People who seem to be happy with the new F80 M3 / F82 M4 engine direction

[pkimM3r]

I dont really feel the low torque as much as it is claimed to be. When I need a sudden surge, I'll rev a little higher and drop it into gear for a quick mini launch whenever I need to - that's one advantage of an MT i guess.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by font9a

Exactly why I moved up from my N54 335i (tuned+) to a new S65 M3 ZCP DCT. I am completely in agreement with OPs thesis. I asked myself, "I love my 335i with close to 400HP and 400TQ, why would I want an M3?" Until I drove one, and it is undeniable how much better the M3's steering, transmission, and suspension are. Worlds apart. Leagues apart. "But what about this new engine, this high-revving, linear, low torque, high horsepower, lionized plant that everyone raves about? It's not that quick. It certainly doesn't *feel* as quick as my N54 did..."

But it is quick. Quicker. And with more finesse, excitement, and sheer speed that the 335i could ever muster, no matter how good a car she was. And now that the V8 growl sings to me every day, it's beautiful music. More violin-like, than drums 'n bass thuggery of the N54. Not as eager to kick my coccyx into the seatback and spin the rears at 1500rpm, but a scalpel around the bends, and surging crisp upshifts all the way up the speedo; never wheezy above 6000.

Nice post.

I've not spent much time in the 335i nor a nicely modified one, nonetheless, I can positively confirm and agree with your sentiments and word choices. I think you really hit the nail on the head. Of course we are all hoping that these essential elements that make an M3 an M3 will be mostly or even entirely present in the new car.

[Boss330]

Would be interesting if BMW adapts some of the turbo technology that will be seen in F1 next year



Of particular interest is the MGU-H (Motor Generator Unit - Heat) that is attached to the turbo:

TURBOCHARGER
A turbocharger uses an exhaust driven turbine to drive a compressor to increase the density of the intake air consumed by the engine and so make more power for a given displacement.

The residual heat energy contained in the exhaust gases after expansion in the cylinders of the engine is converted to mechanical shaft power by the exhaust turbine. The mechanical power from the turbine is used to drive the compressor, and also the MGU-H (see below).

As the turbocharger speed must vary to match the requirement of the engine, there may be a delay in torque response, often known as turbo-lag. One of the great challenges of the new Power Unit is to reduce this to near zero to match the instant torque delivery of the current V8 engines.

MGU-H
The MGU-H is connected to the turbocharger. Acting as a generator, it absorbs power from the turbine shaft to recover heat energy from the exhaust gases. The electrical energy can be either directed to the MGU-K or to the battery for storage for later use. The MGU-H is also used to control the speed of the turbocharger to match the air requirement of the engine (eg to slow it down in place of a wastegate or to accelerate it to compensate for turbo-lag.)

This is a brilliant piece of engineering, possibly a game changer of power delivery characteristics on a turbocharged engine

Source: http://www.renaultsport.com/Nouvelle...Energy-F1.html

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

No, no, no. Those F1 guys misunderstand turbo lag. See prior post from our resident turbo "expert" who claims everyone else uses the wrong definition. Also worth noting that F1 folks see the need for turbo lag reduction/elimination. Lot's of turbo apologists, or perhaps just those who love the turbo hit, deny an advantage in lack of turbo lag on a road coarse/race.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by PoweredBy///M

The M3/M4 won't be able to do this:

Or this:

Or this:

or This:

But it could be able to do this:

Definitely more high pitched and exotic sound (to my ears )

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Boss330

But it could be able to do this:

Definitely more high pitched and exotic sound (to my ears )

e92 can do that, too.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by PoweredBy///M

e92 can do that, too.

Ehh? Do what? Sound like a straight six at high revs?

My point was that a turbo'd 6 can sound pretty mean and with a higher pitch/scream than the V8 burble from the S65 engine (which also is a nice sound btw).

I was replying to a post where it was stated that the new M3/M4 couldn't "do this", which obviously is correct. It can't sound like a US V8, as it's a straight 6

I posted a video of a turbo'd 6 cyl M3 that, IMHO, sounds awesome and more "exotic" than the V8 (again, nothing wrong with the sound of the S65 - it's just that a 6 sounds good as well).

This might also be a cultural thing as Europeans aren't that used to hearing V8 burble in every second car. We have grown up with smaller engines with higher revs and a different sound characteristic. And the exotics with V8's have been flat plane crank engines, which also have a more high pitched sound.

I think that both engine types sound good, in their own different way. Turbocharging unfortunately muffles some of the engine noise. It's a trade off between power potential, response, fuel economy etc. Just as a NA engine can be exhilarating, so can a good Turbo engine be as well

[Tåst]

I guess that we can suppose that new M3 will be very lag free. I rumor that engine will push on low revs and not dead until limiter has reached. Is technology something similar what Renault engineered, that is question.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by swamp2

No, no, no. Those F1 guys misunderstand turbo lag. See prior post from our resident turbo "expert" who claims everyone else uses the wrong definition. Also worth noting that F1 folks see the need for turbo lag reduction/elimination. Lot's of turbo apologists, or perhaps just those who love the turbo hit, deny an advantage in lack of turbo lag on a road coarse/race.

No they know exactly what turbo lag is. What they are trying to achieve is a lower boost threshold, extending the operating range of the turbo without resorting to in-efficient twin or tri turbo systems. F1 is all about efficiency.

A turbo below 'boost threshold' and therefore not producing boost, cannot be labelled in any kind of 'turbo lag' situation, as it is physically outside of it's operating range.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

No they know exactly what turbo lag is. What they are trying to achieve is a lower boost threshold, extending the operating range of the turbo without resorting to in-efficient twin or tri turbo systems. F1 is all about efficiency.

A turbo below 'boost threshold' and therefore not producing boost, cannot be labelled in any kind of 'turbo lag' situation, as it is physically outside of it's operating range.

In other words NA character but with more torque without having to resort to more displacement.

[RMB]

BMW needs to produce an engine that gets the job done. But not only that, a complete package. If your competition uses V8's etc, then don't be using an excuse of "we are not all about power, displacement, etc.) You are the M division and are you are supposed to be winners. The other name for second place is "1st losers". Produce the complete package, suspension, engine, transmission, etc. Put a price tag on it (whether 85 to 90k) and kick some A$$. I don't expect the new M3/M4 to be kicking the sh1t out of GTR's and GT3's, but I do expect it to beat any AMG and Audi RS, otherwise why are you evening making the vehicle then! This is your competition.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

No, no, no. Those F1 guys misunderstand turbo lag. See prior post from our resident turbo "expert" who claims everyone else uses the wrong definition. Also worth noting that F1 folks see the need for turbo lag reduction/elimination. Lot's of turbo apologists, or perhaps just those who love the turbo hit, deny an advantage in lack of turbo lag on a road coarse/race.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

No they know exactly what turbo lag is. What they are trying to achieve is a lower boost threshold, extending the operating range of the turbo without resorting to in-efficient twin or tri turbo systems. F1 is all about efficiency.

A turbo below 'boost threshold' and therefore not producing boost, cannot be labelled in any kind of 'turbo lag' situation, as it is physically outside of it's operating range.

The single turbo is there by regulation, not by engineering choices... The previous gen F1 Turbo V6 engines used twin turbos, as that was (is) the preferred choice on a V engine layout. Nowhere in the Renault F1 statement is boost treshold mentioned, even though the MGU-H might be used for that purpose as well. The MGU-H unit is there to "reduce turbo-lag to near zero" (and regenerate energy from the turbo when used to slow down the turbo). They have even defined the delay in torque delivery on a turbo engine as being caused by the turbochargers need to vary it's speed to match the requirement of the engine, which means that the turbo might be spooling down when you start accelerating. The turbo then first needs to stop decelerating (spooling down) before it can start accelerating (spooling up) and create the needed boost. It doesn't take long on a moder engine, but it's not instant. If your argument is that the torque delivery on a turbo engine is just as constant as on a NA engine you are arguing against what is the accepted knowledge (and Renault's F1 engine department...). Even in a situation where you are accelerating (making boost) and then giving the engine full throttle, the turbo will have a short delay before it has reached it's full rpm and boost level for that engine rpm. It's shorter than in the previous scenario, but it's not instant as in a NA engine. Yes, a turbo engine will give you more torque than a similar size NA engine, but it doesn't give 100% of the available torque instantly when depressing the throttle. BTW, I love the torque of a turbo'd engine and have had several turbo'd cars


Not sure why you call a twin turbo "in-efficient"? Are you saying that the BMW M5/M6 engine uses in-efficient turbo design? A smaller turbo has lower inertia, quicker spool up etc. It's also easier to keep exhaust gas speed higher with smaller diameter tubing and inlet (can be done on a big turbo as well with advanced interior design of exhaust tubing).

Regardless, a F1 engine that operates between 10-15000rpm during a lap (might not go as low as 10 grand either) does not need the same low rev driveability characteristics as a street car engine.

And I feel that this quote from Renault's F1 department sums up the difference between a traditionally turbo'd engine and a NA engine:

As the turbocharger speed must vary to match the requirement of the engine, there may be a delay in torque response, often known as turbo-lag. One of the great challenges of the new Power Unit is to reduce this to near zero to match the instant torque delivery of the current V8 engines.

So, even with the new technology, the turbo lag is "only" reduced to near zero. Not the instant torque delivery that todays NA engine deliver.

By definition a turbo engine must have turbo lag under certain conditions, because "the turbocharger speed must vary to match the requirement of the engine". That's why rally cars have anti-lag devices and Renault's new F1 engine has the electric generator/motor unit to decrease lag to "near zero". Even with this tech, it won't be instantaneous. I guess there is a limit to how fast the system can react and spool up the turbo

[RMB]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The single turbo is there by regulation, not by engineering choices... The previous gen F1 Turbo V6 engines used twin turbos, as that was (is) the preferred choice on a V engine layout. Nowhere in the Renault F1 statement is boost treshold mentioned, even though the MGU-H might be used for that purpose as well. The MGU-H unit is there to "reduce turbo-lag to near zero" (and regenerate energy from the turbo when used to slow down the turbo). They have even defined the delay in torque delivery on a turbo engine as being caused by the turbochargers need to vary it's speed to match the requirement of the engine, which means that the turbo might be spooling down when you start accelerating. The turbo then first needs to stop decelerating (spooling down) before it can start accelerating (spooling up) and create the needed boost. It doesn't take long on a moder engine, but it's not instant. If your argument is that the torque delivery on a turbo engine is just as constant as on a NA engine you are arguing against what is the accepted knowledge (and Renault's F1 engine department...). Even in a situation where you are accelerating (making boost) and then giving the engine full throttle, the turbo will have a short delay before it has reached it's full rpm and boost level for that engine rpm. It's shorter than in the previous scenario, but it's not instant as in a NA engine. Yes, a turbo engine will give you more torque than a similar size NA engine, but it doesn't give 100% of the available torque instantly when depressing the throttle. BTW, I love the torque of a turbo'd engine and have had several turbo'd cars


Not sure why you call a twin turbo "in-efficient"? Are you saying that the BMW M5/M6 engine uses in-efficient turbo design? A smaller turbo has lower inertia, quicker spool up etc. It's also easier to keep exhaust gas speed higher with smaller diameter tubing and inlet (can be done on a big turbo as well with advanced interior design of exhaust tubing).

Regardless, a F1 engine that operates between 10-15000rpm during a lap (might not go as low as 10 grand either) does not need the same low rev driveability characteristics as a street car engine.

And I feel that this quote from Renault's F1 department sums up the difference between a traditionally turbo'd engine and a NA engine:



So, even with the new technology, the turbo lag is "only" reduced to near zero. Not the instant torque delivery that todays NA engine deliver.

By definition a turbo engine must have turbo lag under certain conditions, because "the turbocharger speed must vary to match the requirement of the engine". That's why rally cars have anti-lag devices and Renault's new F1 engine has the electric generator/motor unit to decrease lag to "near zero". Even with this tech, it won't be instantaneous. I guess there is a limit to how fast the system can react and spool up the turbo

Thanks for the above explanation on turbocharged engines. It definitely gives me a better idea on how turbo's work, and I have to say I enjoyed reading it.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by RMB

BMW needs to produce an engine that gets the job done. But not only that, a complete package. If your competition uses V8's etc, then don't be using an excuse of "we are not all about power, displacement, etc.)

If you compare the cars from past generations, you'll see the M3 usually has less displacement and/or less power than the competition from AMG and Quattro GmbH. Despite this, it has been the leader in the segment. So I don't really see them making excuses, nor needing to. They let the results speak for themselves.

Originally Posted by Boss330

The single turbo is there by regulation, not by engineering choices... The previous gen F1 Turbo V6 engines used twin turbos, as that was (is) the preferred choice on a V engine layout.

It is interesting to me that, when looking at what's going on with IndyCar, even though a twin-turbo setup is allowed, Honda has chosen to use a single turbo (GM uses two). One advantage I think is that the single turbo engine is slightly lighter. I believe Honda has had more success to date, though it may have nothing to do with the induction setup on the engine (there has been a lot of controversy since BW redesigned the Honda compressor cover). Incidentally, the IndyCar engines have more displacement than the F1 engines (2.2L vs. 1.6L), but can only spin up to 12,000 RPM vs. 15,000 RPM for F1. As far as I know, these engines do not use any electric assist for the turbos like the F1 engines are slated to (thanks for posting all of the info, BTW, very interesting stuff) so it would be interesting to know how they perform as far as power delivery.

[RMB]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

If you compare the cars from past generations, you'll see the M3 usually has less displacement and/or less power than the competition from AMG and Quattro GmbH. Despite this, it has been the leader in the segment. So I don't really see them making excuses, nor needing to. They let the results speak for themselves.

That is a very good point. I believe the competition is getting closer and closer to parity and it is no longer a blowout when an M is compared to an AMG or RS car. I agree with each generation it will become more difficult to improve upon (from a purely numbers perspective), but if I were an engineer on the M team I would be pushing very hard knowing that more and more companies are in my rear view mirror. It's not going to get any easier and expectations are high.

[RMB]

With the competition getting better theme, I just read in Car and Drivers August 2013 issue on page 50, about the CLA 45 AMG. "We did the Nordschleife in 8:10, boasts AMG's head of development, Tobias Moers. It's a lofty boast; that's not far off what a V-8powered BMW M3 can do."

This is just the 2.0 liter turbocharged, entry level AMG car. I am a BMW fan and I am not advertising for AMG, but I am just proving a point that everyone is getting better in all aspects of performance (not just in a straight line). For someone to spend 50,000 and have this performance then an 80 to 90k M4 has to be able to distance itself from this considerably, and this isn't even the new C class AMG.

[Tåst]

Originally Posted by RMB

With the competition getting better theme, I just read in Car and Drivers August 2013 issue on page 50, about the CLA 45 AMG. "We did the Nordschleife in 8:10, boasts AMG's head of development, Tobias Moers. It's a lofty boast; that's not far off what a V-8powered BMW M3 can do."

M3 done 8:05, very slow, I think it must be result on bad stock tyres. Nobady dont say that CLA 45 AMG is twenty second slower than sameweight car, rwd, non turbocharged, ten years ago launched E46 CSL, CSL 7:50 time is impressive.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by RMB

With the competition getting better theme, I just read in Car and Drivers August 2013 issue on page 50, about the CLA 45 AMG.

"We did the Nordschleife in 8:10, boasts AMG's head of development, Tobias Moers. It's a lofty boast; that's not far off what a V-8powered BMW M3 can do."

That's impressive for the CLA45, but then the V8 M3 is at the end if its life now. Let's see what the new one can do. I'll bet that both it and next AMG C Class sedan are comfortably under the eight minute mark. The question is, which of those two will have the better time. I would not bet against the lighter, less powerful M3.

[RMB]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

That's impressive for the CLA45, but then the V8 M3 is at the end if its life now. Let's see what the new one can do. I'll bet that both it and next AMG C Class sedan are comfortably under the eight minute mark. The question is, which of those two will have the better time. I would not bet against the lighter, less powerful M3.

I totally agree with you. I think everything we are seeing that is coming out "new" represents the next leap in performance. I can't wait to see the numbers on them either, and like I said before, I already put money down for the M4 at my dealership, so I do believe in M. I just want them to produce something truly extraordinary. Plus, I am having difficulty with the wait and I am checking daily on the forum for any new information or pics.

[pkimM3r]

Here are the laptimes around the ring. Isn't the end of the ring a long straight? 5 seconds at that speed is gobs of distance. lol.

http://f20.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=782836

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Not sure why you call a twin turbo "in-efficient"? Are you saying that the BMW M5/M6 engine uses in-efficient turbo design? A smaller turbo has lower inertia, quicker spool up etc. It's also easier to keep exhaust gas speed higher with smaller diameter tubing and inlet (can be done on a big turbo as well with advanced interior design of exhaust tubing).

Apologies for not being clear, I am talking about multi turbo systems on a single bank, like the BMW tri turbo inline 6. These systems have complex plumbing systems which lead to in-efficiencies.

Yes turbo's have lag, but no different to the NA engine that has lag from idle to redline, as it never experiences the torque wave produced by FI.