Interview w/ M chief engineer Biermann hints at M3/M4 0-60 in 4.3 seconds and 26 MPG

[fuddman]

     Featured on BIMMERPOST.com

In a recent interview (read article) with the M division chief engineer, Albert Biermann, the article lists various performance characteristics of the car.

The speed and fuel consumption numbers are metric based in the article and when they are converted to the English system they come out 26 MPG and a 0-60 time of 4.3 seconds.

While the term (est) is thrown in next to them, the fact the numbers come from the head man means to me they are reasonably accurate.

Pretty good performance. Particularly the MPG since that might erase the gas guzzler tax.

BMW previously released the first official M3 M4 technical specs at: http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=892746, but this didn't include 0-60 or MPG figures.

[GOLFFRR]

I would be very satisfied with those numbers!

[turbolag]

UK MPG or US MPG?

English system is UK I assume...26 UK MPG would make the turbo so not worth it...

[solstice]

Cruising on the hwy on the tall 7th gear below boost rpm with a 3 liter engine should save us from gas guzzler tax for sure. It should do + 30 mpg on cruise control at a steady 60 mph. Around town will be another story, that low end grunt some crave will likely produce low to mid teens for the TQ addicts.

I think it will be a lot faster than 4.3s to 60. Likely sub 4s in ideal conditions with launch control.

[19x]

Well, it's no GT-R, that's for sure

[basscadet]

I want to see the quarter mile trap speed.

[RMB]

Originally Posted by solstice

Cruising on the hwy on the tall 7th gear below boost rpm with a 3 liter engine should save us from gas guzzler tax for sure. It should do + 30 mpg on cruise control at a steady 60 mph. Around town will be another story, that low end grunt some crave will likely produce low to mid teens for the TQ addicts.

I think it will be a lot faster than 4.3s to 60. Likely sub 4s in ideal conditions with launch control.

+1

Torque is a good thing. Pulling in any gear at whatever rpm sounds good to me. Now, having to wait till July of next year to get my car is difficult. I hate the wait.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by basscadet

I want to see the quarter mile trap speed.

[ixse]

26mpg wow..i get 28mpg combined in 328 right now.. thats impressive

[JoeFromPA]

I've got two 5.0 liters in my stable - one of them an M engine (ok it's 4.94 liters). It gets 23mpg, easily, cruising at 75-80mph.

I really, really think it's possible to have a highly efficient "efficient design", more aerodynamic, lighter weight 3.0 liter engine pulling mid 20s mpg regularly.

If this thing is considered a gas guzzler, I'm gonna be ticked

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by camber

Well, it's no GT-R, that's for sure

Thank God!

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by solstice

Cruising on the hwy on the tall 7th gear below boost rpm with a 3 liter engine should save us from gas guzzler tax for sure. It should do + 30 mpg on cruise control at a steady 60 mph. Around town will be another story, that low end grunt some crave will likely produce low to mid teens for the TQ addicts.

I think it will be a lot faster than 4.3s to 60. Likely sub 4s in ideal conditions with launch control.

Agree on both your points. Most I've gotten for short periods in the E92 is 23 mpg a 65 in 6th. A ~30% bump would be a nice bonus on trips. I know any excessive right pedal use will drop that off quickly, though.

[Sir Loin]

if 26 MPG is city/highway combined, that is pretty good. If it is 26 MPG only, not as much. But it would still be better than 14 MPG city and 24 MPG highway that I get from my E46 M3.

[ersin]

I get about 20 mpg on the highway right now, so 26 mpg is right where I thought it would be (30% improvement).

However, 4.3 sec 0 - 60 does not sound impressive. Unless it was without a 1 foot rollout, which it very well could be since that is the "German way", I suppose. But if that included the rollout, it's not as good as the 3.9 second time to 60 that some magazines got for the E92 M3.


Cheers.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by ersin

I get about 20 mpg on the highway right now, so 26 mpg is right where I thought it would be (30% improvement).

However, 4.3 sec 0 - 60 does not sound impressive. Unless it was without a 1 foot rollout, which it very well could be since that is the "German way", I suppose. But if that included the rollout, it's not as good as the 3.9 second time to 60 that some magazines got for the E92 M3.

Cheers.

Best times are not what BMW would quote. 4.3 would be nearly 1/2 sec. better than the official time. Best major mag time for E92 I can recall is 4.1.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

Best major mag time for E92 I can recall is 4.1.

Here's one from Car and Driver: http://media.caranddriver.com/ez/ori...af8a28559a.pdf

Some other rag did the same 3.9 sec for a DCT M3 too. I just can't find it right now.


Cheers.

[aajami]

Originally Posted by ersin

Here's one from Car and Driver: http://media.caranddriver.com/ez/ori...af8a28559a.pdf

Some other rag did the same 3.9 sec for a DCT M3 too. I just can't find it right now.


Cheers.

What were the quoted times for the E9XM from BMW before launch, though? BMW always provides conservative HP estimates, so it's probably to be expected that they also provide conservative performance estimates.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by ersin

Here's one from Car and Driver: http://media.caranddriver.com/ez/ori...af8a28559a.pdf

Some other rag did the same 3.9 sec for a DCT M3 too. I just can't find it right now..

There will always be outliers that cannot be easily replicated. That is not data that is really meaningful.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by aajami

What were the quoted times for the E9XM from BMW before launch, though? BMW always provides conservative HP estimates, so it's probably to be expected that they also provide conservative performance estimates.

Absolutely, BMW is conservative. And was this comment an "official" number anyway? I think not. So, I'm really hoping with the added hp and lower weight we're going to get well down into the 3's when the mags rag out these cars in their tests. Not that you are I will ever reproduce this. But it's fun for bragging rights.


Cheers.

[ixse]

Originally Posted by ersin

Here's one from Car and Driver: http://media.caranddriver.com/ez/ori...af8a28559a.pdf

Some other rag did the same 3.9 sec for a DCT M3 too. I just can't find it right now.


Cheers.

so f8x had more hp n tq.. less weight. it can only be faster bud..

[JoeFromPA]

Why are you even arguing over 0-60 times? It's a completely inadequate measure of acceleration. It's too easily influenced by gearing, computerized launch, traction influences, and mechanical abuse.

quarter mile time or trap speed, 40-100, 30-70, 60-120....fine, I get it. But 0-60? C'mon. Means so little.

[Sapper_M3]

Originally Posted by ixse

so f8x had more hp n tq.. less weight. it can only be faster bud..

I don't think anyone is disputing that; his point seemed to be that the F8X M3/4 will definitely be sub-4 seconds from 0-60, given that reviewers have timed the E9X M3 at sub-4 seconds (although, as others have pointed out, this is the only review I've seen with a 3.9 second 0-60; most others being 4.1 seconds at best).