Autotalent
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Technical Topics > Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust / Bolt-ons / Tuning

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-08-2013, 11:36 AM   #89
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1008
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brosef View Post
the reason the M3 can't have much more power than it already does is because of the M5/M6. the M3 can't have better straight-line performance than those models without carrying a much higher price, otherwise it would cannibalize sales of those models.

you could say the same thing to Porsche regarding the Cayman, which could easily be the best performing car in their line-up if they would give it the higher displacement engines that are used in the 911's.

you're ignoring the business side of all of this if you want to answer the question of "why not both?".
A very valid point
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 11:38 AM   #90
Brosef
Brigadier General
Brosef's Avatar
United_States
849
Rep
3,433
Posts

Drives: F90 M5
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
Less is more and more is better, with regards to weight and power respectively It's only human to want more and better things. That is progress

But, with a reported loss of around 200lbs the Merc will still weigh 1640kg, and let's say that the Audi looses a bit more than 200lbs so that also ends up at 1640kg.

That is approximately 140kg more than the F8x, or to put it another way; MB and Audi are coming down to E9x weights. BMW still leads the way (if your reports of 200lbs weight loss is correct).

With a 1640kg weight loss the Audi and Merc will need 475hp to match the F8x's power to weight ratio. But they will still be heavy under cornering and braking. HP can't overcome those deficiencies.

I'd rather have a 430hp, 1500kg M3 than a 475hp RS5/C63 with 1640kg to pull around every corner

If the above weights are true for the competition, I suspect we will see M3/M4 do significantly better lap times around a track. But it might be close on a drag strip, or the competition might even beat it in a straight line if they up the power above 475hp. Thankfully, the M3 has never been a drag racing car, nor has BMW intended it to be either.

Sure, more power is nice and I suspect we will see that in future versions as well. BMW has left some reserve for developments and upgrades. just like any manufacturer does. Just look at Apple and their iPhones...
agreed, although I would say there's no question that the upcoming C63 will beat the M3 in a straight line. I would hazard to guess that it will even beat it out by a wider margin than the outgoing model bested the e9x. doesn't temper my interest in the upcoming M3 one bit.
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 12:17 PM   #91
JoeFromPA
Colonel
1576
Rep
2,922
Posts

Drives: '15 AW M3 6MT Stripper
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SE PA

iTrader: (0)

I'll add one more thing:

The Porsche 911 (in non-turbo form) has long been "down on power" compared to competitors. I mean, c'mon, a 2014 911 S still has only 400hp - that's less than a 6 year old m3! And that's the up-rated 911.

So why is Porsche still a phenom? Because they never focused on power - they focused on what makes them great. They keep weight down, keep a flat six in the rear, and keep the focus on mechanical excellence.

I'm not saying the m3 is a competitor for the 911 (a bit), but I look at their evolution in similar terms.
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 01:11 PM   #92
basscadet
Lieutenant
basscadet's Avatar
156
Rep
437
Posts

Drives: '17 Giula Quadrifoglio
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Overland Park, KS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvenKeel View Post
Life is good when people are concerned about 430hp not being enough in a ~3500lb package. No?
At significant cost. In 1999, did we ever think a performance model of a 3-series BMW would cost over $70k? Or that a base-model Mustang V8 car would be able to match it's time around a race track?

The world has changed.
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 01:20 PM   #93
basscadet
Lieutenant
basscadet's Avatar
156
Rep
437
Posts

Drives: '17 Giula Quadrifoglio
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Overland Park, KS

iTrader: (0)

What do we ALL want? We want the Ultimate Driving Machine. I don't care if it has 200hp or 800hp. All I want it to be is a more rewarding driving experience. Part of that experience, for me, is having the ability to mash the gas pedal on the highway and pass other cars with authority. It also includes the ability to know, in the back of my head, that if i wanted to beat that garden-variety muscle car to the next stoplight, I can. Is this infantile? Hell yes.

I could just as easily be on the Caddy or Audi forums bitching about how their cars are either too ugly or too heavy. But I'm not, I am here, because I trust that the BMW experience, the chassis, will be superior to the others. I guess I just do not understand why I have to make compromises - why do I have to choose either chassis or engine? Why can't I have both?
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 02:05 PM   #94
CanAutM3
Lieutenant General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
11345
Rep
17,040
Posts

Drives: 2019 M4cs
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2019 BMW M4cs  [0.00]
2018 Audi RS3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
The E9x M3 would need to have 487hp

The weight loss equals a free 57hp over a E9x plus the 10hp increase in crank power equals a 67hp advantage over the E9x M3.
These comparison are bit arbitrary, but here's my take. To appropriatly compare power-to-weight we need to compare what will be felt from a driver perspective in real life; meaning with the driver in the car. My M3 with me and a half tank of fuel weighs 3800lbs and has 420ps. A similarly equiped F8X will weigh 175lb less (BMW's words) at 3625lb and has 430ps. This means that the E9X in this example would need 30hp to equal the performance of the F8X; on paper that is.

I think what the F8X has for it as an advantage is the very broad power plateau of the S55 and that the specified output is most likely under rated by a good 20-30ps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
Very different car with rear engine. Engine behind rear axle is good for weight distribution during acceleration. Much easier/better transfer of weight onto the rear wheels during accelerations compared with a front engine/RWD car.

Obviously not saying that you can't have over 500hp in a M3, you only have to look at tuned versions of E46 and E9x M3.
I simply wanted to point out that you CAN have a well balanced and good hadling RWD car at 3450lbs and 500hp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boss330 View Post
But is that where BMW M wants to go at the moment?
Probably not, and that is the dissapointing part.

Last edited by CanAutM3; 11-08-2013 at 02:16 PM..
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 02:10 PM   #95
JoeFromPA
Colonel
1576
Rep
2,922
Posts

Drives: '15 AW M3 6MT Stripper
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SE PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet View Post
At significant cost. In 1999, did we ever think a performance model of a 3-series BMW would cost over $70k? Or that a base-model Mustang V8 car would be able to match it's time around a race track?

The world has changed.
The mustang thing is a good thing, keeps them working hard to improve when the pocket rockets can compete.

In regards to it being $70k-ish, remember that the base MSRP of a 1998 m3 was $40k. Assuming 3% per year inflation/cost growth, that'd be $62k base for a 2015 model.

Now add in typical BMW options, and there ya go - $70k.
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 03:31 PM   #96
jbockrd
Lieutenant
jbockrd's Avatar
United_States
19
Rep
550
Posts

Drives: e92 Alpine White/Carbon M3
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Yardley, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet View Post
What do we ALL want? We want the Ultimate Driving Machine. I don't care if it has 200hp or 800hp. All I want it to be is a more rewarding driving experience. Part of that experience, for me, is having the ability to mash the gas pedal on the highway and pass other cars with authority. It also includes the ability to know, in the back of my head, that if i wanted to beat that garden-variety muscle car to the next stoplight, I can. Is this infantile? Hell yes.

I could just as easily be on the Caddy or Audi forums bitching about how their cars are either too ugly or too heavy. But I'm not, I am here, because I trust that the BMW experience, the chassis, will be superior to the others. I guess I just do not understand why I have to make compromises - why do I have to choose either chassis or engine? Why can't I have both?
Even worse than your stated sacrifices for me is the damn transmission. The M is the only one with a manual!!!!! Thats the characteristic for me that I won't compromise
__________________
On the list for an M4!!
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 03:51 PM   #97
Boss330
Brigadier General
Boss330's Avatar
Norway
1008
Rep
4,836
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway, Scandinavia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet View Post
What do we ALL want? We want the Ultimate Driving Machine. I don't care if it has 200hp or 800hp. All I want it to be is a more rewarding driving experience. Part of that experience, for me, is having the ability to mash the gas pedal on the highway and pass other cars with authority. It also includes the ability to know, in the back of my head, that if i wanted to beat that garden-variety muscle car to the next stoplight, I can. Is this infantile? Hell yes.

I could just as easily be on the Caddy or Audi forums bitching about how their cars are either too ugly or too heavy. But I'm not, I am here, because I trust that the BMW experience, the chassis, will be superior to the others. I guess I just do not understand why I have to make compromises - why do I have to choose either chassis or engine? Why can't I have both?
I suggest we all wait before we judge the engine to be that "bad" until people has done test drives. Maybe you get both a good chassis and a good engine
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 06:10 PM   #98
C17MooseDriver
Captain
C17MooseDriver's Avatar
United_States
18
Rep
878
Posts

Drives: E92 AW M3 6MT
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Antonio, TX

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brosef View Post
the reason the M3 can't have much more power than it already does is because of the M5/M6. the M3 can't have better straight-line performance than those models without carrying a much higher price, otherwise it would cannibalize sales of those models.

you could say the same thing to Porsche regarding the Cayman, which could easily be the best performing car in their line-up if they would give it the higher displacement engines that are used in the 911's.

you're ignoring the business side of all of this if you want to answer the question of "why not both?".
Brosef gets it. All these BMW fanbois talking abut how glad they are BMW didn't add more power are kidding themselves. It's purely economical and a pure business decision.

BMW will never make the M3/M4 as good as it can be. They're in it to make money.

Reminds me of the episode of Top Gear where they reviewed the Cayman.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 06:51 PM   #99
templarklimek
templarklimek
United_States
109
Rep
869
Posts

Drives: 15' X6M, 12' R8 V10,
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Houston Texas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeFromPA View Post
Kenny, it's fairly simple: Your line of thinking indicates BMW is resource-unlimited.

My line of thinking says BMW had a price target and a budget for making the car and they could either budget more for new engine development and production or for weight-savings R&D and procurement.

They've give us a vehicle with slightly more power, a lot more torque, and even more significant weight savings. Pound for pound, this car has the equivalent in horsepower/weight to an e90 m3 with 452hp.

And lowered weight is so much more beneficial to overall performance than additional HP.

So far the keyboard-bashers on here are indicating the M3 is not "keeping up with the competition" based upon engine output. They have no idea how it'll perform on a track, yet their hackles are up over a perceived lack of output.

However, every track junkie knows the best track performance across the widest array of tracks comes from ability to maintain speed through turns rather than brute acceleration out of a turn. And nothing enables that better than lower weight.

If you can name me another manufacturer who has shaved 200 pounds from their marquee performance vehicle, while simultaneously increasing power and torque and efficiency, I'd love to hear it.
Isnt that what Chevy did with the Z/28 Camaro?
Appreciate 0
      11-08-2013, 08:00 PM   #100
Jockey
Brigadier General
Jockey's Avatar
United_States
2167
Rep
4,497
Posts

Drives: F80 SS/SS M3
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Park City, UT

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet
What do we ALL want? We want the Ultimate Driving Machine. I don't care if it has 200hp or 800hp. All I want it to be is a more rewarding driving experience. Part of that experience, for me, is having the ability to mash the gas pedal on the highway and pass other cars with authority. It also includes the ability to know, in the back of my head, that if i wanted to beat that garden-variety muscle car to the next stoplight, I can. Is this infantile? Hell yes.

I could just as easily be on the Caddy or Audi forums bitching about how their cars are either too ugly or too heavy. But I'm not, I am here, because I trust that the BMW experience, the chassis, will be superior to the others. I guess I just do not understand why I have to make compromises - why do I have to choose either chassis or engine? Why can't I have both?
You could have both. And the car would cost $120,000+
Appreciate 0
      11-11-2013, 07:33 PM   #101
nicknaz
Lieutenant General
nicknaz's Avatar
United_States
2967
Rep
10,291
Posts

Drives: 6TT, model 3P, SM, F31 330
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

For a 4 door , 5 seat multi-purpose car I think F80 M3 is going to remain one of the best

For "track weapon" I think there are better (i.e. more performance / $ choices) in both the used and new car market
Appreciate 0
      11-11-2013, 10:24 PM   #102
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
475
Rep
10,408
Posts

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

iTrader: (3)

Some various comments:

Given a choice less weight is always better than more power. One only helps acceleration the other helps cornering and deceleration. Beating the dead horse a bit but it's worth repeating.

BMW is not really resource limited with a FI car. Tweak a few lines of code and viola - a trivial 50 additional hp with very little additional reliability concerns. FI changes the dynamic here. BMW simply needs to slot the performance of the car in among competitors and internal offerings.

A typical BMW M car probably does have closer to 10% parasitic drivetrain losses than 15% or 20%. This is based on both literature, test and simulation efforts. I most often use 11% in my simulation efforts for M cars. However this is clearly not a large enough factor to account for the performance of some clearly underrated cars such as the E92 335i and F10 M5.

As also stated prior the new M4 is IMHO based on both some reasoning and history very likely to be underrated by about 20-30 hp.

Unfortunately, the margins by which the BMW M3 has been a class dominating car has and will continues to shrink. "First world problems" here with so many more legitimate competitive choices for us enthusiasts...
__________________
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 |
Appreciate 0
      11-11-2013, 10:29 PM   #103
JoeFromPA
Colonel
1576
Rep
2,922
Posts

Drives: '15 AW M3 6MT Stripper
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SE PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post

BMW is not really resource limited with a FI car. Tweak a few lines of code and viola - a trivial 50 additional hp with very little additional reliability concerns. FI changes the dynamic here. BMW simply needs to slot the performance of the car in among competitors and internal offerings.

...
You should know better than that.
Appreciate 0
      11-12-2013, 12:31 AM   #104
Ezio
Brigadier General
Ezio's Avatar
United_States
247
Rep
3,847
Posts

Drives: Audi
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MI

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by basscadet View Post
So Ferrari, Lamborghini, and McClaren are in a muscle car war?

The chances are very high I'm getting an F80. I just wish I didn't need to worry about beating Mustangs when at a stoplight.
lol you better get use to it.

mustangs are going to always be better performance cars for the money. same with vettes.

although they lack in other areas
__________________
Appreciate 0
      11-12-2013, 07:11 AM   #105
fbm3cab
Second Lieutenant
fbm3cab's Avatar
Canada
12
Rep
221
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: B.C. Canada

iTrader: (0)

Another question is,

Will modifying power beyond the factory design increase turbo lag as it did when modding the n54?
Appreciate 0
      11-12-2013, 10:22 AM   #106
basscadet
Lieutenant
basscadet's Avatar
156
Rep
437
Posts

Drives: '17 Giula Quadrifoglio
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Overland Park, KS

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbm3cab View Post
Another question is,

Will modifying power beyond the factory design increase turbo lag as it did when modding the n54?
I have never heard of an aftermarket tune increasing lag. If so, it sounds like a terrible tune.

A good tune from a reputable tuner will always bring on power sooner, smoother, and keep it on consistently higher in the RPM range.

The last few cars I have owned I have had an aftermarket tune and it dramatically improved not only the peak horsepower but the day-to-day driveability, making the car seem refreshed and more alive. This includes the tune I had for my 2007 335i Coupe.
Appreciate 0
      11-12-2013, 11:18 AM   #107
fbm3cab
Second Lieutenant
fbm3cab's Avatar
Canada
12
Rep
221
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: B.C. Canada

iTrader: (0)

Really? My experience has been that the turbolag is either increased or maybe just more noticeable and that with a 335is n54 dinan stage II

I have had others agree with me on this.

I have read lots of posts here when people with turbo cars say they have no lag but I have never driven a turbo car that I didn't notice lag in, perhaps different driving technique? or denial?

I sure hope that this new engine in the F8x M's is turbolag free.
Appreciate 0
      11-12-2013, 02:33 PM   #108
JoeFromPA
Colonel
1576
Rep
2,922
Posts

Drives: '15 AW M3 6MT Stripper
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SE PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fbm3cab View Post
Really? My experience has been that the turbolag is either increased or maybe just more noticeable and that with a 335is n54 dinan stage II

I have had others agree with me on this.

I have read lots of posts here when people with turbo cars say they have no lag but I have never driven a turbo car that I didn't notice lag in, perhaps different driving technique? or denial?

I sure hope that this new engine in the F8x M's is turbolag free.
I think you are confusing two things:

1. Turbo lag is the time it takes for the turbo to spool up AND produce power from the time you hit the gas pedal. It is almost entirely a function of turbo size, target PSI, and exhaust pressure/speed, though other things impact it too (speed/restriction of intake can impact it, but not nearly as much).

That being said, a tune is not going to change the turbo size or exhaust flow - at least, it's not going to make the exhaust flow less! (the point is to get more power, after all, right?)

So your turbo lag is not going to increase with a tune. However, your target PSI might increase which leads us to...

2. The second thing is what you are observing: the difference between baseline engine power and fully spooled/loaded power grows.

Now at 2500 rpms instead of your turbo targeting 6 psi it's targeting 12. It's aiming to generate a lot more power and spools a lot more as well.

So suddenly you are feeling a much bigger difference, occurring over a bit more time, in the engines naturally-aspirated initial power when throttle is applied compared to it's F/I power once the turbo is spooled up.

It feels like lag, but it's not that it's taking the turbo so long to spool, it's just that the power differential is greater than it was stock.

Just my .02
Appreciate 0
      11-12-2013, 03:33 PM   #109
fbm3cab
Second Lieutenant
fbm3cab's Avatar
Canada
12
Rep
221
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: B.C. Canada

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeFromPA View Post
I think you are confusing two things:

1. Turbo lag is the time it takes for the turbo to spool up AND produce power from the time you hit the gas pedal. It is almost entirely a function of turbo size, target PSI, and exhaust pressure/speed, though other things impact it too (speed/restriction of intake can impact it, but not nearly as much).

That being said, a tune is not going to change the turbo size or exhaust flow - at least, it's not going to make the exhaust flow less! (the point is to get more power, after all, right?)

So your turbo lag is not going to increase with a tune. However, your target PSI might increase which leads us to...

2. The second thing is what you are observing: the difference between baseline engine power and fully spooled/loaded power grows.

Now at 2500 rpms instead of your turbo targeting 6 psi it's targeting 12. It's aiming to generate a lot more power and spools a lot more as well.

So suddenly you are feeling a much bigger difference, occurring over a bit more time, in the engines naturally-aspirated initial power when throttle is applied compared to it's F/I power once the turbo is spooled up.

It feels like lag, but it's not that it's taking the turbo so long to spool, it's just that the power differential is greater than it was stock.

Just my .02

Yes, I agree.
Bottom line is that the lag exsists and does becomes even more noticeable with a tune for the reason you stated.
Appreciate 0
      11-12-2013, 04:15 PM   #110
basscadet
Lieutenant
basscadet's Avatar
156
Rep
437
Posts

Drives: '17 Giula Quadrifoglio
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Overland Park, KS

iTrader: (0)

Putting conversation back on track...

...I was trolling the F30 forums and it seems those guys are seeing no more than 30hp additional to the wheels with a tune. Kind of disappointing, for sure. The tuned N54 engines would blast out 50-75hp over a baseline car all day, no wonder they kept those engines for the 335is.

But this makes me wonder if BMW won't leave a lot on the table for the aftermarket for the F80. Unless this motor is seriously underrated and/or there is a lot of power untapped by the aftermarket, I am just going to have to pass on the M3. Especially for $75k+.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 AM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST