BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 to Debut at Detroit + Lightweight Details (via M CEO Interview)

[turbolag]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

Putting an I6 in the M2 will like seriously piss off anyone that's bought the M4 (or M3)... Not?

1-2, 3-4, 5-6 series and 4,6,8 cylinders seems logical.

1-2 offer i4s and i6s, 3-4 offer i4 and i6s, 5-6 offer i4, i6, and v8, 7 (8?) offer i6, v8, and v12...just saying.

[clbmw]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I just had the chance to read the full interview and one part jumped out at me that I don't think I've seen mentioned yet:

To me he dropped a big hint there. This might not necessarily apply to the F8x, but it could. However, certainly they are looking seriously into KERS-type systems, and if that research was not yielding potentially useful results, I don't think he'd even have made mention of the possible usefulness of the batteries.

Well spotted!

Hope you're right

[nullrouted]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

What does municipal bankruptcy have to do with NAIAS? Detroit needs this more now than ever. The show brings in thousands of travelers who inject money in to the Detroit economy.

The show is not publicly funded. Quite the opposite, really.

...but are we sure the M4 won't be stolen before it can be exhibited there?

[cs4444]

Originally Posted by clbmw

Well spotted!

Hope you're right

Kers would add weight and $$$$. It sounds like M is pretty determined to cut weight every way they can.

With that said the new Mercedes S63amg just debut, and it has a smaller lithium ion battery instead of a conventional car battery which saves the S class around 40lbs...I bet the M3/M4 will do the same.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by cs4444

Kers would add weight and $$$$. It sounds like M is pretty determined to cut weight every way they can.

With that said the new Mercedes S63amg just debut, and it has a smaller lithium ion battery instead of a conventional car battery which saves the S class around 40lbs...I bet the M3/M4 will do the same.

Good point about the new S Class, and you may be right as far as the M3/M4 using such a battery. I think the 991 may also use something similar, at least as an option.

Still he could have just said "as a replacement for today's [heavy] lead-acid batteries", but instead he used the language "for auxiliary functions and support systems". Remember, the question was about a hybrid drive. I think he elected to qualify his answer carefully so as to not later be called out if/when M does employ technology that could loosely be grouped in with such types of drive systems. In other words, I think he was covering his bases by clarifying things right up front: we may use energy storage and we may use it to power electric motors like a hybrid does, but not connected to the drive wheels themselves.

And yes, It is true that KERS will add weight, but so too will whatever solution they have engineered for the turbocharging system vs. the N55. For that matter, in general, high performance parts weigh more than non-high-performance ones. This is why all past M vehicles outweigh their non-M siblings. So, to the extent that M must employ solutions that allow their products to sit at the top of the performance heap, so too must they continue to accept that they will be penalized in the weight department for the use of those solutions. The key, then, is to eliminate weight in other areas where it is possible to do so without either accepting less performance or less durability/reliability as a result of the added performance.

[needabeemer]

Originally Posted by caneaddict

No offense, but that is some pretty suspect logic. Every model of every manufacturer has multiple levels Audi (A, S, RS) etc. BMW isn't hiding anything, everyone knows what the variations are, choose what you can afford or value. Everyone that buys a non-M car knows there is something more appealing at a higher price. There are people that want a 7 series but can only afford a 128i - should BMW help those people feel special by canceling the rest of the lineup?

If you don't want to spend $60k on a 435 and end up jealous of the M4 then spend $85k on an M4.

you missed my point. im not complaining about price or "jealous" of the m4. i would LOVE to buy the m4 instead of a 435i. what im complaining about is that its not available at launch (unlike the newly revealed s63). yes, car companies always reveal the high performance models later down the line, such as the RS and M models, but usually they wait at least a few years. bmw is going to ruin its 435i customers perception of their "brand new" car when in just a few months they reveal the m4. with the 5 and 6 series at least they had the decency to wait a while before revealing the M variants.

i already know what some will say. "just get an m4 then" ...its not that easy. the m4 wont be AVAILABLE until over a year from now, but it will be revealed in just a few months... doesnt anyone see my gripe with this? its going to be a tease when a customer gets the brand new 435i delivered in september, only to have it ruined in january by a much more aggressive looking model. for those that could afford the M version and wouldve wanted it instead (such as myself), this will be bothersome. i dont want to wait another 15-16 months for an m4 but i also dont want my $65k 4 series to be a decision i regret in just 3 months from now

the least they can do is not reveal it until later on in 2014, so that we can enjoy our base model 4 series coupes a little longer without having to wish it has the M aesthetics.

[V8FunNaturally]

That's it. Based on that official info, the M4 has already lost against the GT-R (present, past and future). To keep them in the battle AWD was an absolute must to put that power down the wheels. Trying to make up by reducing weight is a lost battle in a consumer car because they would have to cut by factor of two and the 50-50 weight distribution is no match against a car with AWD and stability control on all 4 wheels. GAME OVER. This car will be an efficient, fast souped up 335i but no contender among the greats.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I just had the chance to read the full interview and one part jumped out at me that I don't think I've seen mentioned yet:

To me he dropped a big hint there. This might not necessarily apply to the F8x, but it could. However, certainly they are looking seriously into KERS-type systems, and if that research was not yielding potentially useful results, I don't think he'd even have made mention of the possible usefulness of the batteries.

Auxilliary functions could also be the MGU for the turbo (Motor Generator Unit). This is a electric motor coupled to the turbo to make spool up faster and regenerate exhaust energy when used as a boost controller instead of the wastegate. Will be used on F1 engines next year and BMW has patented a electrically assisted turbo. A lightweight battery pack would be an essential part of such a system...

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Auxilliary functions could also be the MGU for the turbo (Motor Generator Unit). This is a electric motor coupled to the turbo to make spool up faster and regenerate exhaust energy when used as a boost controller instead of the wastegate. Will be used on F1 engines next year and BMW has patented a electrically assisted turbo. A lightweight battery pack would be an essential part of such a system...

Right. That is exactly what I was getting at.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Right. That is exactly what I was getting at.

I understand it's the future but I hope you guys are wrong about an electrical turbo. Not a deal breaker at all but I'm keeping my fingers crossed for convential turbos wether it's a 2 or 3 turbo system. 2 tiny turbos for quick spool up with a larger top range supporting blower would be cool. I would prefer that to a more complex less tested electrical setup at this point in time. Maybe bring the electrical stuff to a main stream car first. I'll take whatever they come up with for the engine but prefer if it's not to much elctrical assisted stuff.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

That's it. Based on that official info, the M4 has already lost against the GT-R (present, past and future).

...

This car will be an efficient, fast souped up 335i but no contender among the greats.

But I'll bet it does just fine against its true competition, even those with AWD such as next the S5 and C Class AMG coupe (assuming it gets AWD as rumored). There are some pretty fine automobiles out there without AWD to make them a "contender among the greats" such as a Corvette Z06 or 911 GT3. Not bad company to be in.

[fuddman]

Originally Posted by needabeemer

....the m4 wont be AVAILABLE until over a year from now, but it will be revealed in just a few months... doesnt anyone see my gripe with this?

Yep, see your problem clearly. But you may have hit on the answer in your post. Try the C63 AMG 507 edition. Should be about the same price and a short wait.

[GOLFFRR]

awesome! im getting excited as the days get closer!

[swamp2]

A tidbit of very positive news here IMO.

Couldn't Nitschke though at least got the correct redline for the current M5, it is not 7400 rpm as he stated, it is 7200 rpm. An simply inexcusable error in my evaluation.

FN: Absolutely. We will use lightweight parts in the places where it matters, at the ends of the car and high up, and in high-rpm parts of the powertrain. A carbon fiber roof, of course, and aluminum and magnesium and carbon fiber in the crash zones. An aluminum hood, and a new carbon fiber trunk lid.

Although high up (roof) the current car already has a CF roof and also has an aluminum hood. I bore easily of folks resting on their laurels in this way. Also the current car already has composite bumper components (ends). It also has made extensive use of hollow components in both the engine/drive train and chassis to manage weight gain (notice how I don't say to achieve light weight).

Now that we have the "nothing new here" aside. The CF and magnesium in crash zones and the CF trunk lid are indeed both new and positive.

Originally Posted by dreamspeed

The M4 will be lighter than the 435 according to the interview but is he trying to be sneaky by saying a bare bones no option M4 will be lighter than a fully loaded 435? There is a big difference in weight between a no option vs. optioned out car

I would not put that past BMW for one second.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

A tidbit of very positive news here IMO.

Couldn't Nitschke though at least got the correct redline for the current M5, it is not 7400 rpm as he stated, it is 7200 rpm. An simply inexcusable error in my evaluation.



Although high up (roof) the current car already has a CF roof and also has an aluminum hood. I bore easily of folks resting on their laurels in this way. Also the current car already has composite bumper components (ends). It also has made extensive use of hollow components in both the engine/drive train and chassis to manage weight gain (notice how I don't say to achieve light weight).

Now that we have the "nothing new here" aside. The CF and magnesium in crash zones and the CF trunk lid are indeed both new and positive.



I would not put that past BMW for one second.

When it comes to the redline, remember that there has been a journalist and probably others involved in WRITING the text that is in the interview. It might not be accurate in regards as to what Nitschke said. I'm more willing to blame the journo, or whomever wrote the article, than the head of BMW M for this mistake...

As regards the weight saving, he's just stating that next gen will continue with some of the allready implemented measures, as well as introducing some really significant new ones. Surely, that's not resting on the laurels is it?

Are you saying they should abandon CF roof since the E9x allready has it? Or NOT use weight saving components in the engine, since that allready has been done?

Until we get final specs it's hard to evaluate how far BMW has gone or how much further they have pushed the envelope compared with the E9X M3. Still a bit early to dismiss or applaud the next gen yet. But, some positive signs in that interview IMHO

[pkimM3r]

Why does everyone call the n54/5 classic i6?

Its TURBO. Big difference. The sound is from the exhaust. Not the engine.

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by sunsweet

That's it. Based on that official info, the M4 has already lost against the GT-R (present, past and future).

They're not meant to be rivals. Comparing apples and oranges....

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by needabeemer

i already know what some will say. "just get an m4 then" ...its not that easy. the m4 wont be AVAILABLE until over a year from now, but it will be revealed in just a few months... doesnt anyone see my gripe with this? its going to be a tease when a customer gets the brand new 435i delivered in september, only to have it ruined in january by a much more aggressive looking model.

So you're not into the 'driving', you're just into the "I have the latest/best/coolest" and you're jealous the instant something better comes along?

The economy loves that mindset though. Otherwise Apple (and the likes) couldn't bring out a new version of the same product every year...

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

Why does everyone call the n54/5 classic i6?

Its TURBO. Big difference. The sound is from the exhaust. Not the engine.

Engine configuration makes a BIG difference to the sound. That's why a 4 cyl turbo doesn't sound like a turbo 6 cyl, but still sounds like a 4 cyl...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

When it comes to the redline, remember that there has been a journalist and probably others involved in WRITING the text that is in the interview. It might not be accurate in regards as to what Nitschke said. I'm more willing to blame the journo, or whomever wrote the article, than the head of BMW M for this mistake...

I say more likely a simple mistake/brain fart rather than blaming the journalist.

Originally Posted by Boss330

As regards the weight saving, he's just stating that next gen will continue with some of the allready implemented measures, as well as introducing some really significant new ones. Surely, that's not resting on the laurels is it?

Are you saying they should abandon CF roof since the E9x allready has it? Or NOT use weight saving components in the engine, since that allready has been done?

Until we get final specs it's hard to evaluate how far BMW has gone or how much further they have pushed the envelope compared with the E9X M3. Still a bit early to dismiss or applaud the next gen yet. But, some positive signs in that interview IMHO

Nothing wrong with repeating what already works. It just sounds to me to be a of regurgitation of the past and yes, resting on ones laurels. I could be reading too much into it but the norm in such discussions is to speak with a large to entire focus on the new things and he clearly isn't.

I'm not dismissing the car, not dismissing their weight savings efforts. I'd virtually guarantee the car will be lighter than the E92 M3 but likley won't be lighter than the 435i (truly apples to apples) and almost for sure nor lighter than 3300 curb. I've also stated many times that I'd also be willing to be that the car will continue its absolute class dominating position.

[chmura]

Hope this engine produces 450+ hp stock.

If Mercedes AMG can produce 355hp from their 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo than BMW should not have to try to hard to get 450hp from I6 turbo.

[zuggerat89]

Jason, where did bimmerpost find the F82 pictures for this article on the front page? Are there more?