Power potential limited?

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

I don't get this concept of the m3 motor not being "class leading" because it makes "only 430hp".


I am personally glad BMW is keeping the m3 in the ~430-470 crank HP range and focused instead of weight. I would've been far less happy if BMW had focused on 500 crank HP and the m3 weighed 3750-3900 pounds.

and I don't get your line of thought either. im not sure where, why or how the idea that you can only be lighter OR have more power, and not a combination of both came about.

why would anyone not expect BMW to lighten the car AND make even more power? how is that bad? why does it have to be one and the other? why would you assume that the car would have to be 3700-3900 pounds if it had 500hp? why not 3450 lbs (like the new m3 will weigh) and 500 hp?

for the life of me I don't understand why people think this

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

and I don't get your line of thought either. im not sure where, why or how the idea that you can only be lighter OR have more power, and not a combination of both came about.

why would anyone not expect BMW to lighten the car AND make even more power? how is that bad? why does it have to be one and the other? why would you assume that the car would have to be 3700-3900 pounds if it had 500hp? why not 3450 lbs (like the new m3 will weigh) and 500 hp?

for the life of me I don't understand why people think this

BMW has increased HP and Torque with the new model, HP only slightly (just over 2%) but Torque is increased by at least 25%

Of course there is potential to increase HP even more. But I assume that, just like with LCI upgrades, BMW also wants to keep some goodies reserved for the future and future models.

And if you want a car that is more than just a drag racer, one that has a balanced drive, the question is if 500hp in a 3450lbs RWD car is the preferred option...

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

And if you want a car that is more than just a drag racer, one that has a balanced drive, the question is if 500hp in a 3450lbs RWD car is the preferred option...

Would sure be fun

Think GT3RS 4.0

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Would sure be fun

Think GT3RS 4.0

That would be 475 HP & 3100 lbs

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

That would be 475 HP & 3100 lbs

The 997 4.0 was 500hp right? I think 991 GT3 is 475hp.

You could very well be right on the weight - all the more evidence that more power is still practical here from the M4 perspective. Now granted the 911 is rear engine with different weight balance so that probably taints the comparison a bit.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Boss330

BMW has increased HP and Torque with the new model, HP only slightly (just over 2%) but Torque is increased by at least 25%

Of course there is potential to increase HP even more. But I assume that, just like with LCI upgrades, BMW also wants to keep some goodies reserved for the future and future models.

And if you want a car that is more than just a drag racer, one that has a balanced drive, the question is if 500hp in a 3450lbs RWD car is the preferred option...

right, we all understand that. yet it STILL makes less power than the outgoing c63 amg and RS5.

the m3 will still be the car that I will likely prefer to drive over the competiton, but the excuse that "id rather have less weight than more power" makes no sense to me. there is NO reason that the car cant weigh less and have more HP to be more competitive with the other cars in its segment.

personally, I am a little disappointed in only 430 HP in this car. The car should have been developed making more power, and the engine likely should have been larger than 3.0L in order to do so less stressfully and more reliably in my opinion. i also don't agree whatsoever that a car having more power makes it less balanced. you just need to be more wary of throttle application when turning / coming out of turns.

still, the car will be great I am sure.

and id prefer to be responsible for modulating the power and traction with a more powerful car, I don't need BMW to make it have less power so it grips better, that's pretty much BS.

JMO

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

and I don't get your line of thought either. im not sure where, why or how the idea that you can only be lighter OR have more power, and not a combination of both came about.

why would anyone not expect BMW to lighten the car AND make even more power? how is that bad? why does it have to be one and the other? why would you assume that the car would have to be 3700-3900 pounds if it had 500hp? why not 3450 lbs (like the new m3 will weigh) and 500 hp?

for the life of me I don't understand why people think this

Kenny, it's fairly simple: Your line of thinking indicates BMW is resource-unlimited.

My line of thinking says BMW had a price target and a budget for making the car and they could either budget more for new engine development and production or for weight-savings R&D and procurement.

They've give us a vehicle with slightly more power, a lot more torque, and even more significant weight savings. Pound for pound, this car has the equivalent in horsepower/weight to an e90 m3 with 452hp.

And lowered weight is so much more beneficial to overall performance than additional HP.

So far the keyboard-bashers on here are indicating the M3 is not "keeping up with the competition" based upon engine output. They have no idea how it'll perform on a track, yet their hackles are up over a perceived lack of output.

However, every track junkie knows the best track performance across the widest array of tracks comes from ability to maintain speed through turns rather than brute acceleration out of a turn. And nothing enables that better than lower weight.

If you can name me another manufacturer who has shaved 200 pounds from their marquee performance vehicle, while simultaneously increasing power and torque and efficiency, I'd love to hear it.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

That would be 475 HP & 3100 lbs

It's actually 500hp for a claimed 2998lbs, but you get the drift

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

The 997 4.0 was 500hp right? I think 991 GT3 is 475hp.

You could very well be right on the weight - all the more evidence that more power is still practical here from the M4 perspective. Now granted the 911 is rear engine with different weight balance so that probably taints the comparison a bit.

Ooops

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

right, we all understand that. yet it STILL makes less power than the outgoing c63 amg and RS5.

the m3 will still be the car that I will likely prefer to drive over the competiton, but the excuse that "id rather have less weight than more power" makes no sense to me. there is NO reason that the car cant weigh less and have more HP to be more competitive with the other cars in its segment.

Hi Again Kenny.

The RS5 has 450hp/317 lb/ft torque. We know the m3 will have at least 369 lb/ft of torque. For the sake of discussion, let's consider them to basically have the same power output considering the torque difference.

That audi weighed somewhere between 500-700 pounds MORE than the m3 is going to weigh.

If you are concerned about power, know that the rs5 was a ~12.8 second quarter mile car. That was slower than the e9x m3 and it'll definitely be slower than the new m3 is capable of...

It's a similar story to the AMG.

So, again, why are you concerned about output compared to these outgoing porkers?

Lastly, you keep saying that there's no reason it can't weigh substantially less (as they've done) and have a lot more power (as they have not done).

I don't understand this. Of course there's a reason: resource constraints. You can't make the whole car out of carbon fiber while simultaneously putting in some hot newly developed engine and still hitting your cost targets. That's why it hasn't been done by others.

[Gearhead999s]

I drove a C63 sedan for a weekend as a safety car for a motorcycle weekend at Mosport and I have no desire to own one after beating on it for 3 days on & off the track.Yep lots of torque and noise but the car is ponderous to try to throw around and is not that enjoyable to drive quick.On the street it was very harsh over bumps compared to my ZCP equipped M3 and really was nothing very special except for the really smokey burnouts you could do

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

So far the keyboard-bashers on here are indicating the M3 is not "keeping up with the competition" based upon engine output. They have no idea how it'll perform on a track, yet their hackles are up over a perceived lack of output.

I agree that the "keeping up with the competition" argument is a little dubious. If the only metric by which the car was judged was crank HP, maybe that's true. But as many posters have pointed out, the M3 was never intended to be a 1/4 miler. It had a different target audience.

A couple of observations: when the 2008 M3 was announced, many people were disappointed that the car was debuting with "only" 414 HP, when at the time the C63 had 451 HP. The same statements were made: BMW wasn't keeping up with the competition. Nonetheless BMW sold lots of these cars (we all bought them!) because they were totally awesome.

Fast forward 6 years and history repeats. I predict the M3/M4 will be an awesome car and BMW will sell a lot, even if the C63 has a bunch more power.

Second point, BMW has also also focused on slightly less obvious aspects of their M cars to improve acceleration, besides HP. One is vehicle weight, with the new M3. But another is drivetrain efficiency. Recent BMW M cars punch above their weight in acceleration tests because they have less driveline loss than cars used to have. They conventional wisdom you hear on all these message boards about "15-20%" driveline loss is probably very wrong on these M cars, due to their high tech drivetrains (DCT, M differential, etc). People misunderstand this and think the engines are under-rated.

Pat

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

If you can name me another manufacturer who has shaved 200 pounds from their marquee performance vehicle, while simultaneously increasing power and torque and efficiency, I'd love to hear it.

Stay tuned in over the next 6 to 18 months. There are rumors of such achievements in upcoming F8x competitors from Mercedes, Audi, Ford, and GM. It is going to fun to watch how things play out; that's for sure.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Would sure be fun

Think GT3RS 4.0

Very different car with rear engine. Engine behind rear axle is good for weight distribution during acceleration. Much easier/better transfer of weight onto the rear wheels during accelerations compared with a front engine/RWD car.

Obviously not saying that you can't have over 500hp in a M3, you only have to look at tuned versions of E46 and E9x M3. But is that where BMW M wants to go at the moment?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

right, we all understand that. yet it STILL makes less power than the outgoing c63 amg and RS5.

the m3 will still be the car that I will likely prefer to drive over the competiton, but the excuse that "id rather have less weight than more power" makes no sense to me. there is NO reason that the car cant weigh less and have more HP to be more competitive with the other cars in its segment.

personally, I am a little disappointed in only 430 HP in this car. The car should have been developed making more power, and the engine likely should have been larger than 3.0L in order to do so less stressfully and more reliably in my opinion. i also don't agree whatsoever that a car having more power makes it less balanced. you just need to be more wary of throttle application when turning / coming out of turns.

still, the car will be great I am sure.

and id prefer to be responsible for modulating the power and traction with a more powerful car, I don't need BMW to make it have less power so it grips better, that's pretty much BS.

JMO

To paraphrase; we all get that it makes less crank HP than the C63 and RS5.

The figure that REALLY matters 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: 1680kg
Power: 420hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,25

F8X M3/4:
Weight: 1500kg
Power: 430hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,29

The E9x M3 would need to have 487hp, the RS5 would need 519hp and the C63 AMG would need 502hp to have the same power to weight ratio as the F8x...

The weight loss equals a free 57hp over a E9x plus the 10hp increase in crank power equals a 67hp advantage over the E9x M3.

Not to mention how the lower weight betters handling and braking

So compared to the RS5, C63 AMG and E9x M3, the F8x M3/M4 is a quite substantial leap in performance!

BTW, the F8x has the same power to weight ratio as the F10 M5. Never heard many complaints at that being a slow car under acceleration...

-

[Gearhead999s]

Screw it.I am keeping my E92 and I will put a hotted up LS7 into it Pickup about 200 horsepower and be a little lighter to boot!Thats the answer to all this talk about not enough power in the F8x M

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Hi Again Kenny.

The RS5 has 450hp/317 lb/ft torque. We know the m3 will have at least 369 lb/ft of torque. For the sake of discussion, let's consider them to basically have the same power output considering the torque difference.

That audi weighed somewhere between 500-700 pounds MORE than the m3 is going to weigh.

If you are concerned about power, know that the rs5 was a ~12.8 second quarter mile car. That was slower than the e9x m3 and it'll definitely be slower than the new m3 is capable of...

It's a similar story to the AMG.

So, again, why are you concerned about output compared to these outgoing porkers?

Lastly, you keep saying that there's no reason it can't weigh substantially less (as they've done) and have a lot more power (as they have not done).

I don't understand this. Of course there's a reason: resource constraints. You can't make the whole car out of carbon fiber while simultaneously putting in some hot newly developed engine and still hitting your cost targets. That's why it hasn't been done by others.

the entire car is not made of carbon fiber, come on. there has been tech and cars that have been made light for years, see the c6 z06 for example, its not like BMW is some pioneer here, although they are using CF instead of fiberglass.

and actually as I quoted below, the rs5 and c63 are reported to have substantial weight loss as well, with both cars making more power than the m3 using FI v8 motors.

guess they don't have any "resource constraints"?

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Stay tuned in over the next 6 to 18 months. There are rumors of such achievements in upcoming F8x competitors from Mercedes, Audi, Ford, and GM. It is going to fun to watch how things play out; that's for sure.

Originally Posted by Boss330

To paraphrase; we all get that it makes less crank HP than the C63 and RS5.

The figure that REALLY matters 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: 1680kg
Power: 420hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,25

F8X M3/4:
Weight: 1500kg
Power: 430hp
Power to weight ratio: 0,29

The E9x M3 would need to have 487hp, the RS5 would need 519hp and the C63 AMG would need 502hp to have the same power to weight ratio as the F8x...

The weight loss equals a free 57hp over a E9x plus the 10hp increase in crank power equals a 67hp advantage over the E9x M3.

Not to mention how the lower weight betters handling and braking

So compared to the RS5, C63 AMG and E9x M3, the F8x M3/M4 is a quite substantial leap in performance!

BTW, the F8x has the same power to weight ratio as the F10 M5. Never heard many complaints at that being a slow car under acceleration...

-

power to weight is not the only factor in acceleration, and I know you are aware of that.

the amg and rs5 are both reported to be significantly lighter as well while using FI v8 motors which will make more peak power and also have more power under the curve with bigger and broader torque curves.

again, everyone likes the m3 because its got a better chassis design than those other cars, so do I. that's why I own one.

but there is not a damn thing wrong with asking why they didn't step up their game with a more potent powerplant. and saying that they could only focus on dropping weight not adding power is not a good enough excuse.

audi is doing it, so is merc.

[JoeFromPA]

Kenny - you used the phrase "reported to be" twice above. Are we fighting paper tigers here? BMW apparently cut their vehicles weight by more than 5-7% vs. the previous generation while simultaneously significantly increasing vehicle size.

Do we know if Audi and Merc did the same? I'm genuinely asking - I don't follow the early info on those models closely like I do on the m3.

My first statement about the entire car being made of carbon fiber was an alliterative statement to point out the folly in your hypothetical. BMW DID increase power while decreasing weight, but you are saying that it should have been MORE than they did.

I get that. But you need to also understand that BMW accomplished what they did on a budget target. The reporting on the m3 indicated they ran out of money for things like standard LED headlights (to reduce weight) and other bits that would further lighten on the standard vehicle.

This indicates that yes, BMW could've done more but in some areas at least they were budget constrained.

Most likely they decided early on to go back to a turbo inline six in the m3 to increase efficiency, decrease production cost, etc.

A 3.0 liter inline six is also an excellent platform for high-RPM operation in a street car with longevity concerns.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Kenny - you used the phrase "reported to be" twice above. Are we fighting paper tigers here? BMW apparently cut their vehicles weight by more than 5-7% vs. the previous generation while simultaneously significantly increasing vehicle size.

Do we know if Audi and Merc did the same? I'm genuinely asking - I don't follow the early info on those models closely like I do on the m3.

My first statement about the entire car being made of carbon fiber was an alliterative statement to point out the folly in your hypothetical. BMW DID increase power while decreasing weight, but you are saying that it should have been MORE than they did.

I get that. But you need to also understand that BMW accomplished what they did on a budget target. The reporting on the m3 indicated they ran out of money for things like standard LED headlights (to reduce weight) and other bits that would further lighten on the standard vehicle.

This indicates that yes, BMW could've done more but in some areas at least they were budget constrained.

Most likely they decided early on to go back to a turbo inline six in the m3 to increase efficiency, decrease production cost, etc.

A 3.0 liter inline six is also an excellent platform for high-RPM operation in a street car with longevity concerns.

I get all that, and honestly im happy with the power even in my lowly e92, though I look forward to the f80 m3.

I am just tired of the excuses for bmw and people getting bashed for wishing the car had more power like its competitors do

and yes, audi and merc have both claimed reductions of at least 200lbs on the next gen c63 and rs5. audi claims more than 200lbs, IIRC merc claims 200. I said reported to be because nothing is set in stone until the car is actually released.

I am very pleased that all of these manufacturers are dropping weight. I track my m3 and am well aware of the benefits of lower weight for both quicker lap times and much less wear and tear on tires and brakes $$$$$$

As far as sticking to a budget and the price point......I am very nervous to see what the price point of the new m3 is. I hope they kept the price increase under control.

[EvenKeel]

Life is good when people are concerned about 430hp not being enough in a ~3500lb package. No?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

I get all that, and honestly im happy with the power even in my lowly e92, though I look forward to the f80 m3.

I am just tired of the excuses for bmw and people getting bashed for wishing the car had more power like its competitors do

and yes, audi and merc have both claimed reductions of at least 200lbs on the next gen c63 and rs5. audi claims more than 200lbs, IIRC merc claims 200. I said reported to be because nothing is set in stone until the car is actually released.

I am very pleased that all of these manufacturers are dropping weight. I track my m3 and am well aware of the benefits of lower weight for both quicker lap times and much less wear and tear on tires and brakes $$$$$$

As far as sticking to a budget and the price point......I am very nervous to see what the price point of the new m3 is. I hope they kept the price increase under control.

Less is more and more is better, with regards to weight and power respectively It's only human to want more and better things. That is progress

But, with a reported loss of around 200lbs the Merc will still weigh 1640kg, and let's say that the Audi looses a bit more than 200lbs so that also ends up at 1640kg.

That is approximately 140kg more than the F8x, or to put it another way; MB and Audi are coming down to E9x weights. BMW still leads the way (if your reports of 200lbs weight loss is correct).

With a 1640kg weight loss the Audi and Merc will need 475hp to match the F8x's power to weight ratio. But they will still be heavy under cornering and braking. HP can't overcome those deficiencies.

I'd rather have a 430hp, 1500kg M3 than a 475hp RS5/C63 with 1640kg to pull around every corner

If the above weights are true for the competition, I suspect we will see M3/M4 do significantly better lap times around a track. But it might be close on a drag strip, or the competition might even beat it in a straight line if they up the power above 475hp. Thankfully, the M3 has never been a drag racing car, nor has BMW intended it to be either.

Sure, more power is nice and I suspect we will see that in future versions as well. BMW has left some reserve for developments and upgrades. just like any manufacturer does. Just look at Apple and their iPhones...

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

I get all that, and honestly im happy with the power even in my lowly e92, though I look forward to the f80 m3.

I am just tired of the excuses for bmw and people getting bashed for wishing the car had more power like its competitors do

and yes, audi and merc have both claimed reductions of at least 200lbs on the next gen c63 and rs5. audi claims more than 200lbs, IIRC merc claims 200. I said reported to be because nothing is set in stone until the car is actually released.

I am very pleased that all of these manufacturers are dropping weight. I track my m3 and am well aware of the benefits of lower weight for both quicker lap times and much less wear and tear on tires and brakes $$$$$$

As far as sticking to a budget and the price point......I am very nervous to see what the price point of the new m3 is. I hope they kept the price increase under control.

the reason the M3 can't have much more power than it already does is because of the M5/M6. the M3 can't have better straight-line performance than those models without carrying a much higher price, otherwise it would cannibalize sales of those models.

you could say the same thing to Porsche regarding the Cayman, which could easily be the best performing car in their line-up if they would give it the higher displacement engines that are used in the 911's.

you're ignoring the business side of all of this if you want to answer the question of "why not both?".