BMW M4 - Sport Auto test ride and interview with Albert Biermann

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The Sport Auto article doesn't say anything about a lower first gear. It merely says the DCT will be from the M5/M6, giving a larger gear spacing. The SA article on the other thread verifies that the gear ratios will be retained from the M5/M6, but with a lower final drive ratio.

I was simply combining the info (rumours ) from the various articles which would yield to a first gear overall ratio that is way too short for the S55 IMO.

Originally Posted by Boss330

6MT is from the 1M, modified and with reduced weight (12kg leaner than the E9x MT).

I am eager to find out the offical ratios of the 6MT, DCT and FDs. I am really on the fence as to which transmission I will pick for my M4 .

Originally Posted by Boss330

Good fuel economy means having a optimum gear for more than just highway speeds. At least where I live with large variations in altitude and the majority of roads being narrow two lane roads with lots of curvature...

I have to dissagree here.

In the E9X, you can comfortably cruise at 60km/h (37mph) in 7th; 7th is more than just for highway speeds. In the lower D modes, the transmission shifts quite quickly up to 7th. With the higher low end torque of the S55, it should be able to easily pull a taller gear at similar speeds. The ratio of the top gear is really what defines how frugal on fuel a car will be (when driven economically that is )

[ZGM3]

Originally Posted by jbockrd

Do they just paint over the CF on the trunk?

If it wasn't painted it would look Frankenstienish since it is a "carbon fiber reinforced plastic structure" not beautifully laid out carbon fiber layers.

I am still not sure why the sedan doesn't get a "carbon" trunk if the idea is all about weight savings ??

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by m3nari

This is the first that I heard about BMW using the same system as the GT3. It is my understanding that the software is much more important that the type of unit installed, so lets hope that BMW figures this out. Plus the GT3 benefits greatly from the rear wheel steering which the BMW won't have.

I certainly hope that the electric steering system in the new M3/4 will be great but I will have to hold my breath until there are some reviews from people that don't work for BMW, and I get to drive it myself.

It will all come down to the software and for some reason it doesn't seem that easy to reproduce the feel of the hydraulic assist.
Look at Porsche: the GT3 has the same mechanics as the 911 but the GT3 has much better steering feel and response (rear steering??). Many people that own the current 911 are hoping that there is a software update so that their car's steering numbness is removed and brings it closer to the GT3 but it hasn't happened yet.

It has been reported previously that the M3/M4 will use the same ZF system as Porsche, with possibly exactly the same hardware but different software.

http://www.bimmerfile.com/2012/06/19...ower-steering/

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I have to dissagree here.

In the E9X, you can comfortably cruise at 60km/h (37mph) in 7th; 7th is more than just for highway speeds. In the lower D modes, the transmission shifts quite quickly up to 7th. With the higher low end torque of the S55, it should be able to easily pull a taller gear at similar speeds. The ratio of the top gear is really what defines how frugal on fuel a car will be (when driven economically that is )

When you say cruise at 60km/h, do you mean on a level road or even going uphill?

The European emissions and fuel consumption cycles consist of Urban, Extra Urban and Combined driving cycles. Pretty sure you want a gear spacing that allows for good fuel and emission numbers for the Urban cycle as well as highway (Extra Urban)...

Only 210s of a total 1180s (roughly 18%) are spent at speeds over 60km/h in the Euro fuel consumption and emissions cycles.

Combined emission and fuel consumption values are generally the ones used for taxation purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle

Urban Cycle:
When the engine starts, the car pauses for 11 s - if equipped with a manual gearbox, 6 s in neutral (with clutch engaged) and 5 s in the 1st gear (with clutch disengaged) - then slowly accelerates to 15 km/h in 4 s, cruises at constant speed for 8 s, brakes to a full stop in 5 s (manual: last 3 s with clutch disengaged), then stops for 21 s (manual: 16 s in neutral, then 5 s in the 1st gear).

At 49 s, the car slowly accelerates to 32 km/h in 12 s (manual: 5 s in 1st gear, 2 s gear change, then 5 s in the 2nd gear), cruises for 24 s, slowly brakes to a full stop in 11 s (manual: last 3 s with clutch disengaged), then pauses for another 21 s (manual: 16 s in neutral, 5 s in the 1st gear).

At 117 s, the car slowly accelerates to 50 km/h in 26 s (manual: 5 s, 9 s and 8 s in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears, with additional 2 × 2 s for gear changes), cruises for 12 s, decelerates to 35 km/h in 8 s, cruises for another 13 s, brakes to a full stop in 12 s (manual: 2 s change to the 2nd gear, 7 s in the 2nd gear, last 3 s with clutch disengaged), then pauses for 7 s (manual: in neutral with clutch engaged).

The cycle ends on 195 s after a theoretical distance of 1017 meters, then it repeats four consecutive times. Total duration is 780 s (13 minutes) over a theoretical distance of 4067 meters, with an average speed of 18.77 km/h.



Extra Urban cycle:
After a 20 s stop - if equipped with manual gearbox, in the 1st gear with clutch disengaged - the car slowly accelerates to 70 km/h in 41 s (manual: 5 s, 9 s, 8 s and 13 s in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th gears, with additional 3 × 2 s for gear changes), cruises for 50 s (manual: in the 5th gear [sic]), decelerates to 50 km/h in 8 s (manual: 4 s in the 5th and 4 s in the 4th gear [sic]) and cruises for 69 s, then slowly accelerates to 70 km/h in 13 s .

At 201 s, the car cruises at 70 km/h for 50 s (manual: in the 5th gear), then slowly accelerates to 100 km/h in 35 s and cruises for 30 s (manual: in the 5th or 6th gear).

Finally, at 316 s the car slowly accelerates to 120 km/h in 20 s, cruises for 10 s, then slowly brakes to a full stop in 34 s (manual: in the 5th or 6th gear, lat 10 s with clutch disengaged), and idles for another 20 s (manual: in neutral).

Total duration is 400 s (6 minutes 40 s econds) and theoretical distance is 6956 meters, with an average speed of 62.6 km/h.

[solstice]

I think everyone expects he F8X to be inferior to the current M3 in these areas:
- Steering feel
- Throttle response
- Engine note ( Induction noise )
- Exhaust note
- Power linearity and predictability

It's expected to be superior in these areas:
- Power
- Weight
- Speed
- Ride
- Low end grunt
- Overall refinement
- Space
- Tech
- mpg

Lower weight is really the thing I'm really excited about and how it translates into improved agility and nimbleness. However there are some really core M characteristics on the areas likely to see some worsening. Steering feel being the most critical followed by throttle response. Can't wait to drive the new car, I'm pretty positive that it will surprise on the upside since my expectations are hopefully on a realistic but low level.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

I think everyone expects he F8X to be inferior to the current M3 in these areas:
- Steering feel
- Throttle response
- Engine note ( Induction noise )
- Exhaust note
- Power linearity and predictability

It's expected to be superior in these areas:
- Power
- Weight
- Speed
- Ride
- Low end grunt
- Overall refinement
- Space
- Tech
- mpg

Lower weight is really the thing I'm really excited about and how it translates into improved agility and nimbleness. However there are some really core M characteristics on the areas likely to see some worsening. Steering feel being the most critical followed by throttle response. Can't wait to drive the new car, I'm pretty positive that it will surprise on the upside since my expectations are hopefully on a realistic but low level.

All the "negatives" you pinpointed are probably genuine factors that BMW has to (over)deliver on. All of those are issues historically related to Turbo engines or EPS.

My view is that we either get a car that is just adequate on these areas, i.e not awful but not brilliant either. Or we can hope that BMW has created something genius here

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by m3nari

If it wasn't painted it would look Frankenstienish since it is a "carbon fiber reinforced plastic structure" not beautifully laid out carbon fiber layers.

The E92 M3 roof is also technically CFRP, so you can't assume it's not good looking, but likely the same amount of care is not required if its painted.

[solstice]

My personal observation is that the change in steering feel in the F-series cars goes deeper than just the power assist type. It seems to be a large change in the mechanics as maybe geometry,materials, type of fittings etc. from the earlier generation cars. I don't know how to otherwise explain the huge difference in steering feel between for example an X-drive F10 and an X-drive E60. Both has HPS. Or why an HPS F10 feels very similar to an EPS F10. The same is true for the 6s, the HPS is not noticeably better than the EPS and both are significantly number than any E60. I actually think this can be a positive for the F80 if BMW has been working on tuning the mechanics and geometry of the rack as well as the EP assist.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by m3nari

If it wasn't painted it would look Frankenstienish since it is a "carbon fiber reinforced plastic structure" not beautifully laid out carbon fiber layers.

I am still not sure why the sedan doesn't get a "carbon" trunk if the idea is all about weight savings ??

CFRP reads: "Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer". CFRP is what they use in F1 and other exotic high end performance cars

List of permitted construction materials in F1:

http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/ru.../8697/fia.html

CFRP roof on the M4 concept:

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

My personal observation is that the change in steering feel in the F-series cars goes deeper than just the power assist type. It seems to be a large change in the mechanics as maybe geometry,materials, type of fittings etc. from the earlier generation cars. I don't know how to otherwise explain the huge difference in steering feel between for example an X-drive F10 and an X-drive E60. Both has HPS. Or why an HPS F10 feels very similar to an EPS F10. The same is true for the 6s, the HPS is not noticeably better than the EPS and both are significantly number than any E60. I actually think this can be a positive for the F80 if BMW has been working on tuning the mechanics and geometry of the rack as well as the EP assist.

My EPS became better after a software update, and I believe that there have been posts on how later F10's and LCI cars have a better steering feel than early cars.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Boss330

My EPS became better after a software update, and I believe that there have been posts on how later F10's and LCI cars have a better steering feel than early cars.

The latest cars I drove where 2014s at a full day track event. The steering is better than my 2011 F10 was but neither the HPS or EPS cars including the M cars has any resemblance to the earlier generations. They are smooth and work quite well on the track but they are also very numb and artificial compared to earlier generations. It's IMO mainly luxury feel instead of sporty communicative feel. My F10 had irregularities in boost which seemed much improved in the 2014s.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by Boss330

CFRP reads: "Carbon Fibre Reinforced Polymer" (not plastic)

Well, it's "plastic" per BMW if you read the original E92 page I provided. Plastics are polymers, so it's not a great distinction. Anyhow, a good material.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

The latest cars I drove where 2014s at a ful lday track event. The steering is better than my 2011 F10 was but neither the HPS or EPS cars including the M cars has any resemblance to the earlier generations. They are smooth and work quite well on the track but they are also very numb and artificial compared to earlier generations. It's IMO mainly luxury feel instead of sporty communicative feel.

Yes, it seems BMW has gone more towards the luxury feel in the F10. I agree that my previous E60 had a more communicative steering.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Well, it's "plastic" per BMW if you read the original E92 page I provided. Plastics are polymers, so it's not a great distinction. Anyhow, a good material.

Plastics are polymers, yes

Hence why I also just edited that part out of my previous post, seconds before you posted the above

[ZGM3]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

The E92 M3 roof is also technically CFRP, so you can't assume it's not good looking, but likely the same amount of care is not required if its painted.

You are correct, The roof seems like a very easy piece to make in carbon fiber, where as the trunk has many different angles, grooves and surfaces.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by m3nari

You are correct, The roof seems like a very easy piece to make in carbon fiber, where as the trunk has many different angles, grooves and surfaces.

Modern CFRP mass production techniques don't have any problems with structures like the trunk I would believe? Probably a easy task compared with the extensive use of CFRP in the i3.

http://www.assemblymag.com/articles/...ass-production

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...bon-fiber-cars

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/201...getting-there/

[MikeJ87]

Originally Posted by Thurman Murch

I have both a S65 in my M3 MDCT and a N55 in my daily driver '14 335i msport dhp mppk mpe + manual.

At first I was initially disappointed with the N55 but I mean it had like 5 miles on it. Now that it is starting to break in this car is really awesome. With the '14 they fixed the steering. The manual transmission the one from the 1M is awesome (dry sump / carbon 1-2 synchros). I have drifted the 335i with ease and the EPS steering allows more freedom in this manuever.

I'll admit that at first I would recommend someone to get the xdrive on the F3x to get the hydraulic steering but the '14 model with dhp + vss is not true hydraulic but close enough now to make me like it enough.

At first I also thought they went cheaper materials and cost savings on a lot of the F3x chassis. But when you get acquainted with it you can tell the engineers tried to remove a lot of weight where they could. I know they use non-gobain windows (like pilkington) on lower end models and stamped steel but whatever.

I have plenty of power in the mid range of the N55 that I don't need to go that high, but taking the oversquare architecture into account I have a feeling this S55 will just pull and pull harder. Too bad it's not built in the M engine factory with bespoke mechanisms - if this frees room for a lihium battery and more CF well shows us the biz.

I have no doubts now that this next M version will be really awesome and will be even better than the outgoing E9x in some manners. I would still keep the S65 and have both if you can or want to afford it.

I think for some the S65 E9x M car will be the ideal car... but I think it would be cool to get the base F8x model with manual and no lux/tech gadgets.

An Xdrive model F32 or F30 has Hydraulic Steering?

[solstice]

Originally Posted by MikeJ87

An Xdrive model F32 or F30 has Hydraulic Steering?

No.

[Thurman Murch]

sorry I meant X1 xdrive... my friend she was looking at buying an X1 35 msport and I thought it had hydraulic power steering...

Yeah the F3x xdrive has EPS

[Thurman Murch]

Oh and I hate the EPS on the F10 5 series such a wobbly boat hope they fixed that

I still think good things for the F8x... I think it will surprise many

And don't worry about the new c series from MB they are ok family cars

Don't let pictures and hearsay sway your roots

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

When you say cruise at 60km/h, do you mean on a level road or even going uphill?

The European emissions and fuel consumption cycles consist of Urban, Extra Urban and Combined driving cycles. Pretty sure you want a gear spacing that allows for good fuel and emission numbers for the Urban cycle as well as highway (Extra Urban)...

Only 210s of a total 1180s (roughly 18%) are spent at speeds over 60km/h in the Euro fuel consumption and emissions cycles.

Combined emission and fuel consumption values are generally the ones used for taxation purposes.

If I want to putput around and hypermile, an M3/M4 is not the car I would get. An M3/4 should be optimized for performance while still delivering decent fuel economy. The lower gears for performance with a top gear for economy would do the trick. IMO, an M3/4 should not be optimized for the very complex fuel economy test quoted above.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

If I want to putput around and hypermile, an M3/M4 is not the car I would get. An M3/4 should be optimized for performance while still delivering decent fuel economy. The lower gears for performance with a top gear for economy would do the trick. IMO, an M3/4 should not be optimized for the very complex fuel economy test quoted above.

Truth is today to meet mandated standards that are getting tougher every year no model can skate free unless it's an extremely low volume one. US is going 36.6 by 2017 and 54.5 by 2025 fleet average. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/bu...ards.html?_r=0. The landscape is changing. You complain about exhaust note of a turbo I-6 compared to a V8? Wait until we're comparing the pitch of various electric motors (if lucky with synthetic flat plane V8 sound track).