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

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

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"

Thanks for clarifying. I see how my word and wording could be a bit ambiguous.

The "nonsense" is BMW marketing drivel on points like 50-50 weight balance being ideal. There are plenty of other cases of BMW marketing nonsense as well like the "weight loss" in the E9X M3 (better stated as a strong management of weight gain...). There is also the "i3 is the composites "inspiration" for the M4", which is rubbish. Their very distinct flip flop on the importance of a high revving engine (in the past) vs. tons of torque (now). I can go on and on...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

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

What options do you have/not have?

You just said above that your car is very close to the official 3704 lb NA figure. This sounds very much the opposite.

My car has, M-DCT ,19" wheels, Comfort Access, heated front seats (yes I'm in CA, go easy on me), digital compass on mirror, extended light package, M Dynamic (EDC, M-drive, seat width adjustment). I could supply the codes too if needed.

My weight also came up within about 10 lbs of another weighing on a dump scale. It is also a corner weighing scale but one where the rigid platform has a corner weighing sensor on each corner.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

You just said above that your car is very close to the official 3704 lb NA figure. This sounds very much the opposite.

My car has, M-DCT ,19" wheels, Comfort Access, heated front seats (yes I'm in CA, go easy on me), digital compass on mirror, extended light package, M Dynamic (EDC, M-drive, seat width adjustment). I could supply the codes too if needed.

My weight also came up within about 10 lbs of another weighing on a dump scale. It is also a corner weighing scale but one where the rigid platform has a corner weighing sensor on each corner.

I thought we were discussing curb weight here, which, IIRC, does not include driver but does include all fluids (full tank of gas).

My 3688lb is just that.

Maybe my car is a fat pig

We seem to be similarly equipped. Option codes would not help since standard, options and packages differ significantly between the US and Canada.

[Penguino]

Originally Posted by basscadet

BMW has gone on record to say that the F80 will weigh 80kg less than the E90. This is about 175 lbs. This is nice that they're shaving weight off the car, but with power staying relatively the same (15hp is not seat-of-the-pants noticeable) it really is down to the significant torque increase where we will notice the change. I don't think this will be the monumental improvement in performance we got with the E36->E46 or with the E39->E60.

This is why the tunability of this car is so important to me. If I can't extract significant gains out of this engine with a tune it's just going to be really hard for me to sign the dotted line at the dealership. For $70k+ I expect a car that is as fast as a Mustang GT or a base 911 and nearly as fast as a base Corvette, but with additional luxury and style. Otherwise, I will look for two cars(my DD beater + Corvette) to offer what I hope to find in a single one (M3).

I raced a 2012 Mustang 5.0 GT FBO and versus my E92 M3 FBO and the mustang pulled 2 cars on me. I then removed my front seat, rear seats and trunk mats (approx. 115lb total) and race again and pulled half a car on the Mustang consistently.

Do not underestimate the performance advantages of lightweight. At 175lbs lighter than E92 M3, +100-lbft of torque all across the powerband and at least +30-40whp over the E92 M3 (I would be surprised if the F80 dynos less than 380whp) the F80 will have a monumental performance improvement over the E92 M3.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I thought we were discussing curb weight here, which, IIRC, does not include driver but does include all fluids (full tank of gas).

My 3688lb is just that.

Maybe my car is a fat pig

We seem to be similarly equipped. Option codes would not help since standard, options and packages differ significantly between the US and Canada.

3704 lbs is a base E92 with driver, fluids, luggage and apparently DCT.

Your car getting pretty close to that without driver is normal taken the weight of your options. We saw from option weights I provided earlier close to 200 lbs extra weight, those ~200 lbs included DCT and metal roof though so subtract that and your car's weight without driver seems just about right.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I thought we were discussing curb weight here, which, IIRC, does not include driver but does include all fluids (full tank of gas).

My 3688lb is just that.

Maybe my car is a fat pig

We seem to be similarly equipped. Option codes would not help since standard, options and packages differ significantly between the US and Canada.

My understanding of curb weight as per EU directive it does include driver. From wikipedia,

"many European Union manufacturers include the weight of a 75 kilogram driver to follow European Directive 95/48/EC."

By 75 kg I think they mean 68 kg driver + 7 kg cargo.

In the US BMW reports unladen weight (not sure if universally but for the still in production E93 they do).

Seems this classic reference on weight is incorrect: link. From that page:

• Curb Weight = Weight of Car with standard accessories, full fluids, no driver
• EU Weight = Weight of Car with 90% fuel, 68 kg driver, 7 kg cargo
• Unladen Weight = Appears to be Curb Weight less 8 kg (can't find definition)

Also from (I think the same fellow on m5board): link.

Other "standards" perhaps are EU DIN Unladen, EU Kerbweight and perhaps even US curb weight. Ugh. I thought I has these distinctions pretty well down pat.

I think Boss330 did tons of research on this and maybe already knows these subtleties. How about a complete write up Boss330? With references (I think I saw you already did most of this). Maybe a sticky?

I guess the problem of comparing EU vs. US numbers might be the issue of "common options". A couple of examples from BMW would be useful in any write up.

Also to close the loop my specific options are: M-DCT, 2MT, 322, 492, 494, 4NA, 563, Z01.

[jaehshim]

european MPG and american MPG is different, we all know that right?

[DieGrüneHölle]

Originally Posted by turbolag

UK MPG or US MPG?

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

Excellent point.

For example the 335i on BMWusa gets 20mpg city, on BMWuk 335i gets 25mpg city.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by jaehshim

european MPG and american MPG is different, we all know that right?

They don't use MPG in Europe...

...unless you are talking UK; which is part of the European continent but not part of the EU, not using the same units, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc...

[tdizzle]

Originally Posted by Blipit_

Excellent point.

For example the 335i on BMWusa gets 20mpg city, on BMWuk 335i gets 25mpg city.

Good point. Looks like BMW underrates the MPG too though. Running 265/35/19 rears on my 335 with sticky Mich PSS, I still get 33mpg on the highway cruising at 78mph.

Around town I'm consistently getting 24. I got about 1.5mpg better on the stock runflats overall. Not sure what one could achieve using eco pro and driving the speed limit but I'm sure 36mpg doing 70mph is a fair assumption on the hwy.

This is with the auto btw. BMWUSA says the auto gets 22 city 32 hwy.

I would think the M3/M4 would get near 30 on the hwy unless keeping the turbos spooled sucks more gas that I'm presuming.

/end derail

[Sapper_M3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

They don't use MPG in Europe...

...unless you are talking UK; which is part of the European continent but not part of the EU, not using the same units, driving on the wrong side of the road, etc...

The U.K. is part of the European Union (although they don't take the Euro as currency).

I'm nitpicking though; the point of your post is accurate.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Sapper_M3

The U.K. is part of the European Union (although they don't take the Euro as currency).

I'm nitpicking though; the point of your post is accurate.

You are correct, I should have said the EZ (EuroZone)

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by I am Earl

So is the 26mpg for UK? And if yes this is going to get 2-3 mpg over the S65?

It's 9,1 L/100km which converts to 26mpg US and 31mpg Imperial, or a 30% improvement according to BMW

[04cobra]

I will have to wait and see what the 205 C63 runs in comparison before I make my decision

[ATX78703]

Absolutely below 4 sec. Given the MPPK is ripping 4.6 on most accts.

[S65V8]

I don't think the real numbers would be leaked so easily, it's a conservative est. it seems and surely BMW is not crazy enough to think 4.3 to 60 is good enough as a marked improvement from the last M3 (not 0-60 is the end all, be all...). They should know very well, the competition for this car is well into the sub 4s already with sub 12 1/4 mile times, and to keep up they'll have to at least match that number + be more than average on the track.

Like all past Ms, it's supposed to deliver close to 911 S figures but at a lower price point. (i.e.RT clocks the 991 Carrera S - 3.5 s to 60 and 11.8 1/4 mile). Then there's also the matter of the new Corvette Z51 pack that is darn close to the M3 price point with impressive numbers.

[playitfunky]

If those figures are true then I'll be seriously looking at the Alpina.
ALPINA B3 BI-TURBO
Engine: 2,979cc, six-cylinder, twin-turbo
Transmission: 8-speed ZF automatic, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 410hp@5,500rpm
Torque (lb ft): 443lb ft@3,000rpm
0-62mph: 4.2sec
Top speed: 190mph
Weight: 1,680kg
MPG: 37.2mpg (claimed)
CO2: 177g/km
Price: £54,950

Expect the B4 to be similar. Ok on track the m would be the better car, but real world everyday driving? Not so sure

[Eddien123]

Originally Posted by camber

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

Rather have an M car over a GTR anyday haha

[M-powerMode]

Originally Posted by camber

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

And thank God for that , they rattle more then a rattle snake does ....

[austinla335d]

Apply the same amount of scrutiny to the pre-release E90/92 M3 and a lot of the bogus complaints would be eliminated. As everyone seems to be saying, until the vehicle is released and dyno'd, run at the strip, etc, it doesn't really matter what we read or say in hindsight. We've just gotta wait it out, difficult as it may be.

[clbmw]

Originally Posted by paddy335

0-60, who cares. Has anyone seen or heard any mention of in-gear acceleration for the new cars? Especially 50-80, that's the most relevant to me.

+1

[georgere]

Is 26mpg highway? If so than not that impressive. however, if the number is combined MPG, it's about same as my e90 which is nice