BMW F30 F80 M3 / F32 M3 Spied for First Time!

[Echo M3]

Originally Posted by sensi09

Some members post quite high mpg IMO, but I do think a 20-21mpg is quite attainable from a steady 70-80 mph with some bursts to redline included.

+1. I can average 20-22 mpg on long highway cruises following the flow of traffic. Sometimes even higher. Having a 7th gear probably helps with that.

[nemex12]

why are they testing the sedan before the coupe? I know coupes will stop production early so they should test the m3 coupe first right?

[radiantm3]

It's amazing how many of you keep commenting on the looks of the car. Are you really that clueless?

[eMvy]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

It's amazing how many of you keep commenting on the looks of the car. Are you really that clueless?

+1

[bmwfan1995]

Originally Posted by southlight

Exciting moment folks! We bring you the very first spyshots of the next generation M3. These photos show an F30 3-series sedan with several trademark M3 features such as quad-exhaust, flared fenders and drilled brake discs.

We believe the next M3 will be powered by a triple-turbocharged inline-6 engine with an output of around 450hp. It would be based on the N54/55 engine and use not only two traditional turbochargers but also a third electric turbocharger.

Scott26 claims that these photos are no indication of an M3 sedan making it to production. Rather, BMW had only an F30 prototype to use for testing the M3 parts and components. Don't count the F30 M3 sedan out yet however, as it's been alluded to that it may still be in the plans -- despite the rather slow sales of the E90 M3 sedan.

Expect the new M3 to hit the market sometime in 2014. As we reported earlier, the E90 M3 sedan will end production this October while the E92/3 M3 coupe and convertible will be produced through June 2012 at least.


* Click on images for larger resolution versions















Follow our full F3x 3-series coverage here: http://www.bimmerpost.com/3-series/f30/

Oh snap people are going to start jizzing!

[BROCHOP]

Exciting to see the F30/F32 being tested already, but truth is, it is still SO FAR away from coming out and seeing the final production model, that any comments being made about this car already are simply foolish. Im sure it's going to be a blast..Everyone (myself included) ripped apart the pre-production F10 M5...and now, from the photos alone, it seems like everyone has jumped on the bandwagon. BMW knows what they are doing.. lets just let them do their job and we'll just keep buying their product and spend countless hours on here.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by erhanh

Trying to get 30mpg in a car that is designed to be driven hard is kinda off... If you're going to baby it to get 30mpg, why are you buying an M3?

Wouldn't it be nice if the current M3 got 30 mpg if you babied it? On track, seven mpg is fine, but the miserable mileage is THE weak point of the current offering. Hell, owners of the the 3900 pound Camaro SS tell me they routinely get high twenties to 30 mpg running 75 mph or better out on the road.

Originally Posted by erhanh

BTW, even if you are not WOT, still the same thing. if you need 150hp to accelerate, you will burn same amount of fuel whether NA or turbo or sc...

I agree, mostly.

Just a nit, and it's not actually written in stone, but manufacturers typically run their turbo/supercharged offerings a bit richer than their normally aspirated models at wide open throttle in order to reduce peak combustion temps and ward off potential pinging or detonation. Result: More fuel used for a given power level at WOT.

In addition, supercharged cars require you to "feed the blower" as drag racers say, because the power required to run the supercharger is real power made by the engine that never makes it to the flywheel. Those ponies are just as hungry as the ones that make it to the wheels.

[mkoesel]

Who still believes a V6 is coming?

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by blipit

It is what happens when the marketing department and bean counters get a hold of things.

Scott said the coupe/cabrio is moving "upscale".

That is pure marketing. It is just getting a 4-series badge, nothing is getting moved up scale.

BMW is definitely not the first car company to do this, this has been going on for decades.

They watched what Audi did with the A5 and they are copying

Upscale=we can charge more because the number is higher
It reminds me of when AMD was advertising their CPUs as 3200mhz + when in reality the CPU was running at like 2.66ghz

[persian54]

Originally Posted by Staszek

Of course, thats not the point. The point is if I flog it now you get 12mpg, if I flog with more fuel efficient engine I could get 18-20. I would rather have 18-20 and 30 on the highway (which the M is no where near now).

Actually I can get about 27MPG on my M3

I generally drive about 55mph coming back from the track and that's where the MPH is give or take

Now, if I do 70, it's down to like 17 lol

[Oliver1]

Originally Posted by kmarei

Upscale=we can charge more because the number is higher

-1

They have always charged more for the coupes which was kind of a rip off because they have two less doors and fewer parts making it cheaper to build. Now they can offer additional features on the 4 series not available on the 3 series which will give justification for the increased price.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by Oliver1

-1

They have always charged more for the coupes which was kind of a rip off because they have two less doors and fewer parts making it cheaper to build. Now they can offer additional features on the 4 series not available on the 3 series which will give justification for the increased price.

$10 says they difference between the e90 and a similar e92 will increase with the new body shape and the 3>3&4 split

[phrozen06]

Originally Posted by stingray23

Whats the point, there's no V8. They can keep their 6 cylinder.

[RR80]

The most interesting thing in the pics is the wheels!

[formula M]

Originally Posted by erhanh

Trying to get 30mpg in a car that is designed to be driven hard is kinda off... If you're going to baby it to get 30mpg, why are you buying an M3?

BTW, even if you are not WOT, still the same thing. if you need 150hp to accelerate, you will burn same amount of fuel whether NA or turbo or sc...

M cars are about effeciency...

That is why people pay a premium for them. Any car manufacturer can make horsepower.

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Wouldn't it be nice if the current M3 got 30 mpg if you babied it? On track, seven mpg is fine, but the miserable mileage is THE weak point of the current offering. Hell, owners of the the 3900 pound Camaro SS tell me they routinely get high twenties to 30 mpg running 75 mph or better out on the road.

I totally agree that current M3 is pretty weak in terms of mileage.. But would I trade the high revving V8 for a fuel efficient turbo engine? No, not really. I know, in various threads you have mentioned (and proved) that high revving engine is not all that critical. Ford/Corvette engines were your examples. Lower redline, but similar power at better economy.. But still, there is something special about high revving engines...

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I agree, mostly.

Just a nit, and it's not actually written in stone, but manufacturers typically run their turbo/supercharged offerings a bit richer than their normally aspirated models at wide open throttle in order to reduce peak combustion temps and ward off potential pinging or detonation. Result: More fuel used for a given power level at WOT.

In addition, supercharged cars require you to "feed the blower" as drag racers say, because the power required to run the supercharger is real power made by the engine that never makes it to the flywheel. Those ponies are just as hungry as the ones that make it to the wheels.

Thanks for the great info. I forgot about the supercharger taking power from the engine hence reducing mileage.

Sort of off topic, but why running rich reduces combustion temperatures?

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by formula M

M cars are about effeciency...

That is why people pay a premium for them. Any car manufacturer can make horsepower.

M cars are not about efficiency. Maybe I'm wrong, but trying to have high revving engines (hence relatively low torque) forces to have aggressive gearing which results poor economy. Great pleasure, sounds amazing, but not efficient...

[Wibi.M]

nice brakes.. not feeling the mirror.

[Fester]

I'd definitely opt for 4 dr

[Lazarini]

Originally Posted by pman10

You do realize that ANY engine will give you terrible mileage if you're driving aggressively, right?

so true

L

[han405]

Originally Posted by erhanh

M cars are not about efficiency. Maybe I'm wrong, but trying to have high revving engines (hence relatively low torque) forces to have aggressive gearing which results poor economy. Great pleasure, sounds amazing, but not efficient...

There are other types of efficiency, not just fuel consumption/mileage economy efficiency.
i.e., HP/liter of displacement.

Also, fuel consumption/mileage economy efficiency has to be taken into context. I don't think S54 / S65 engines' fuel consumption are all that bad, considering they do produce 340 and 420 hp each.

[Uli_HH]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Who still believes a V6 is coming?

BMWs M-GmbH has developed both engine concepts ... an 3.3ltr.V6 based on the S63 and an 3.2ltr.I6 based on the N55 ... the only advantage of the inline-6 (vs the V6) was that it was the cheapest alternative and because of this it was chosen! And for the public they would tell us it was because of tradition.
But tradition of BMW M was innovative engines ... and really innovative was for me only the V6 because it was really compact with great packaging advantages for better handling.

And forgot that BMW allows the M-GmbH to develop an complete new engine ... its simply too costly!

Greets Uli-HH