Our Interview with BMW M3/M4 Project Manager and Product Manager at NYIAS 2014

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Carl L

I definitely agree that the proof is in the pudding with regards to the F8x fuel consumption.

However, your logic will remain flawed as it's based on a belief that "more power in a newer but very similar engine = more fuel used". Just about every car released in recent years disproves this. A prime example from BMW themselves would be the 3 liter liter twin turbo diesel which uses the same block but has gone from 35mpg to 45 mpg in Europe despite weight increasing by 300lbs and power going up by c.50 bhp and 50 lb/ft.

I *hope* BMW manage better MPG than what is being circulated as the current range of our E9xs is pathetic.

I get your point but disagree when we talk about this much power increase and likely no mpg gain by the transmission which often play a bigger role than the engine efficiency. The 7 speed DCT is good but I don't think it's one of BMWs most frugal transmissions. 130 hp and 100 TQ is not peanuts and when you use it fully the consumption will very likely exceed what the N54 gulped down at WOT. So, I see your logic as too limited to apply to this scenario just like mine is flawed if adding smaller power increments and improving the transmissions efficiency in terms of mpg. If you are cruising there could be improvements but this is an M3 and not a cruiser

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by Carl L

I definitely agree that the proof is in the pudding with regards to the F8x fuel consumption.

However, your logic will remain flawed as it's based on a belief that "more power in a newer but very similar engine = more fuel used". Just about every car released in recent years disproves this. A prime example from BMW themselves would be the 3 liter liter twin turbo diesel which uses the same block but has gone from 35mpg to 45 mpg in Europe despite weight increasing by 300lbs and power going up by c.50 bhp and 50 lb/ft. (sorry to be that guy )

I *hope* BMW manage better MPG than what is being circulated as the current range of our E9xs is pathetic.

The e9x m3 engine always surprised me for consumption. I have an e39 m5. It's engine has 25% more displacement, it was developed/launched in 1998 - 9 years prior to the S65 launch. It made about the same output with more torque.

And yet the s62 pretty much consistently beats the s65 for fuel economy in a heavier vehicle that also had a greater frontal area/aerodynamic penalty.

Now that doesn't account for gearing, but it always surprised me.

The S65 might be glorious to drive and sound wonderful. It may be a "bespoke" engine (whoever came up with that term ) . But fuel economy was definitely one of it's weakest points.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

The e9x m3 engine always surprised me for consumption. I have an e39 m5. It's engine has 25% more displacement, it was developed/launched in 1998 - 9 years prior to the S65 launch. It made about the same output with more torque.

And yet the s62 pretty much consistently beats the s65 for fuel economy in a heavier vehicle that also had a greater frontal area/aerodynamic penalty.

Now that doesn't account for gearing, but it always surprised me.

The S65 might be glorious to drive and sound wonderful. It may be a "bespoke" engine (whoever came up with that term ) . But fuel economy was definitely one of it's weakest points.

well, think about it this way

if your car doesn't have a "bespoke" engine, what else are you going to brag about to the others at cars and coffee?

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

The e9x m3 engine always surprised me for consumption. I have an e39 m5. It's engine has 25% more displacement, it was developed/launched in 1998 - 9 years prior to the S65 launch. It made about the same output with more torque.

And yet the s62 pretty much consistently beats the s65 for fuel economy in a heavier vehicle that also had a greater frontal area/aerodynamic penalty.

Now that doesn't account for gearing, but it always surprised me.

The S65 might be glorious to drive and sound wonderful. It may be a "bespoke" engine (whoever came up with that term ) . But fuel economy was definitely one of it's weakest points.

That gearing comment is key. If you baby it on the hwy w the dct, in theory the S65 should be better than the S62. However, if you wind it out to 8300... it will be terrible compared to 95% of other motors.

[biglare]

I have been denied different colors on the brake calipers from my BMW M Contact in Munich. That goes for both CCB and stock brake calipers. Maybe this will change a couple of years after the new M3/M4 have been released, but for now sadly this is not an option for us.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by biglare

I have been denied different colors on the brake calipers from my BMW M Contact in Munich. That goes for both CCB and stock brake calipers.

Yep, I was told the same.


Best regards,
south

[farbmw]

Originally Posted by southlight

Yep, I was told the same.


Best regards,
south

So it's only the two colors?

[biglare]

Originally Posted by farbmw

So it's only the two colors?

Yes

[pb12]

How hard would it be to repaint them and get the proper stencil for the logo?

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by pb12

How hard would it be to repaint them and get the proper stencil for the logo?

The stencil part is really easy. Vector versions of the ///M logo are all over the place. You can make the stencil yourself by printing the logo, then cutting it by hand, or you can have a vinyl sign shop cut it on a machine.

http://www.brandsoftheworld.com/logo/m-power