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

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by solstice

And another 10 lbs or so for standard I-drive. That's what I meant with 80 kg similary equipped. If the F82 has I-drive standard it's weight need to be added to the 3704 lbs before subtracting 80 kg and for any other equipment that is now standard that wasn't on the E92.

I cannot comment on the "official" 3704lb figure. However my car is very close to that figure and has iDrive.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

It is speculation on my part, but I am guessing that BMW is referring to comparably specced 6MT; and the 6MT has a 12kg advertised weight saving compared to the previous 6MT. I am not even taking into account that the new beefed-up version of the DCT may also be slightly heavier than the previous gen (BWW has been very hush in that department).

The weight of the F8X has been core to the whole marketing campaign. If I were working at BMW marketing, I would definitely be taking advantage of the 6MT weight saving to brag about the total weight saving...

I agree with your view on marketing talk and that it's easier for BMW to just talk about around 80kg instead of coming out with every possible variable...

But in the spec thread from Jason he quotes the info from BMW like this:

◦BMW clarifies that "the new model is now around 80 kilograms [176 lbs] lighter than a comparably equipped predecessor model"

The new DCI700 weighs in at 78-82kg and I believe the dry weight of the DCI600 was 79kg

http://www.getrag.com/media/products.../7DCI700~2.pdf

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I agree with your view on marketing talk and that it's easier for BMW to just talk about around 80kg instead of coming out with every possible variable...

But in the spec thread from Jason he quotes the info from BMW like this:

Do you want to imply that they also reduced the weight of the DCT by 12kg?

If it is the case, I would be very happy . But I seriously doubt it is the case; BMW would have already bragged about it.

Or do you want to imply that the 80kg is a sort of mid point between the 6MT and DCT?

As I posted previously, that would not be smart marketing on BMW's part. Until proven otherwise, I will continue to believe that the 80kg includes the 12kg reduction of the 6MT.



EDIT: Just saw your edit. From that info, it seems the new DCT will be the same weight or marginally heavier than the outgoing one, confirming my point .

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by swamp2

And BMW will likely be able to continue to claim besting competitors with lower power than they provide through "chassis magic" like 50-50 weight balance or other such nonsense when it's still almost entirely about power to weight...

Agreed. With BMW, I expect the "chassis magic". For $75k I have every right to expect that.

I also expect a powertrain worthy of the segment. The photograph of the M4 underhood, jam-packed with cooling devices really scares me as it really appears if BMW is doing nothing else than extracting every last ounce of power it can from the turbo inline 3.0 liter 6 cyl arrangement. One cannot help but think that if BMW engineers were given carte blanche the engine that we would see under the bonnet would be a 3.3 liter version of the S63tu.

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by Boss330

You sure you want a M3? Seems like a good old muscle car suits you better. No need to have a light and nimble chassis, brute accelerative force is what matters... Because a light and nimble chassis is apparently just "nonsense"...

Why not have both? If I wanted a muscle car I would buy a $55,000 Mustang GT500 with 652 hp.

Why can AMG put a 4.0 liter turbo V8 in their new C63 while BMW cannot? Isn't MB also a German auto manufacturer concerned about efficiency, costs, and green image?

BMW's growing tendency to skate by with the weakest engine in its class is growing tedious. The E92 was saved by the merits of its chassis. Since power is relatively unchanged from the E92, does BMW really expect the chassis to save them again? I think they are becoming very arrogant.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

And BMW will likely be able to continue to claim besting competitors with lower power than they provide through "chassis magic" like 50-50 weight balance or other such nonsense when it's still almost entirely about power to weight...

Originally Posted by basscadet

Why not have both? If I wanted a muscle car I would buy a $55,000 Mustang GT500 with 652 hp.

Why can AMG put a 4.0 liter turbo V8 in their new C63 while BMW cannot? Isn't MB also a German auto manufacturer concerned about efficiency, costs, and green image?

BMW's growing tendency to skate by with the weakest engine in its class is growing tedious. The E92 was saved by the merits of its chassis. Since power is relatively unchanged from the E92, does BMW really expect the chassis to save them again? I think they are becoming very arrogant.

Sure you can have both, but I replied to a post that implied that chassis and weight distribution was nonsense. It was almost entirely about power to weight... And in that case, go buy a muscle car

And in the case of power to weight which was so important. Let's take the power to weight of the F8x and compare that with the competition:

The figure that REALLY matters then is how much HP per lbs it makes. If we don't take weight into the equation then we could just as well compare a truck with 750hp (Volvo FH16) with a M5 with 560hp. The M5 makes less crank power than a truck, can't be any good...

To illustrate how the F8x REALLY compares with the RS5 and C63 AMG:

C63 AMG:
Weight: 1730kg
Power: 457hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,26

RS5:
Weight: 1790kg
Power: 450hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,25

E9x M3:
Weight: 1655kg
Power: 420hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,25

F8X M3/4:
Weight: 1575kg
Power: 430hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,27

The E9x M3 would need to have 447hp, the RS5 would need 483hp and the C63 AMG would need 467hp to have the same power to weight ratio as the F8x has with a "puny" 430hp...

The weight loss equals a free 17hp over a E9x plus the 10hp increase in crank power equals a 27hp "real life" horsepower advantage over the E9x M3 (i.e 17hp more than just the 10hp more advertised, in effect the increase will be similar to a 27hp upgrade, not just 10hp, in reality. That's the beauty of saving weight ).

Not to mention how the lower weight improves handling and braking And I know that I'd rather have a car that has a 0,27 power to weight ratio due to a light and nimble chassis than a car that has the same ratio due to a 500hp engine but weighs in at 1800kg... In the case of the heavy car you will only be on equal terms to the F8x under acceleration. Under braking and cornering you will be disadvantaged by the heavy weight!

So compared to the RS5, C63 AMG and E9x M3, the F8x M3/M4 is a quite substantial leap in performance! Not in agreement on BMW being arrogant here...

As someone ( ) said "it's all about power to weight", and there the F8x seems to come out on top over the competition...

-

[RMB]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Sure you can have both, but I replied to a post that implied that chassis and weight distribution was nonsense. It was almost entirely about power to weight... And in that case, go buy a muscle car

And in the case of power to weight which was so important. Let's take the power to weight of the F8x and compare that with the competition:

The figure that REALLY matters then is how much HP per lbs it makes. If we don't take weight into the equation then we could just as well compare a truck with 750hp (Volvo FH16) with a M5 with 560hp. The M5 makes less crank power than a truck, can't be any good...

To illustrate how the F8x REALLY compares with the RS5 and C63 AMG:

C63 AMG:
Weight: 1730kg
Power: 457hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,26

RS5:
Weight: 1790kg
Power: 450hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,25

E9x M3:
Weight: 1655kg
Power: 420hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,25

F8X M3/4:
Weight: 1575kg
Power: 430hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,27

The E9x M3 would need to have 447hp, the RS5 would need 483hp and the C63 AMG would need 467hp to have the same power to weight ratio as the F8x has with a "puny" 430hp...

The weight loss equals a free 17hp over a E9x plus the 10hp increase in crank power equals a 27hp "real life" horsepower advantage over the E9x M3 (i.e 17hp more than just the 10hp more advertised, in effect the increase will be similar to a 27hp upgrade, not just 10hp, in reality. That's the beauty of saving weight ).

Not to mention how the lower weight improves handling and braking And I know that I'd rather have a car that has a 0,27 power to weight ratio due to a light and nimble chassis than a car that has the same ratio due to a 500hp engine but weighs in at 1800kg... In the case of the heavy car you will only be on equal terms to the F8x under acceleration. Under braking and cornering you will be disadvantaged by the heavy weight!

So compared to the RS5, C63 AMG and E9x M3, the F8x M3/M4 is a quite substantial leap in performance! Not in agreement on BMW being arrogant here...

As someone ( ) said "it's all about power to weight", and there the F8x seems to come out on top over the competition...

-

I am all for the M4. I have one ordered and like others are patiently waiting. But the C63 already can be had with a power bump, what is it the 507 package, and wouldn't that drastically adjust the power to weight ratio (even though still being a heavier car as you have identified? It seems to me that a lot of cars are well beyond 400 horsepower and 500 hp is what a lot of vehicles are pushing for (or mid to upper 400 hp). Lighter weight does come into play, but I don't see the new C63, ATS-V or others coming to the fight with 430 hp, and others are investing heavily into chassis development also (BMW has not won a lot of comparisons lately, especially when it comes to steering and handling. I think every time I read a review that deals with the 5 series based vehicle it always loses, and I hate to see this happen again and again).

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by RMB

I am all for the M4. I have one ordered and like others are patiently waiting. But the C63 already can be had with a power bump, what is it the 507 package, and wouldn't that drastically adjust the power to weight ratio (even though still being a heavier car as you have identified? It seems to me that a lot of cars are well beyond 400 horsepower and 500 hp is what a lot of vehicles are pushing for (or mid to upper 400 hp). Lighter weight does come into play, but I don't see the new C63, ATS-V or others coming to the fight with 430 hp, and others are investing heavily into chassis development also (BMW has not won a lot of comparisons lately, especially when it comes to steering and handling. I think every time I read a review that deals with the 5 series based vehicle it always loses, and I hate to see this happen again and again).

Yes, BMW has had it's fair share of bad reviews on steering lately. However there have been quite a few tests where the BMW wins. Like the last German Auto Bild Sportscar Magazine (nr. 12 - 2013):

Comparison tests:

BMW M6 vs 911 Turbo S vs GT-R Black Edition vs R8 V10

911 wins, M6 and GT-R ties for second, R8 comes at 4th

435i vs E400 Coupe vs S5

435i wins (the "emotional victory is easy"), the S5 comes second and the E400 comes in Third

M135i X-drive vs S3 vs Volvo V40 T5 Heico

M135i is a Clear winner, S3 comes second and V40 Third

But in this test the M5 CP comes last due to it's traction problems and the notchy gearbox(!!??) RS7 wins and E63 second.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/v...g-7897472.html

There have been several reviews lately where the lack of AWD on the M5 has been a negative issue for the reviewers. Suspect we will see an AWD M5 in NeXT generation...

There is also mention of a Competition Package F8x, bumping power to around 450hp(?). The power to weight ratio would then be 0,29 for the AMG and 0,285 for the F8x, so a slight advantage for the AMG in acceleration.

And, yes we should also expect Audi and AMG to get lighter cars in the future, so it's probably gonna be an interesting battle to look forward to

[fuddman]

Originally Posted by Boss330

E9x M3:
Weight: 1655kg
Power: 420hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,25

F8X M3/4:
Weight: 1575kg
Power: 430hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,27
-

At only 8%, this P/W difference doesn't strike me as particularly decisive. Meaning that to best the E9X M3 on a consistent basis, the F8X M driver is very likely going to have to work hard.
On the other hand, the F8X M has a 6 mpg advantage over its predecessor. That's a 30% advantage, which is decisive. And something to crow about.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by fuddman

At only 8%, this P/W difference doesn't strike me as particularly decisive. Meaning that to best the E9X M3 on a consistent basis, the F8X M driver is very likely going to have to work hard.
On the other hand, the F8X M has a 6 mpg advantage over its predecessor. That's a 30% advantage, which is decisive. And something to crow about.

If you are referring to Acceleration only, yes possibly. But the F8x will probably have a more accessible power band and I actually think it will rather be the E9x driver having to work hard to keep the revs up and hang on to the F8x.

And if we go somewhere with corners, I'm pretty sure the 80kg saved, better brakes, better suspension and torque vectoring diff will make a even huger advantage for the F8x...

At least that is what I hope and expect BMW has achieved, after all otherwise this would be the first new gen M3 that struggles to keep up with the previous gen M3... And remember that BMW claims that the F8x will be the most track prepared "standard" M3 of all generations!

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Boss330

If you are referring to Acceleration only, yes possibly. But the F8x will probably have a more accessible power band and I actually think it will rather be the E9x driver having to work hard to keep the revs up and hang on to the F8x.

And if we go somewhere with corners, I'm pretty sure the 80kg saved, better brakes, better suspension and torque vectoring diff will make a even huger advantage for the F8x...

At least that is what I hope and expect BMW has achieved, after all otherwise this would be the first new gen M3 that struggles to keep up with the previous gen M3... And remember that BMW claims that the F8x will be the most track prepared "standard" M3 of all generations!

If you can't keep the S65 in the power band ( very,very easy ) it doesn't matter what car you drive, you will lose. It's way trickier to keep an FI car on full boost consistently, especially in chicanes type of areas were you are on-off throttle and keep the car planted, especially without all the AWD torque vectoring trickery cars like the GT-R uses. We don't know how easy this will be in the F8X but we already seen one test mule crashed on the ring, I can't recall seeing that with the E9X or E46.

[RMB]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Yes, BMW has had it's fair share of bad reviews on steering lately. However there have been quite a few tests where the BMW wins. Like the last German Auto Bild Sportscar Magazine (nr. 12 - 2013):

Comparison tests:

BMW M6 vs 911 Turbo S vs GT-R Black Edition vs R8 V10

911 wins, M6 and GT-R ties for second, R8 comes at 4th

435i vs E400 Coupe vs S5

435i wins (the "emotional victory is easy"), the S5 comes second and the E400 comes in Third

M135i X-drive vs S3 vs Volvo V40 T5 Heico

M135i is a Clear winner, S3 comes second and V40 Third

But in this test the M5 CP comes last due to it's traction problems and the notchy gearbox(!!??) RS7 wins and E63 second.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/v...g-7897472.html

There have been several reviews lately where the lack of AWD on the M5 has been a negative issue for the reviewers. Suspect we will see an AWD M5 in NeXT generation...

There is also mention of a Competition Package F8x, bumping power to around 450hp(?). The power to weight ratio would then be 0,29 for the AMG and 0,285 for the F8x, so a slight advantage for the AMG in acceleration.

And, yes we should also expect Audi and AMG to get lighter cars in the future, so it's probably gonna be an interesting battle to look forward to

Very good points and thank you for providing some of the articles that support our beloved BMW over the competition. I am a huge fan of BMW and when I bought my 2011 S4 I was about to trade it in for the RS5, but every review I read said the M3 was just that much more special. I went with the M3 (2012 E92 DCT) and loved the car. It was more alive and connected than my Audi and I have since sold it because I am waiting for delivery of my M4.

However, I remember a time not so long ago that Car and Driver, Road and Track, and Motor Trend (the magazines that I happen to subscribe to) always described the BMW M product as the precision instrument or scalpel of the brands (vs Audi and MB). I am just surprised that this is not the case anymore (or at least not as frequently) in comparison tests. Car and Driver was spot on in their review of the M3 vs the CTS V and RS5 and it was one of the reasons I became a first time BMW owner (hence the M3).

A lot is riding on the new M3 and M4, not only in comparison to other brands but also I feel for M itself to prove that the magic is still definitely there. I believe the magic is still present and I feel that we will be impressed with the new product (hence me getting the M4 sight unseen). But the world is becoming ever more competitive and it will be interesting how BMW M competes in this price bracket against the competition.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

If you can't keep the S65 in the power band ( very,very easy ) it doesn't matter what car you drive, you will lose. It's way trickier to keep an FI car on full boost consistently, especially in chicanes type of areas were you are on-off throttle and keep the car planted, especially without all the AWD torque vectoring trickery cars like the GT-R uses. We don't know how easy this will be in the F8X but we already seen one test mule crashed on the ring, I can't recall seeing that with the E9X or E46.

This crash you mean?

http://www.gtspirit.com/2013/09/26/s...e-nurburgring/

Overshooting the corner might not necessarily have to do with the power characteristics of the S55...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by solstice

Power to weight is important but it's not almost everything. Take a 991 C2S and the M5 both modern cars one severly underrated with an already power to weight advantage still it is crushed by the car with worse power to weight on the track. On the drag strip and in the straight line the M5 does better.

The cars have a very close power to weight (within 3%) assuming 20 hp of underrating for the BMW. Thus their straight line performance is very comparable - couple tenths here or there on most common metrics. However, the first two magazine test I pulled up showed the Porsche faster 0-60 and 1/4 mi, consistent with its better power to weight ratio.

However, despite power to weight being the single most important metric either on a straight track or on a curvy track, it is much easier to upset the predictive power of this ratio when considering two very different classes of vehicles (small 2 dr sports coupe vs. large 4 door GT sedan)

Originally Posted by solstice

Some cars do have a bit more "magic" than others to them.

Well, it's not really much magic. It is mostly about having a given power to weight with less weight and less power and perhaps better tires. Take the E92 vs. C63 AMG, the Merc is generally faster at the strip but slower on the track. Now that being said there are cases when steering, suspension and chassis ("magic") are much more in play than others. One can judge the level of "magic" in any vehicle by its standardized residual regressing power to weight vs. lap time on a given track. Cars like the E46 M3 CSL with plenty of "track magic" show up in the neighborhood of 2 standard deviations better than one would predict for their lap time based on power to weight alone. I've posted extensively on this type of analysis. Have a look if interested.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

You sure you want a M3? Seems like a good old muscle car suits you better. No need to have a light and nimble chassis, brute accelerative force is what matters... Because a light and nimble chassis is apparently just "nonsense"...

And you know what about my personal and particular interests, demands, uses, criteria for choosing a car?

Let's separate a real basic engineering/physics perspective of the most important thing in automobile performance from the plethora of other tangibles/intangibles. Probably as much for someone fairly technical like myself, cars choices are still largely about emotion. For me even something like acoustics is pretty darn important.

Just for your curiosity though, I enjoy carving up the canyons, mountains and get to formal track days as many times a year as I can. If I chose to blow a ton more $$ on cars I'd love to have a late 60's Camaro SS with a supercharged big block and close to 1000 hp...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I cannot comment on the "official" 3704lb figure. However my car is very close to that figure and has iDrive.

My car (on corner weighing scales) was 3707 with me (160 lb) and and 1/4 tank of fuel.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The new DCI700 weighs in at 78-82kg and I believe the dry weight of the DCI600 was 79kg

http://www.getrag.com/media/products.../7DCI700~2.pdf

The DCT transmission as actually included in the E9X does not look very similar at all to the advertised picture from Getrag. Thus I'm not sure how good their standard weight figures will be.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by fuddman

At only 8%, this P/W difference doesn't strike me as particularly decisive.

I didn't check the math but a few points (really repeating myself as I just posted this a dozen or so posts back...)

-8% by itself is significant.
-The new M4 is very likely to be underrated by about 20 hp
-With this figure it will best the E92 M3 by about 14% and that is really significant.
-This better figure is by BOTH more power AND less weight and as Boss330 points out the weight part is even more significant.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by basscadet

Why can AMG put a 4.0 liter turbo V8 in their new C63 while BMW cannot? Isn't MB also a German auto manufacturer concerned about efficiency, costs, and green image?

.

because AMG knows there is way to keep a V8 while still being green.

overall there turbo V8 is going to sound better, feel better, and make more power.

you can also count on the next RS5 to ditch V8s.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

And you know what about my personal and particular interests, demands, uses, criteria for choosing a car?

Let's separate a real basic engineering/physics perspective of the most important thing in automobile performance from the plethora of other tangibles/intangibles. Probably as much for someone fairly technical like myself, cars choices are still largely about emotion. For me even something like acoustics is pretty darn important.

Just for your curiosity though, I enjoy carving up the canyons, mountains and get to formal track days as many times a year as I can. If I chose to blow a ton more $$ on cars I'd love to have a late 60's Camaro SS with a supercharged big block and close to 1000 hp...

It was probably me just taking your "nonsense" comment a bit out of context, but it seemed from that post that the only thing that mattered to you was power to weight and not all that "chassis nonsense"... Which actually surprised me a bit as I thought you where a "chassis and handling kind a guy"

[Falafel Combo]

26 MPG would be a nice change. I get 23 MPG combined in my GTI compared to 14 MPG combined in my M3.


4.3 is pretty good, but not impressive at all (I WOULD BE PERFECTLY CONTENT WITH 4.3 CAR). I think one of the mags recorded 4.4 seconds on a stock xDrive (heavy) f30 335?


Edit: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ve_first_test/

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

My car (on corner weighing scales) was 3707 with me (160 lb) and and 1/4 tank of fuel.

That is around 100lb lighter than mine (also corner weighing scales).

What options do you have/not have?