M4 specs predictions/speculation from AutoBild

[GOLFFRR]

We will just have to wait and see. I'm sure once it's revealed we will be happy and we all know bmw under rates power so take the initial specs with a grain of salt IMO

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ctwickman

Agreed. But I'll reserve final judgement until I drive it and/or the above photo is confirmed. I am pleased with the weight, we'll see how that pans out with options added. But I am not pleased that we are dealing with a tuned 335i engine. "Heavily modified" my ass. Was at least hoping just one of the rumors of an extra turbo, 450hp, and/or perhaps 3.3L (a bit more displacement) would have panned out. Instead the engine numbers are as conservative as any of us really considered on these forums. This is deja vu all over again--I remember when Audi did this when they changed out the last S4 and the S4 hasn't been the same since and kind of went downmarket. It lost something. How is BMW //M going to compete with C-class AMG and their 4.4L twin turbo V8? The new IS (which is really really good, you guys should take a look at it) will also be getting a V8 in IS-F form. Audi and Cadillac are also upping their HP game.

IMO, Audi actually changed their marketing strategy with the increased introduction of RS-series cars. S-series is no longer the top of the line; more of a bigger engine option nowadays. For example the S4 competes with the 335i, not the M3 anymore. That is the RS4/RS5 job.

[CanAutM3]

IMO, it will weigh more, have more power and have a better 0-62 than what is shown on this publication.

Originally Posted by Uli_HH

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

IMO, Audi actually changed their marketing strategy with the increased introduction of RS-series cars. S-series is longer the top of the line; more of a bigger engine option nowadays. For example the S4 competes with the 335i, not the M3 anymore. That is the RS4/RS5 job.

For the most part, I agree, yes. In addition to what you said, the S6 and S7 compete with the standard V8 offerings in their vehicle class from BMW and Mercedes. The TTS roughly competes with the SLK 350. The S8 sort of breaks the rule a bit, however (basically an S63/Alpina B7 match). And the new S3 sort of sits a bit higher than the the F20/F21 125i, but below the M135i which the RS3 will more than likely outmatch until/unless the M135i gets more power from a B68 or if BMW builds a 1M hatchback. They also have a Q3 RS now that curiously makes only 10hp more from its I5 than the I4-based S3 with which is shares a platform, and it only performs about like an X1 35i (though, as it happens, I don't think they are sold along side each other in any market). So its a mixed bag, and, as usual, Audi has a somewhat overlapping and confused/inelegant marketing message and product/engine lineup.

But yes, generally:

M4: RS5, C63 Coupe (and convertible if they build one)
M3: RS4 Sedan (if they build one), C63 Sedan

BMW has no competitor for the RS4 Avant and C63 Estate sadly.

[turbolag]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

For the most part, I agree, yes. In addition to what you said, the S6 and S7 compete with the standard V8 offerings in their vehicle class from BMW and Mercedes. The TTS roughly competes with the SLK 350. The S8 sort of breaks the rule a bit, however (basically an S63/Alpina B7 match). And the new S3 sort of sits a bit higher than the the F20/F21 125i, but below the M135i which the RS3 will more than likely outmatch until/unless the M135i gets more power from a B68 or if BMW builds a 1M hatchback. They also have a Q3 RS now that curiously makes only 10hp more from its I5 than the I4-based S3 with which is shares a platform, and it only performs about like an X1 35i (though, as it happens, I don't think they are sold along side each other in any market). So its a mixed bag, and, as usual, Audi has a somewhat overlapping and confused/inelegant marketing message and product/engine lineup.

But yes, generally:

M4: RS5, C63 Coupe (and convertible if they build one)
M3: RS4 Sedan (if they build one), C63 Sedan

BMW has no competitor for the RS4 Avant and C63 Estate sadly.

E91 swaps look nice, but I don't think a F31 swap is possible. I'm assuming, since F80/F31 differences.

But still, I think the RS4 wagon should compete with the M3 as awesomely fast performance vehicle with practicality.

[solstice]

The E60 520i has a leergewicht of 1535 kg using no CFRP. It has an aluminum front but has steel in the rear subframe as the concept. It is also a significantly larger car. Now, with options the same frame and volume car goes to 1735 kg in the 550i. That's a 440 lbs difference. Just throwing that into the discussion about size and steel parts making a 1495 kg target weight difficult. The size and rear frame material is not neccesarily that significant of a hurdle, the weight of other components and the front end plays a major role as well and if more weight savings are used than in the E60 ( Magnesium, CFRP etc ) we may not be looking at something impossible.

If the F80 is anywhere close to the E60 535i at 3660 lbs curb weight I will be extremely disappointed and it's all been hot air.

Technical challenges to reach 33XX lbs does not concern me one bit, my biggest concern is Scott repeatingly referring to the M3/M4 as the standard car and how it will show what is possible in 911 style special models, THAT concerns me hugely in terms of what to expect.

[swamp2]

Mod(s): Very nice work peeling off the weight and AutoBild specification discussion from the engine discussion!

Originally Posted by Boss330

Torque is quoted as 540Nm (398ft.lbs), 100ft.lbs more than the S65!

So with that right back to an engine discussion...

BMW has been touting this 100 ft lb increase for quite some time now. Unfortunately crank torque is really meaningless. It does not provide additional performance. Well maybe just a very tiny bit in 0-60 but that is mostly traction limited anyway. It does certainly provide increased performance when driven in the wrong gear for the intended performance. If that's your cup of tea why bother with a racing inspired and high performance car anyway... I honestly wouldn't care if the car had 200 ft lb or 500 ft lb of torque. I've shown again and again that the performance is not hindered or helped by torque. Peak hp is what matters.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Mod(s): Very nice work peeling off the weight and AutoBild specification discussion from the engine discussion!



So with that right back to an engine discussion...

BMW has been touting this 100 ft lb increase for quite some time now. Unfortunately crank torque is really meaningless. It does not provide additional performance. Well maybe just a very tiny bit in 0-60 but that is mostly traction limited anyway. It does certainly provide increased performance when driven in the wrong gear for the intended performance. If that's your cup of tea why bother with a racing inspired and high performance car anyway... I honestly wouldn't care if the car had 200 ft lb or 500 ft lb of torque. I've shown again and again that the performance is not hindered or helped by torque. Peak hp is what matters.

As single number, yes, peak hp is the most important one. I fully agree that crank torque by itself does not mean much it terms of absolute performance.

However, for ultimate performance, what really matters is the average power generated in the power band (the RPM range used in each gear while doing a max acceleration run), not only peak power. The new F8X power plant should shine here, with a nice broad power plateau (5400 to 7000 according to AutoBild) .

I am looking forward at seeing the actual specs

[RobC2]

I think it looks great and I am waiting anxiously for the final specs. I currently drive a C6 w/Z51 and over 435 hp. I bought a new VW GTI last year as a DD and that car has made me a believer in German turbo power. It has less than half the hp of the Vette, but is almost as fun to drive. Hoping to get an M4 convertible via ED for my next car in a few years.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

However, for ultimate performance, what really matters is the average power generated in the power band (the RPM range used in each gear while doing a max acceleration run), not only peak power.

Yes but then we transition to talking not about a simple single number to a curve and integrating not vs. rpm but vs. speed in gear or time... If you are going to go there just talk about the entire torque curve and gearing as well. When the power curve is shaped like the E9X M3 (basically linear to redline) you then basically know everything from the single peak value. In cases where the hp vs. rpm flattens (F10 M5) or perhaps even falls (Z06) the average concept is slightly more important but still not that important. Also, when driving for maximum performance what happens in the low to medium rpms is truly irrelevant since the tach never even goes there.

[phoenixbmwlife]

Originally Posted by gblansten

I believe that many people will cross shop the C7. There has been a lot of interest expressed for the C7 from people who might not have considered a Corvette in the past.

Never thought I'd seriously consider a corvette but since the interior materials/design are so much better, and the exterior design to me is absolutely sublime, it's hard not to consider it when you know what the performance will be at its price.

One thing to add though, I probably cant afford a fully loaded M4 anyway with prices upward of $75k+ and $80k+

A fully loaded Z4iS is already overpriced at $75k+. There has been a overprice trend for years now at BMW and its getting worst. I remember before the E9X M3 came out everyone said that would be overpriced and $75k for a 3 series was preposterous. Fast forward a few years later and E90X M3 was sold in record numbers. The same will apply to the M4 I'm sure overpriced and all. One thing is certain in my eyes though. The new M4 Concept is the best looking BMW currently on the market. They did a fantastic job. It makes the regular 4 series look just "mehh".

[phoenixbmwlife]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Recall the history. BMW talked all about weight reduction and efficient dynamics with the E92. What happened, it porked up quite substantially despite some good technical accomplishments that contributed to weight savings on a part by part or system by system comparison with the prior E46 M3 or with the 335i.

Yup...You're right on the money. I remember the talk about weight savings and the E9X ended up heavier than ever. Only thing to consider that is different in this case is they are specifically targeting E46 M3 weight. That's the only thing we can hope for. But more than likely it wont be near as light as we are all hoping.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by K3N R3D

I remember before the E9X M3 came out everyone said that would be overpriced and $75k for a 3 series was preposterous. Fast forward a few years later and E90X M3 was sold in record numbers.

That is not correct. There were just under 86,000 E46 M3s sold worldwide. BMW had a goal of 100,000 E9X M3s. As of this month with E90 and E92 M3 production stopped (verts still being made) they have only achieved about 57,000 cars (ALL M3 models, global number). The largest reason for the disappointing figure was surely the economy/global recession. Unfortunately, I don't think this will sway BMWs pricing decision on the M4 in an favorable way relative to the outgoing model.

[dhoggm3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Also, when driving for maximum performance what happens in the low to medium rpms is truly irrelevant since the tach never even goes there.

Disagree. Pulling out of a corner I want torque! It's not always possible/practical to keep the motor spinning at 4K+ on initial corner-exit throttle application, even in a pure racing situation. When the motor spins up, the priorities change, but dissing an extra boatload of torque that's available in the 3-4K rev range is a mistake.

It may not make much of a difference on the drag strip - I don't know - but on a road course there are moments when torque is the game-changer. And lap times are comprised of many small moments strung together.

[phoenixbmwlife]

Originally Posted by swamp2

That is not correct. There were just under 86,000 E46 M3s sold worldwide. BMW had a goal of 100,000 E9X M3s. As of this month with E90 and E92 M3 production stopped (verts still being made) they have only achieved about 57,000 cars (ALL M3 models, global number). The largest reason for the disappointing figure was surely the economy/global recession. Unfortunately, I don't think this will sway BMWs pricing decision on the M4 in an favorable way relative to the outgoing model.

Wow M3s are a dime a dozen here. See a different one almost every day in West palm Beach. Even if not record numbers still in large numbers if you ask me.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by dhoggm3

It's not always possible/practical to keep the motor spinning at 4K+ on initial corner-exit throttle application, even in a pure racing situation.

I notice that you are a member of a certain club. There is a transmission out there that may offer some relief with respect to the above. Just sayin'. Carry on.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by dhoggm3

Disagree. Pulling out of a corner I want torque! It's not always possible/practical to keep the motor spinning at 4K+ on initial corner-exit throttle application, even in a pure racing situation. When the motor spins up, the priorities change, but dissing an extra boatload of torque that's available in the 3-4K rev range is a mistake.

It may not make much of a difference on the drag strip - I don't know - but on a road course there are moments when torque is the game-changer. And lap times are comprised of many small moments strung together.

Even on a road course, you should always be in a gear that puts you in the last speed range of a particular gear. That ensures that you aren't down in the <4,000 rpm sector. If you came out of a corner on track at 4k or below, you simply were not in the right gear (assuming M3 e9x).

No one is arguing that torque right across the rev range is a bad thing....at least I don't think so.

However, for a given engine configuration, a higher torque value at low to medium revs, generally corresponds to a lower torque at higher RPM. You can't have your cake and eat it. For a performance car enthusiast, we would rather have peak torque close to redline, and be rewarded by keeping the engine 'on the boil'.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I notice that you are a member of a certain club. There is a transmission out there that may offer some relief with respect to the above. Just sayin'. Carry on.

Bad moderator

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by dhoggm3

Disagree. Pulling out of a corner I want torque! It's not always possible/practical to keep the motor spinning at 4K+ on initial corner-exit throttle application, even in a pure racing situation. When the motor spins up, the priorities change, but dissing an extra boatload of torque that's available in the 3-4K rev range is a mistake.

It may not make much of a difference on the drag strip - I don't know - but on a road course there are moments when torque is the game-changer. And lap times are comprised of many small moments strung together.

I am not sure I agree with this. As was often stated, it is not torque at the crank that counts but torque at the wheels; and there is no reason not to be in the right gear coming out of turn on a road course.

Further, while cornering, I sometimes purposefully select a higher gear to reduce wheel torque and keep wheel spin in check. If I can spin the rear tires coming out of a turn in third, what is the point of using 2nd?

The benefit of higher torque at lower RPM is for lazy street driving without need to downshift.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Yes but then we transition to talking not about a simple single number to a curve and integrating not vs. rpm but vs. speed in gear or time... If you are going to go there just talk about the entire torque curve and gearing as well. When the power curve is shaped like the E9X M3 (basically linear to redline) you then basically know everything from the single peak value. In cases where the hp vs. rpm flattens (F10 M5) or perhaps even falls (Z06) the average concept is slightly more important but still not that important. Also, when driving for maximum performance what happens in the low to medium rpms is truly irrelevant since the tach never even goes there.

I am not talking about the entire torque/power curve. Only the RPM range that is covered under a max acceleration run through multiple gears. And no need to integrate, the engine with the highest average power in that band will out accelerate the other.

So even if the new S55 has the same peak power as the S65, the fact that it has a broad power plateau makes it a more potent engine. It does not necessarily mean it has a better personality though .

[solstice]

How many "VIN leaks" are there? Are they from the same source or different sources( country, database, person ) and do they all have the same hp and displacement numbers?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gblansten

Bad moderator

Ha! Good one.

Firmly agree with the others though about the fact that there is always the right gear for the job and if you are at 4k or lower with the S65 you're clearly in the wring gear. Also good torque u det full loaf does way less if accompanied by lag!