Carsten Pries of BMW M: the M3/M4 S55 engine is an animal with shocking capabilities

[Fun of it]

Great insight, thanks for posting. Of course, the real issue will be testing cars at dealers, and then navigating the crazy dealer mark ups to actually own one. I am hoping that the frenzy starts to diminish next year, and I can negotiate a reasonable price for ED.

[roadmax]

I get scared when engine is faster than chassis, always like when chassis is faster than the engine.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by roadmax

I get scared when engine is faster than chassis, always like when chassis is faster than the engine.

What are you insinuating?

[khanyam4]

Originally Posted by roadmax

I get scared when engine is faster than chassis, always like when chassis is faster than the engine.

Are you referring to something along the line of the subframe issue on the e46 m3. I hope these f m have none of that issue.

[roadmax]

We are talking here a 4 second 0-60 performance, this is Porsche, Ferrari and other "2 seat" exotic car territory.
Will this 4 seat chassis be durable and stable in a long term in combination with the engine, it all sounds like the engine will be faster than chassis, let's wait and see after some time how will this unfold.
As many are saying let's hope there will be no issues.
At the moment it all appears to me that this race is all about numbers on paper.

[Real Deal]

Originally Posted by Fun of it

Great insight, thanks for posting. Of course, the real issue will be testing cars at dealers, and then navigating the crazy dealer mark ups to actually own one. I am hoping that the frenzy starts to diminish next year, and I can negotiate a reasonable price for ED.

No mark ups at my dealer, he already told me MSRP.

[Real Deal]

Originally Posted by roadmax

We are talking here a 4 second 0-60 performance, this is Porsche, Ferrari and other "2 seat" exotic car territory.
Will this 4 seat chassis be durable and stable in a long term in combination with the engine, it all sounds like the engine will be faster than chassis, let's wait and see after some time how will this unfold.
As many are saying let's hope there will be no issues.
At the moment it all appears to me that this race is all about numbers on paper.

It's actually 3.9 seconds which will lead me to believe it's faster. Now tweak the car and perhaps In a year or so get tune and we will be looking at perhaps 3.4 to 3.5 seconds. Ferrari? Sure speed wise but a Ferrari is a Ferrari and just can't insult a great car by comparing it to BMW. I hand been saying this all along that a turbo engines capabilities are endless, I just can't wait for this car to get in to my garage.

[Needsdecaf]

Originally Posted by roadmax

We are talking here a 4 second 0-60 performance, this is Porsche, Ferrari and other "2 seat" exotic car territory.
Will this 4 seat chassis be durable and stable in a long term in combination with the engine, it all sounds like the engine will be faster than chassis, let's wait and see after some time how will this unfold.
As many are saying let's hope there will be no issues.
At the moment it all appears to me that this race is all about numbers on paper.

Every one of the dozen videos we have seen from the car on the 'Ring has indicated it's VERY stable and in control. Put that in context with the comments made by the DTM drivers about the car and I'm not worried.

[RMB]

This sounds great and I can't wait (like everyone else) to get in this car and drive it. I saw it in DC this weekend in person and loved it!

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I suppose 50-50 weight balance still delivers ultimate handling to (it's well known that closer to 60-40 is significantly better...).

While 60/40 might be significantly better, do we have some independent confirmation of that?


A car like the Ferrari F12 (front engine RWD) has a weight distribution of 46/54, and is regarded as a good handling car...

Ferrari F12 is 46/54

Ferrari FF is 47/53

Ferrari California is 47/53

Merc SLS AMG is 53/47

Aston Martin DBS is 51,3/48,7

BMW F10 M5 is 52,5/47,5

All of the above are front engined cars with RWD and are considered good handling cars. None is at 50/50, but Ferrari are rear biased and the others are front biased.

And as far as I know, a race car like the Audi R18 TDI Le Mans Prototype runs a even weight distribution front and rear. The R8 etron has a 48/52 distribution ( http://www.worldcarfans.com/11006142...urs-of-le-mans )

[MaC-N54-E82]

I have a raging hard-on to drive this car!

[cotmfk]

With the N54 getting over 700 whp on stock internals, this motor should be amazing. It would be a disappointment if it wasn't.

[stefan]

I am really not sure of what advantage is gained from a 50/50 weight, after factoring suspension into the equation. I suppose your car balance will be easier to predict initially at a track particularly during minor weight transfers. But it's nothing you wouldn't just adapt to if it weren't perfectly split.

[dlbrooks18]

Nice!

[wilstave]

just need to fix that exhaust note to compliment this so called "animal"

[Real Deal]

Originally Posted by wilstave

just need to fix that exhaust note to compliment this so called "animal"

I think after market will be the option to go, catless dp's and it will roar.

[Year's_End]

Originally Posted by Boss330

While 60/40 might be significantly better, do we have some independent confirmation of that?

This article explains some of the physics involved:

http://www.autospies.com/news/The-Ef...Moments-50856/" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://www.autospies...nts-50856/</a>

A car like the Ferrari F12 (front engine RWD) has a weight distribution of 46/54, and is regarded as a good handling car...

Ferrari F12 is 46/54

Ferrari FF is 47/53

Ferrari California is 47/53

Merc SLS AMG is 53/47

Aston Martin DBS is 51,3/48,7

BMW F10 M5 is 52,5/47,5

All of the above are front engined cars with RWD and are considered good handling cars. None is at 50/50, but Ferrari are rear biased and the others are front biased.

And as far as I know, a race car like the Audi R18 TDI Le Mans Prototype runs a even weight distribution front and rear. The R8 etron has a 48/52 distribution ( http://www.worldcarfans.com/11006142...urs-of-le-mans" rel="" target="_blank">http://<a href="http://www.worldcarf...of-le-mans</a> )

I was going to tackle his post myself, as I was led to believe that a slight rear-bias was the optimal weight ratio (around 47/53 like some of the cars you listed...although I was nearly positive that the SLS was definitely rear biased around 47/53, not 53/47, due to its front-mid setup). This creates a lighter nose with sharper turn-in, aids rear wheel traction during acceleration, and creates a more even load distribution under braking. I'm pretty sure this is why MR/FMR setups are the supposed ideal.

50/50 distributions and slight nose-heavy distributions are supposed to be a contributing factor towards more accessible handling in RWD applications, if I recall correctly.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

This article explains some of the physics involved:

http://www.autospies.com/news/The-Ef...Moments-50856/

Originally Posted by stefan

I am really not sure of what advantage is gained from a 50/50 weight, after factoring suspension into the equation. I suppose your car balance will be easier to predict initially at a track particularly during minor weight transfers. But it's nothing you wouldn't just adapt to if it weren't perfectly split.

This article is full of flaws. It assumes that the path the car travels is linked to the mid point between the front and rear axles; since only the front wheels are steered, this simply isn't true (even on cars that have rear wheel steer, the fronts still do most of the steering). On rear weight biased car, the article concludes that the rear wheels need to cary more lateral load. This is correct, but since they also carry more normal (vertical) load, it becomes a moot point.

A car, as it travels through a bend, also needs to pivot on itself to keep the proper heading. The car does not pivot around its CG nor does it pivot around its "middle". The car pivots around the mid point between the two rear wheels (assuming zero slip angles). Imagine the front wheels steered at 90deg and this becomes very obvious.

To calculate the moment of inertia of an object pivoting around a point, the natural moment of inertia of the object needs to be added to the mass of the object times the square of the distance of its CG relative to the pivot point.

So the closer the CG is to the rear axle, the easier it is to pivot a vehicle. Hence the benefit of a rear weight bias.

The counter point is that when the rear tires start to slip more than the fronts (oversteer), the pivot point progressively moves away from the rear axle towards the front axle. So once you loose the back end on a rear weight biased car, it becomes much more difficult to bring it back.

[Randy M]

Originally Posted by stefan

I am really not sure of what advantage is gained from a 50/50 weight, after factoring suspension into the equation. I suppose your car balance will be easier to predict initially at a track particularly during minor weight transfers. But it's nothing you wouldn't just adapt to if it weren't perfectly split.

Let's compare two extremes of chassis weight location. Audi's are typically somewhere around 58% front bias. There may not be another car brand that understeers more than Audi's. They've tried to cure this with rear diff torque vectoring but that weight hanging over the front axles is still there. Quattro is great in the rain but after having a B5 S4 and a RS4, Audi's handling is mediocre.

Porsche's are extremely rear weight biased with the engine hanging back behind the rear axle. If you're trail braking too hard you will feel the 911's weight wanting to come around on you and get out of line a bit. It's just one reason why the rear tires are so wide. This is also the reason for the 'never lift' saying that many Porsche owners pride themselves in when you are mid corner starting to drive out. 911's are great cars but they can be tricky and demand respect for that weight in the rear. If they would put some of the higher output engines in the Cayman you would have a much better balanced car but Porsche is plagued with it's history.

In the way BMW builds their cars with the ideal 50/50 in mind they are much more approachable than the 911 and more rewarding than Audi's. 50/50 weight maintains inertia equally on both ends of the car and is ideal for handling overall.

Someone had posted concerns about the chassis not being capable of harnessing the power of the new engine. Given BMW's history, the chassis has always been the priority. It is why they are known for great handling. The new M3/4 are not going to be like GT500's.

[US///M3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

More and more M stands for marketing. Look, the new engine indeed shows some great promise. The car WILL be 911 Carrera S type fast, certainly faster than the base model 911 (newest 991 of course). But this along with the prior "inexperienced drivers need to apply" (or whatever BS that was). I suppose 50-50 weight balance still delivers ultimate handling to (it's well known that closer to 60-40 is significantly better...).

How's the F80/82 different than the E36 M3 as far as M standing for marketing?
I thought 40-60 weight distribution in a RWD car is better.

[Doctor///M]

Can't wait!!

[Race_Doc11]

I'm expecting a quite few of these cars to be totaled when they first come.

Originally Posted by Real Deal

I don't feel like I'm at risk of over promising when I tell you that no one is ready for this engine. I wasn't prepared. The engine is an animal. The engine has shocking capabilities.