S55: back to tradition or even further from it?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by BMW M3 CRT

Ah ... oh no, I think you will fool us ... the S65 an muscle car V8 !?!?!?

And an turbo inline 6 an welcome back to the roots "of the M-GmbH" sorry, but that can come only from an .35i owner, with simple little idea of the history and spirit of the M-GmbH.

Your comprehension is impaired, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Sapper_M3

I don't think the OP ever mentioned "fully bespoke motors" or "engines not derived from production counterparts," so putting those words into his mouth isn't exactly fair to him. On the other hand, in fairness to you, he didn't exactly specify the "tradition" to which he was referring.

I never said he did. I merely introduced a few of the most commonly (..and incorrectly) mentioned attributes of M.

Originally Posted by Sapper_M3

Simply put though, the tradition for M3 engines--over four generations of the vehicle and nearly 30 years--has always been high revving, naturally aspirated. All the old ///M advertising (80s and 90s; maybe even into the 2000s, although I can't pick out a particular ad in my mind) even used to tout this as the M3's defining characteristic.


With that said, the new M3 engine is still relatively high revving (although some may not think so because we've been spoiled by 8400 RPMs with the S65) and the "naturally aspirated" focus was always about throttle response rather than some outright hatred of forced induction. If the new engine can provide good throttle response with little turbo lag and remain heat soak free over normal lapping, I think we'll still have a winner. We'll just have to wait and see.

Agreed!

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Sapper_M3

I don't think the OP ever mentioned "fully bespoke motors" or "engines not derived from production counterparts," so putting those words into his mouth isn't exactly fair to him. On the other hand, in fairness to you, he didn't exactly specify the "tradition" to which he was referring.

Simply put though, the tradition for M3 engines--over four generations of the vehicle and nearly 30 years--has always been high revving, naturally aspirated. All the old ///M advertising (80s and 90s; maybe even into the 2000s, although I can't pick out a particular ad in my mind) even used to tout this as the M3's defining characteristic.

With that said, the new M3 engine is still relatively high revving (although some may not think so because we've been spoiled by 8400 RPMs with the S65) and the "naturally aspirated" focus was always about throttle response rather than some outright hatred of forced induction. If the new engine can provide good throttle response with little turbo lag and remain heat soak free over normal lapping, I think we'll still have a winner. We'll just have to wait and see.

+1

I remember those billboards back in the 80s saying something like "BMW M, turbo power without the lag". And as yours it is my opinion that M3 engines has from the start been about delivering excellent and best in class response, linear predictable power to make them scalpels rather than battle axes. We've had 4,6 and 8 cylinders but those characteristics has stayed constant. On paper it certainly looks like the S55 might deviate from all of those characteristics but if that's noticeable when driving the car remains to be seen. To answer the question though, all in all I personally think the S55 is the biggest deviation from history since I put more weight on character than other aspects. Is that bad? Not neccesarily, we'll have to drive it to know.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by solstice

+1

I remember those billboards back in the 80s saying something like "BMW M, turbo power without the lag". And as yours it is my opinion that M3 engines has from the start been about delivering excellent and best in class response, linear predictable power to make them scalpels rather than battle axes. We've had 4,6 and 8 cylinders but those characteristics has stayed constant. On paper it certainly looks like the S55 might deviate from all of those characteristics but if that's noticeable when driving the car remains to be seen. To answer the question though, all in all I personally think the S55 is the biggest deviation from history since I put more weight on character than other aspects. Is that bad? Not neccesarily, we'll have to drive it to know.

But I have to ask (...and will continue to ask until I completely understand the genesis for such comments)....


.....How can you possibly know about the 'character' of the engine when you haven't even driven the car yet? The fact that it's turbocharged isn't enough - in, and of itself - to make such claims. Your final point is a direct contradiction to what you stated in the sentence that preceded it. To me, making statements about character and feel when you (..generally speaking, not you specifically) have zero experience with the automotive product is akin to saying, "That tastes gross!", yet you've never even sampled the food.

[AlexMSFT]

Things are always changing in the real world. As much as I hate the direction things are changing towards (as evidenced by the fact that I own an E63 M6 with an environment killing 5.0L V10. I love waving at Priuses as I pass by ), environmental friendliness and general tree hugging is where everything is heading and that sadly includes the automobile industry (more so than any other industry).

The bright side of it is that this offers the likes of BMW M and others a challenge: Build an engine/car/etc. that fits within the cost-cutting, environmental targets and yet get as much performance as possible out of it (in this case exceeding the previous model). And they seem to be delivering.

My point is that a problem without constraints isn't very interesting and that innovation comes out of wrestling a problem with challenging constraints.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

But I have to ask (...and will continue to ask until I completely understand the genesis for such comments)....


.....How can you possibly know about the 'character' of the engine when you haven't even driven the car yet? The fact that it's turbocharged isn't enough - in, and of itself - to make such claims. Your final point is a direct contradiction to what you stated in the sentence that preceded it. To me, making statements about character and feel when you (..generally speaking, not you specifically) have zero experience with the automotive product is akin to saying, "That tastes gross!", yet you've never even sampled the food.

No wrong, turbo engines are not linear in power delivery by definition since they rely on boost which is not constant across the rpm range. This makes them less predictable. Turbo lag is also a fact and it's evident that it does exist in the S55 otherwise there would be no need for an anti-lag feature, this make them less responsive. What remains to be seen is how much of this you can actually feel when driving it and if it's an "issue" or just a "feature". I don't want this to turn into a Boss330 like battle again on FI vs. NA, ther eis nothing you can say that will make me think different about this so this is my last comment in this thread.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by solstice

No wrong, turbo engines are not linear in power delivery by definition since they rely on boost which is not constant across the rpm range. This makes them less predictable. Turbo lag is also a fact and it's evident that it does exist in the S55 otherwise there would be no need for an anti-lag feature, this make them less responsive. What remains to be seen is how much of this you can actually feel when driving it and if it's an "issue" or just a "feature".

And every turbocharged engine I have ever driven feels different. In some, you can sense the lag, others not. Same with the way boost is applied in the power band. The fact is, no one knows what the characteristics of this engine will be. Boost can be applied linearly as well. It all depends on the programming. So how about we stop making blanket statements about how this engine will feel until we drive it, mkay?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by solstice

No wrong, turbo engines are not linear in power delivery by definition since they rely on boost which is not constant across the rpm range. This makes them less predictable. Turbo lag is also a fact and it's evident that it does exist in the S55 otherwise there would be no need for an anti-lag feature, this make them less responsive. What remains to be seen is how much of this you can actually feel when driving it and if it's an "issue" or just a "feature".

That adds to my point/argument. The anti-lag feature may very well 'cure' the ail that unwavering fans of naturally aspirated engines protest about. Again, you can't - or rather, you shouldn't - put the cart before the horse.

[mikelowery]

Originally Posted by AlexMSFT

Things are always changing in the real world. As much as I hate the direction things are changing towards (as evidenced by the fact that I own an E63 M6 with an environment killing 5.0L V10. I love waving at Priuses as I pass by ), environmental friendliness and general tree hugging is where everything is heading and that sadly includes the automobile industry (more so than any other industry).

The bright side of it is that this offers the likes of BMW M and others a challenge: Build an engine/car/etc. that fits within the cost-cutting, environmental targets and yet get as much performance as possible out of it (in this case exceeding the previous model). And they seem to be delivering.

My point is that a problem without constraints isn't very interesting and that innovation comes out of wrestling a problem with challenging constraints.

i agree.

although if you ask me BMW didn't do anything crazy with this new engine. all they did was make a small turbo engine that by nature will have good MPG.

a Porsche spider is innovating in that it uses a electric motor along side with a high performance motor. the motor is a high revving V8. that technology is ways away from affordable cars.

If you look at what GM did with the Z06. they made a 6.2L V8 that makes over 600HP and over 600TQ that WILL match the M4 MPG. with the use of different features in the engine. cylinder deactivate, Boost control etc..... although i personally dislike all that crap ( i want all motor at all times). i got to give credit to where its due.

GM and Porsche can still make these insane engines and still be fuel efficient is what is innovating.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

Going back to an I6 config. But turbos obviously.

Back to tradition (as ive seen commented plenty of times) or even further from it?

In my opinion, even the v8 was very similar to previous gen m3 engines.

Are we entering f10 m5 beast mode style engines from here on out?

Lets hear it.

The answer is: there is no simple answer.

~commence rant~

It is both and neither.

It is a return to tradition because it uses an I6 - generally regarded as the hallmark of BMW's cars in the last 20-30 years.

But, as you say, yeah, turbos. Haven't done that on an M3 before (but have on other cars, as noted by others).

But how far back do we go? Do we just look at the history of the M3 (ie: only the few models of that car that have come out?) Do we look at the history of BMW altogether? If so, it is a RADICAL departure from the original BMWs because it doesn't have the 4 cyl M10 motor or, even futher, the 4 cyl, 15 hp motor in the Dixi.

Tradition is nice to look at and remember, but it should never be more than a starting place for where you are going.

In other words, does it matter? It is a new model. Some things it borrows from the past, other things it does afresh. Sure, part of the reason for going turbo-six is because of emissions and fuel tax, etc. So what? That is the world this car is being sold in.

Part of the reason for going to the V8 was because consumers began expecting ever sillier amounts of HP from their cars, so massive displacement was needed. [recall that even a 996 GT3 (released in 1998, sold till 2005) only produce 330 bhp. By 2009 that was up to 435 bhp. In a car that weighs less than my desk] But that was the world into which the E90 was sold - the Tim "the toolman" Taylor ["more power, grunt grunt grunt"] mentality ruled. Which, by all accounts, resulted in a lovely engine for the E90.

But the world today is different from the world 7 years ago. Technology is better, expectations of drivers are different and use and need is different. Everyone wants power, but nobody needs another 100 hp on the existing car. Fuel economy matters now (sorry, it just does - for consumers but for regulators too. Can't sell cars and ignore it. I've owned 8 cylinder engines and am quite happy I won't have to gas one up in an F80). The options/flexibility of electronic steering can (we are told, jury's out) make a replacement for mechanical steering, so we see that in a new car. The pigging out on weight of the last 15 years is falling out of fashion, so BMW, like others, are going Richard Simmons and sweating to the oldies and putting on carbon fibre gear to shed pounds.

The KEY question I think is: does this car advance the model?

To answer that, I'm not gonna think or care about whether it part of the tradition of BMW (or the M unit in particular) or (as is often debated here) whether it is as big a leap in one way or another E90 was over E46 or the E46 was over the E30 or whatever. Those were different cars in different times. I'm not buying the best car 1986 or 2000 or 2007 has to offer; I'm buying a car in 2014.

SO: in this world, 2014, is this the right car? On paper, it seems so. Better numbers in every respect than any of its predecessors. A ton of power, lots of torque, less weight, better economy, etc, etc, etc. BUT Right now, that is all we can say.

Does it drive better? Well, as noted, nobody on this forum can say a damn thing about that. No sense in talking about the "characteristic" or "nature" of this engine or the electonic steering or the impact of the weight loss, etc, because none of us has tried it.

~end rant~

so, yeah, thats what i gots to say about that, eh?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by myzmak

The answer is: there is no simple answer.

~commence rant~

It is both and neither.

It is a return to tradition because it uses an I6 - generally regarded as the hallmark of BMW's cars in the last 20-30 years.

But, as you say, yeah, turbos. Haven't done that on an M3 before (but have on other cars, as noted by others).

But how far back do we go? Do we just look at the history of the M3 (ie: only the few models of that car that have come out?) Do we look at the history of BMW altogether? If so, it is a RADICAL departure from the original BMWs because it doesn't have the 4 cyl M10 motor or, even futher, the 4 cyl, 15 hp motor in the Dixi.

Tradition is nice to look at and remember, but it should never be more than a starting place for where you are going.

In other words, does it matter? It is a new model. Some things it borrows from the past, other things it does afresh. Sure, part of the reason for going turbo-six is because of emissions and fuel tax, etc. So what? That is the world this car is being sold in.

Part of the reason for going to the V8 was because consumers began expecting ever sillier amounts of HP from their cars, so massive displacement was needed. [recall that even a 996 GT3 (released in 1998, sold till 2005) only produce 330 bhp. By 2009 that was up to 435 bhp. In a car that weighs less than my desk] But that was the world into which the E90 was sold - the Tim "the toolman" Taylor ["more power, grunt grunt grunt"] mentality ruled. Which, by all accounts, resulted in a lovely engine for the E90.

But the world today is different from the world 7 years ago. Technology is better, expectations of drivers are different and use and need is different. Everyone wants power, but nobody needs another 100 hp on the existing car. Fuel economy matters now (sorry, it just does - for consumers but for regulators too. Can't sell cars and ignore it. I've owned 8 cylinder engines and am quite happy I won't have to gas one up in an F80). The options/flexibility of electronic steering can (we are told, jury's out) make a replacement for mechanical steering, so we see that in a new car. The pigging out on weight of the last 15 years is falling out of fashion, so BMW, like others, are going Richard Simmons and sweating to the oldies and putting on carbon fibre gear to shed pounds.

The KEY question I think is: does this car advance the model?

To answer that, I'm not gonna think or care about whether it part of the tradition of BMW (or the M unit in particular) or (as is often debated here) whether it is as big a leap in one way or another E90 was over E46 or the E46 was over the E30 or whatever. Those were different cars in different times. I'm not buying the best car 1986 or 2000 or 2007 has to offer; I'm buying a car in 2014.

SO: in this world, 2014, is this the right car? On paper, it seems so. Better numbers in every respect than any of its predecessors. A ton of power, lots of torque, less weight, better economy, etc, etc, etc. BUT Right now, that is all we can say.

Does it drive better? Well, as noted, nobody on this forum can say a damn thing about that. No sense in talking about the "characteristic" or "nature" of this engine or the electonic steering or the impact of the weight loss, etc, because none of us has tried it.

~end rant~

so, yeah, thats what i gots to say about that, eh?

+3

You sir, have earned massive points in my book for clear, concise and objective posting. I think that I'm going to copy and paste this in every thread on the subject.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by IEDEI

if anything the E9X deviated the most with that muscle car V8. the return to an inline 6 is a welcome back to BMW roots. Don't ever think that turbos are not a part of BMW history......remember that the BMW 2002 Turbo was one of the first mass produced turbo'd cars in the world and arguably the prototype to all m cars.

How is a 4.0L double overhead cam high revving V8 producing over 100hp/l a "muscle car" engine?

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by myzmak

The answer is: there is no simple answer.

~commence rant~

It is both and neither.

It is a return to tradition because it uses an I6 - generally regarded as the hallmark of BMW's cars in the last 20-30 years.

But, as you say, yeah, turbos. Haven't done that on an M3 before (but have on other cars, as noted by others).

But how far back do we go? Do we just look at the history of the M3 (ie: only the few models of that car that have come out?) Do we look at the history of BMW altogether? If so, it is a RADICAL departure from the original BMWs because it doesn't have the 4 cyl M10 motor or, even futher, the 4 cyl, 15 hp motor in the Dixi.

Tradition is nice to look at and remember, but it should never be more than a starting place for where you are going.

In other words, does it matter? It is a new model. Some things it borrows from the past, other things it does afresh. Sure, part of the reason for going turbo-six is because of emissions and fuel tax, etc. So what? That is the world this car is being sold in.

Part of the reason for going to the V8 was because consumers began expecting ever sillier amounts of HP from their cars, so massive displacement was needed. [recall that even a 996 GT3 (released in 1998, sold till 2005) only produce 330 bhp. By 2009 that was up to 435 bhp. In a car that weighs less than my desk] But that was the world into which the E90 was sold - the Tim "the toolman" Taylor ["more power, grunt grunt grunt"] mentality ruled. Which, by all accounts, resulted in a lovely engine for the E90.

But the world today is different from the world 7 years ago. Technology is better, expectations of drivers are different and use and need is different. Everyone wants power, but nobody needs another 100 hp on the existing car. Fuel economy matters now (sorry, it just does - for consumers but for regulators too. Can't sell cars and ignore it. I've owned 8 cylinder engines and am quite happy I won't have to gas one up in an F80). The options/flexibility of electronic steering can (we are told, jury's out) make a replacement for mechanical steering, so we see that in a new car. The pigging out on weight of the last 15 years is falling out of fashion, so BMW, like others, are going Richard Simmons and sweating to the oldies and putting on carbon fibre gear to shed pounds.

The KEY question I think is: does this car advance the model?

To answer that, I'm not gonna think or care about whether it part of the tradition of BMW (or the M unit in particular) or (as is often debated here) whether it is as big a leap in one way or another E90 was over E46 or the E46 was over the E30 or whatever. Those were different cars in different times. I'm not buying the best car 1986 or 2000 or 2007 has to offer; I'm buying a car in 2014.

SO: in this world, 2014, is this the right car? On paper, it seems so. Better numbers in every respect than any of its predecessors. A ton of power, lots of torque, less weight, better economy, etc, etc, etc. BUT Right now, that is all we can say.

Does it drive better? Well, as noted, nobody on this forum can say a damn thing about that. No sense in talking about the "characteristic" or "nature" of this engine or the electonic steering or the impact of the weight loss, etc, because none of us has tried it.

~end rant~

so, yeah, thats what i gots to say about that, eh?

nice post which I totally agree with, but the gt3 info is wrong

the 996 gt3 in 2005 made 385hp and the 997 in 2007 made 415.

just sayin'

Some people are sentimental and emotional about the history (or perceived history) of the cars, and that matters a lot to them. To me, I don't get so hung up in that. I like good cars, bottom line.

Thanks for the post.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

How is a 4.0L double overhead cam high revving V8 producing over 100hp/l a "muscle car" engine?

You're taking his comment too literally. All that he meant was that, at the time, V8's were part of muscle car culture/DNA (..or at least that is/was the perception). The I6 was considered the more balanced motor for what BMW ///M was attempting to achieve. Going to a V8 in the ///M3 was a deviation from what BMW ///M was known for, and it was highly contested (..amongst forum members at the time).........


...just like BMW's choice to run the I6T is being highly contested (..amongst the forum).

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

+3

You sir, have earned massive points in my book for clear, concise and objective posting. I think that I'm going to copy and paste this in every thread on the subject.

well, i'm not sure you can call my full-page rant 'concise' but thanks.

obviously, i guess i have some 'issues' and needed to vent a bit. this thread seemed like the appropriate place.....

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

nice post which I totally agree with, but the gt3 info is wrong

the 996 gt3 in 2005 made 385hp and the 997 in 2007 made 415.

just sayin'

Some people are sentimental and emotional about the history (or perceived history) of the cars, and that matters a lot to them. To me, I don't get so hung up in that. I like good cars, bottom line.

Thanks for the post.

sorry, meant to say the original 996 was 360 bhp (later upgraded a bit). so, I was both wrong and unclear..... :facepalm:

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by myzmak

well, i'm not sure you can call my full-page rant 'concise' but thanks.

obviously, i guess i have some 'issues' and needed to vent a bit. this thread seemed like the appropriate place.....

It was as concise as it could be in order to cover all of the issues. LOL!

[pkimM3r]

this is great discussion although I feel like some ppl are taking my thread as I HATE THE NEW ENGINE and ranting

I'm just curious as to what ppl's opinions are since I've seen SO MANY threads with "its going back to bmw roots of and inline 6" or "turdbos for the win!" type comments.

It cannot be said that this engine is going to be crap....the figures speak for themselves. I really hope that the engineers have created something more powerful, more efficient, boosted, yet retained some of the characteristics of previous M3's. That would be awesome and I cannot wait to drive one.

I do have love towards the s65, but in no way am I attached to it and would say the old engine sucks because of it. All asians like new shiny things right?

[IEDEI]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

How is a 4.0L double overhead cam high revving V8 producing over 100hp/l a "muscle car" engine?

it sounds like a muscle car....doesn't sound very good to be honest. And YES i've driven a few E9X M3s...i felt the engine was very very lazy until you get to higher revs---besides if there is a V8 in an M3.....that means the car has become waaaaaaaaaaay too heavy.....which the E9X was...

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

All asians like new shiny things right?

I knew it! I knew it!

[Boss330]

Off topic, Porsche is rumoured to introduce a boxer 4 cyl turbo engine in future models...

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by IEDEI

it sounds like a muscle car....doesn't sound very good to be honest. And YES i've driven a few E9X M3s...i felt the engine was very very lazy until you get to higher revs---besides if there is a V8 in an M3.....that means the car has become waaaaaaaaaaay too heavy.....which the E9X was...

how much more wrong can you be??

the v8 was lighter than the i6...so the weight was EVERYWHERE ELSE.

drive the e46/e90 back to back and tell me that the engine is not very similar in note, delivery, response.

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

I knew it! I knew it!

so when you pull me over and I'm driving the old e90m around, my first comment will be "im on my way to get the NEW SHIT!!!"