View Single Post
      05-22-2011, 05:50 PM   #192
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Good post. Some comments

Originally Posted by Wall$treet View Post
1.I find it amusing how everyone disgusted by the sounds of TT M3 is all about an S65TT. If you are going to go TT, the s65 loses its benefits as a great engine. Nothing other than a good memory attached to to turbos would this thing offer. I would rather see them build an engine dedicated and formulated for turbos from the beginning. You guys are really getting caught up in nostalgia by wishing a S65TT-which by the way has no chance of happening anyway. One main reason is bmw is going to be unable to reverse flow turbo in the middle of the V and that is the major way they have addressed lag. It just cant happen in this engine.
There are other ways to address lag such as variable vanes geometry. Not that I think that means a S65 TT is at all a possibility. It is not.

Originally Posted by Wall$treet View Post
2.The car will NOT be lighter. No bmw EVER has ever gone lighter in the subsequent generation. It just does not happen unfortunately.
Although history is on your side here BMW is getting more serious as most manufacturers are about weight. I believe at some point the trend may be reversed. If not reversed then at least eventually the M2 will exceed the power to weight ratio of the current M3. I'm pretty sure there are new Audi models lighter than the prior equivalent models. It can be done. BMW just is not quite getting there.

Originally Posted by Wall$treet View Post
3.Counter to knowing what is going to happen, I do wonder why ferrari can build a more efficient, higher revving 9k rpms V8 and sell it when their entire fleet is a bunch of inefficient engined cars, and bmw cannot do this for just one of their minority sales cars-the m3. They profit much more than ferrari as they sell 100 times more m3's than the ferrari 458 so money is plentiful.
I have posted extensively on this topic. There are two reasons and the debate really is which is more important.

1. Manufacturing costs. BMW is pushing hard to bring them down. Common engines and other component is a very good way to do this.
2. Promotion of their green image and working toward the day when fines will be much more significant.

In short there is no intrinsic reason BMW can't build an NA high revving engine just as good as the F430 and stuff it in the next M3. But as we all know they won't.

Originally Posted by Wall$treet View Post
4.You guys have to realize you cannot have anything longer than a 3.2l I6 (and that is pushing it.) The flex in a camshaft (until they make camless engines) is way to great in a engine, let alone a high performance aluminum engine to deal with this. You would have to spin it under 6500 to go any larger than 3.2. The R and D into making this also would be too much for too little utility
The stroke can be used to increase displacement. You can also make a longer engine without stroke, just not using exsting bore spacing and block length.

Originally Posted by Wall$treet View Post
So in the end the m3 will be 3900 pounds, 475hp, TTV6 with 0-60 in 4s, quarter in 12 flat. 285's rear 265 front 19's.

And there it is folks
I'd guess lower, in weight, probably significantly. The 550i does not bode well for the M5s weight but there is rumors of a massive weight savings effort. The M5 and the new base 3er are going to be the most important bellweathers for the new M3s weight. I also think your numbers a bit too conservative. Perhaps mine are too generous. I have, however, done some significant work in coming up with them.

Cheers again, good post.
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |