, severe underrating on BMW turbo engines, and ease of power gains with a turbo engine.

Well I guess this is really going to be a run on....

Although you are spot on with regards to underrating anf power to weight gains in torque are almost meaningless. As debated here extensively (peak) power (to weight) is the single most important fact in determining the performance across a broad range of street and track events. Peak torque is nearly meaningless as one can double and engines peak torque without adding a shred of performance. The same simply can not be said about peak power. Now if as a result of torque changes an engine produces more power earlier in its rpm range that additional power will provide additional performance.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

As I'm not into drag racing and also believe that the M cars where not designed with drag racing in mind, 0-100(km/h) and 1/4mile times isn't that important to me. Neither is if it has 422, 425, 445 or 460hp... (in some sense it do, but not besides for bragging rights).

To me, the important information will be;

Is it fun to drive, is it faster on a track (the 'Ring), does it make me smile to drive it on a twisty road, does it sound good and will it leave the MB's and Audi's behind me on the twisties.

If it ticks those boxes, it doesn't matter (to me) whether some fat MB might out accelerate it in a straight line. Let them enjoy going fast straight ahead while we enjoy the M3/M4 when the roads have corners.

If it does the above, then I don't care if it only had 300hp... Low weight and an agile engine is what I hope we will get

Although I agree with your sentiment there still is something great about a car that does 0-60 and 60-130 and the 1/4 mi just as well as it handles a competitive or non competitive road course.

The inconsistency in your statement is that if you truly want to leave a "competitor" in a competitive car behind in the twisties, and the cars truly are near competitors, then we all know it is then only about which driver is willing to break the law in a bigger way...

Just like with the current E92 M3 vs. C63 AMG wether you are comparing them on the track or drag strip it is generally a drivers race. Perhaps 60-130 is an exception to this.

[OverDrive]

Originally Posted by Carlos_Danger

The title of this post literally states MORE THAN 425HP,
how can anyone read that and come up with "i bet itll have 425hp"

It's because 99% of the people here mix up PS and HP. PS is in SI units and 1 PS is slightly higher than a HP. BMW always states their numbers in PS and kW at launch since they launch in Europe. The F10 M5 has 560 PS (552 HP) and not 560 HP, but people say 560 HP anyways. I'm guessing they said 430 PS and thus Jason said "at least 425" to keep us guessing while not revealing the true number.

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by PhillyNate

...and faster around the Nurburgring than both the E92 M3 GTS and E46 M3 CSL. This car has me vacillating more than my marriage. Lol

[TN_3]

Originally Posted by OverDrive

It's because 99% of the people here mix up PS and HP. PS is in SI units and 1 PS is slightly higher than a HP. BMW always states their numbers in PS and kW at launch since they launch in Europe. The F10 M5 has 560 PS (552 HP) and not 560 HP, but people say 560 HP anyways. I'm guessing they said 430 PS and thus Jason said "at least 425" to keep us guessing while not revealing the true number.

To be fair, he did say more than 425 "hp". I would assume he wouldn't mislead us by purposefully mixing up PS and HP.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by OverDrive

It's because 99% of the people here mix up PS and HP. PS is in SI units and 1 PS is slightly higher than a HP. BMW always states their numbers in PS and kW at launch since they launch in Europe. The F10 M5 has 560 PS (552 HP) and not 560 HP, but people say 560 HP anyways. I'm guessing they said 430 PS and thus Jason said "at least 425" to keep us guessing while not revealing the true number.

I think I can tell the difference between HP and PS

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by Carlos_Danger

Also to summarize on todays findings this awesome ride is lighter than the e9x M3,
has more HP and more Torque, yet it has 2 cylinder less in a way more efficient engine,
it has a wider bolder stance with a gorgeous double bubble carbon fiber roof,
it has the lowest center of gravity of any M car ever
AND finally the M3/M4 looks like a modern car, unlike the late 90s styled e9x M3, im sold

Well said