Rumor - Next F80 M3 / M4 to have a 3.2 I6 with 473hp

[jamze132]

I think I'm just going to stick with my E92 for 4 more years. I'll add a supercharger within the next 2.

[amdmaxx]

add lightness is way to go

Originally Posted by Kayani_1

I would rather have a 444hp/3400 lbs M3 over 500hp/3900 lbs M3.

[swamp2]

Reasonable power and displacement with the ratio comparable to current Porsche Turbo. Hopefully the folks recognizing that less weight is better than more power will be pleased. I'm one of them. I'd be willing to be the next M3 dominates its class, track and perhaps even straight line, by a somewhat narrow margin with less power than many.

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Aside from both being four cycle engines, how would a 4.0L V8 influence a 3.2L I6?

Me too, same question.

Originally Posted by leyton2

The next m3 needs to raise the BHP game to 500hp minimum, in order to keep its loyal followers happy including myself.

Utterly false.

Originally Posted by pkim1079

lets keep it as an m3 not a c63..all that thing is go really fast in a straight line.

Maybe you did not read much about the recent C63 AMG or maybe you never drove it. The M3's handling edge over this car is small.

Originally Posted by richardg

There's also word of a performance package which could boost the engine's output to 480 PS (353 kW / 473 hp) and enable the car to hit a top speed of 300 km/h (186 mph).

The car will not need anything close to 470 hp to hit 186. The car already comes awfully close to that. Either way I think a performance package on the M3 would be lame. Simple in my opinion, but all M3's should have the same engine and output. Of course BMW is most likely to approach this differently to maximize profit. Offer the market an immensely simple and overpriced, zero cost option (zero production cost, some minimal development for sure) for some different software parameters and charge thousands of dollars for it. Unfortunately suckers will line up. Part of the FI game I guess...

[verbs]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Reasonable power and displacement with the ratio comparable to current Porsche Turbo. Hopefully the folks recognizing that less weight is better than more power will be pleased. I'm one of them. I'd be willing to be the next M3 dominates its class, track and perhaps even straight line, by a somewhat narrow margin with less power than many.



Me too, same question.



Utterly false.



Maybe you did not read much about the recent C63 AMG or maybe you never drove it. The M3's handling edge over this car is small.



The car will not need anything close to 470 hp to hit 186. The car already comes awfully close to that. Either way I think a performance package on the M3 would be lame. Simple in my opinion, but all M3's should have the same engine and output. Of course BMW is most likely to approach this differently to maximize profit. Offer the market an immensely simple and overpriced, zero cost option (zero production cost, some minimal development for sure) for some different software parameters and charge thousands of dollars for it. Unfortunately suckers will line up. Part of the FI game I guess...

Agree on all your above points, however, 186 could just be the electronic governor and not the natural top speed. Also too many variables when it comes to top speed including gearing, frontal area, and drag. If BMW in it's new efficient ways elects to make the top gears more focused on mileage, it may be tougher than you think to get to that 186.

[Bbenavitz]

I wonder how the longer wheelbase will affect the F80 in terms of handling. It is well known that relatively longer wheelbases decrease the agility of a car. When you read about how the current Porsche 991 does not seem to handle as well as the previous 997 the press says things like "lost its precision", "not as tossable", etc. which seems more indicative of the longer wheelbase they went to. Maybe BMW feels like the lighter weight will make up for this (just like Porsche says of the 991).

[richardg]

I am sure they will get the car right. I just hope the 4 series and M4 don't grow in size much if any at all. I think this is a good chance for them to just a make a smaller car. If they don't I will wait and see what the 2 series looks like.

[lbahoshy]

Originally Posted by Bbenavitz

I wonder how the longer wheelbase will affect the F80 in terms of handling. It is well known that relatively longer wheelbases decrease the agility of a car. When you read about how the current Porsche 991 does not seem to handle as well as the previous 997 the press says things like "lost its precision", "not as tossable", etc. which seems more indicative of the longer wheelbase they went to. Maybe BMW feels like the lighter weight will make up for this (just like Porsche says of the 991).

I respectfully disagree with the 911 analogy. The new 991 handles better than the 997; it's a much more capable car. But, the complaints are that some of the steering feel has been lost going the electric steering route. It's more precise and does everything better with less drama. The 991 Carrera S posts similar numbers as the 997 Gt3 on the Nurbergring. Imagine what the 991 Gt3 will do !!

I agree that the 997 is a more "engaging" car than the 991- shorter wheelbase makes it feel more alive in your hands !

However , the 911 had quite a short wheelbase compared to a 3 series. The slightly longer wheelbase won't be a negative for the M3 especially if the track width is increased slightly !

[swamp2]

Wheelbase:

I finally had a chance to drive my buddies 1M. I attribute a great deal of the overall difference in feeling (other than raw power/acceleration/straight line aspects) to the significantly shorter wheelbase. The car felt more lively but not necessarily in a good way. One thing I like about any great car is how slow any given very fast speed feels. Quite simply a good chassis is confidence inspiring. In the little 1M at 100 mph it felt every bit of 100 mph and felt way faster than my M3 at 100. That difference has both positive and negative aspects.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Aside from both being four cycle engines, how would a 4.0L V8 influence a 3.2L I6?

Otto Cycle? Overhead cams? Four valves per cylinder? Just like nearly all other modern gasoline engines.

But seriously, the statement sounds pretty obtuse doesn't it? In fact, the "S55" (working name until we know the real one) will obviously be turbocharged, definitely use HPI (BMW's GDI trade name), and nearly certainly employ Valvetronic (BMW's VVL trade name), making it actually quite dissimilar from an S65 which uses none of those technologies. Not to mention it will not have a short stroke, undersquare bore profile like an S65 does, and will quite likely not rev above 7500 RPM or so. In many ways these engines will be polar opposites of one another.

The only thing I can think of as far as S65 influence that would be significant enough to be called out as such would be a flat torque curve. If BMW has found a way to make the turbocharged engine deliver the same amount of torque throughout the entire operating range and thereby feel like a naturally aspirated motor, then that would be an achievement.

[jchiodo]

Originally Posted by verbs

Agree on all your above points, however, 186 could just be the electronic governor and not the natural top speed. Also too many variables when it comes to top speed including gearing, frontal area, and drag. If BMW in it's new efficient ways elects to make the top gears more focused on mileage, it may be tougher than you think to get to that 186.

I believe the e.g. will be set at 155, there is a "gentleman's agreement" to limit german cars to that speed. Also, respectfully disagree that it'll be very difficult to get it to 186. I would be surprised if the wizards @ BMW's M plant will focus on mileage at risk of limiting performance. Maybe on non M models, but the M3 is their flagship. Maybe I'm naive, but they have never made a bad M3 and doubt they will now, especially with the competition catching up. Although I do always set myself up for disappointment by being overly optimistic.

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Maybe you did not read much about the recent C63 AMG or maybe you never drove it. The M3's handling edge over this car is small.

it really depends on what type of track you are driving on .... in an oval the amg will put the beat down on it. put it on a windy short track and that thing will eat all its rubber before finishing.

both are awesome cars and i would drive either. shit now i need to go buy both.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by m3alabama

Why can't you have both? ... there is absolutely no reason to not have the most horsepower of the group AND the most superior handling and precision.

Why must they be mutually exclusive? The answer is they do not have to be.

I suppose from a consumer perspective I can see that. What you must keep in mind is that these cars are built by a large super profit hungry corporation. Their goal is the maintain their class leading legacy AT MINIMAL COST. Higher power and higher strength, especially on critical drive train components go hand in hand. That extra weight costs money. Certainly weight and cost are highly correlated from a raw materials perspective not just for the drive train but for the entire vehicle. All BMW must do is continue to lead its class and they will have our dollars. They just may be able to do this cheaper than competitors, that would be the icing on the cake.

However, the gap has certainly narrowed so a question becomes by how much does BMW want to best its competitors with the M3. We would all undoubtedly like to see that margin increased as that simply means more car and more fun.

[richardg]

Originally Posted by m3alabama

I understand the arguement of the m3 being a great "precision" tool but not the fastest in a straight line for a long time but I do not understand this arguement anymore, especially if they are using FI.

Why can't you have both? With a NA engine, of the smaller, lighter variety, I understand the power may not be as high as the competition but there is absolutely no reason to not have the most horsepower of the group AND the most superior handling and precision.

Why must they be mutually exclusive? The answer is they do not have to be.

Just like the newest c63's do everything an m3 does but crushes it in a straight line and sets the same time on the majority of tracks.

Another point is up until this new m3, the competition did not offer a high-strung, high-revving naturally aspirated engine with its unique power delivery so there was a reason to be ok with not being the fastest in a straight line.

However now if you are getting a turbo engine anyway then why would you not pick one that is fast in a straight line as well?

Just don't see this arguement as applicable anymore

Agreed but swamp does have a point. Just give me a miniature version of the F12 M6, oh and minus 600lbs, and I would be a happy camper

[aajami]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Otto Cycle? Overhead cams? Four valves per cylinder? Just like nearly all other modern gasoline engines.

But seriously, the statement sounds pretty obtuse doesn't it? In fact, the "S55" (working name until we know the real one) will obviously be turbocharged, definitely use HPI (BMW's GDI trade name), and nearly certainly employ Valvetronic (BMW's VVL trade name), making it actually quite dissimilar from an S65 which uses none of those technologies. Not to mention it will not have a short stroke, undersquare bore profile like an S65 does, and will quite likely not rev above 7500 RPM or so. In many ways these engines will be polar opposites of one another.

But... but... how will clueless automotive "journalists" generate page views if they employ logic or any semblance of technical comprehension when posting rumors?

Originally Posted by mkoesel

The only thing I can think of as far as S65 influence that would be significant enough to be called out as such would be a flat torque curve. If BMW has found a way to make the turbocharged engine deliver the same amount of torque throughout the entire operating range and thereby feel like a naturally aspirated motor, then that would be an achievement.

Flattening out the torque curve in a turbo engine might be an achievement, but it's only half the battle of getting an FI engine to feel an an NA one. The second obstacle would be to get rid of any inkling of turbo lag in order to get throttle responsiveness back, and I've yet to see or read about a turbo engine that doesn't suffer from some form of lag, no matter how short. Even some F10M and F12/13M reviews mention a bit of lag in the responsiveness of the S63Tu. I would hope BMW rectifies this in the S55*, but I'm not holding my breath.

Edit: And I suppose the third "half" of the battle would be to get the exhaust to sound unbridled, and the fourth would be to allow the engine to rev as high as possible.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by aajami

Flattening out the torque curve in a turbo engine might be an achievement, but it's only half the battle of getting an FI engine to feel an an NA one. The second obstacle would be to get rid of any inkling of turbo lag in order to get throttle responsiveness back, and I've yet to see or read about a turbo engine that doesn't suffer from some form of lag, no matter how short.

True.

Anecdotally, I owned a 335i with the N54 and while there was a bit of lag, it was not really distracting and didn't detract much from the seat-of-pants feel of the car. What was a little distracting was the fall-off in torque at around 5500 RPM, though it didn't stop the car from being fun to drive.

Edit: And I suppose the third "half" of the battle would be to get the exhaust to sound unbridled, and the fourth would be to allow the engine to rev as high as possible.

Yes, although not all N/A motors emit a pleasant sound (not even all BMW N/A motors, and arguably, not even all BMW M N/A motors). Same with the high revving aspect. Both are at the top of my list of ideals for a high performance engine though.

[Uli_HH]

Originally Posted by aajami

But... but... how will clueless automotive "journalists" generate page views if they employ logic or any semblance of technical comprehension when posting rumors?



Flattening out the torque curve in a turbo engine might be an achievement, but it's only half the battle of getting an FI engine to feel an an NA one. The second obstacle would be to get rid of any inkling of turbo lag in order to get throttle responsiveness back, and I've yet to see or read about a turbo engine that doesn't suffer from some form of lag, no matter how short. Even some F10M and F12/13M reviews mention a bit of lag in the responsiveness of the S63Tu. I would hope BMW rectifies this in the S55*, but I'm not holding my breath.

Edit: And I suppose the third "half" of the battle would be to get the exhaust to sound unbridled, and the fourth would be to allow the engine to rev as high as possible.

+1 ... you are totally right, flattening out the torque curve isn´t the main problem for an turbo engine ... throttle responsiveness is the main problem ... an problem where the M-GmbH reach great progress with the S63Tü, but this constantly blown turbosystem only works with V engines ... so if the M-GmbH would realise the rumored V6 with the F10M turbos, I wouldn´t have any concern about an responsiveness like an N/A engine ... the last bit of lag could by avoided by an electric turbo drive for the lowest rpm, where also the constantly blown S63Tü turbo doesn´t produce enough power to respont like an N/A engine.

With an I6 engine I don´t beleave, that it would be possible to create an responsiveness like an N/A engine ... also with the rumored N57-S TriTurbosystem, if the M-GmbH could make it working on an petrol engine with its higher temperatures ... an constantly blown turbosystem is impossible for an long I engine - so the only way to make an I6 with an power output of ~450hp an not more than 3.2ltr. throttle responisive nearly like an N/A M-engine is to use the electric turbo drive for all the responsiveness (not only to eliminate the last bit of lag like by an V6 with the S63Tü turbosystem!), this meen the turbo system would be big enough to produce the top power of ~450hp ... and this turbosystem would made driveable (and responsive) by an electric turbo drive until the exhaust gases are strong enough to drive the big turbos ... this meen M worthiness by an electric engine an an clever electronic.

[pkimM3r]

how bout the new m3 with a c63 motor transplant? lol

[BMW269]

If not there is the next generation IS-F coming. NA 5.0 V8, topping 480 PS and making more than 500 Nm. Also weight reduction is on the program together with dual-clutch transmision. Lexus is at the point of surpassing BMW in the handling department, in fact they already have with the LFA, GS and GT86. So the IS-F is the greatest threat to the M3, and maybe also the next C55 AMG if it get the NA 5.5l V8. The choice will be easy: NA V8 or TT I6 (not as good as Toyota Supra) ?

[dhoggm3]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

True.

Anecdotally, I owned a 335i with the N54 and while there was a bit of lag, it was not really distracting and didn't detract much from the seat-of-pants feel of the car.

DISAGREE. Blipping the throttle on a 335i is sheer torture. You can literally count: "Blip - one onethousand - rev". All depends on how the car is driven. For 75% of drivers, the lag is either not noticeable or not annoying. these are not, however, M drivers.

[dhoggm3]

Originally Posted by Levi

Lexus is at the point of surpassing BMW in the handling department, in fact they already have with the LFA, GS and GT86. So the IS-F is the greatest threat to the M3.

Have you actually read any independent comparison tests of these vehicles? I think not. I hope Toyota knocks it out of the park with the new ISF, but they're not yet close. At least according to pros who do this for a living.

Heck, if they knocked it out of the park AND made a manual available, I might even buy one!

[karussell]

3.5L I-6 NA 400hp. all i would want and hope for in an M3. lose some weight and its good to go.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by dhoggm3

Have you actually read any independent comparison tests of these vehicles? I think not. I hope Toyota knocks it out of the park with the new ISF, but they're not yet close. At least according to pros who do this for a living.

Heck, if they knocked it out of the park AND made a manual available, I might even buy one!

Yes, the only argument is the 6MT, as both the RS and AMG only offer DCT.