Official BMW M3 M4 Specs: 430HP, 369+ LB-FT, Under 3306 Pounds, Bi-Turbo Inline 6 Cyl

[Jason]

Originally Posted by autopal

I was hoping for a little more torque thou, at least 400 ft lbs. Bearing in mind that torque was the main problem of the last M3, the just released Alpina B3 has 443 ft lbs, and its a given that the next C63 AMG will have well over 450 ft llbs.

Final torque numbers aren't actually revealed yet. But the press release states that the final torque figure will be "far beyond" 369 lb-ft.

As we stated in our writeup, our guess is that it ends up about 390 lb-ft.

[crooked I]

Originally Posted by Jason

Final torque numbers aren't actually revealed yet. But the press release states that the final torque figure will be "far beyond" 369 lb-ft.

As we stated in our writeup, our guess is that it ends up about 390 lb-ft.

bunch of people in this thread need some fricken glasses.

[signes]

Originally Posted by caneaddict

The discrepancy has to do with the various measurement standards and an attempt to compare apples to apples.

US Curb weight is measured with the base car (without any cost options that would reduce weight) plus driver and cargo (165 lbs) and 16 gal fuel (6 lb/gal) That's the way most manufacturers quote weight on their web site including BMW.

EU has 2 measurements:
Unladen - car has all fluids, running gear, spare tire etc. 90% fuel tank and no driver or cargo.
EU kerb - unladen plus 68kg driver and 7kg cargo (165 lbs)

The other difference between US and Euro is that usually a base US car already has more options than a Euro base car so the weight will account for those options. An example would be if the M4 comes with an auto standard and manual as a no cost option then the weight will be quoted for the auto.

BMW's quote of 3306 lbs is without driver/cargo with a euro spec. Hence the US weight will be at least 3471 lbs. However as i said the US number is usually a bit higher for standard equipment so US should be at least 3480 lbs (it might be in the low 35xx if DCT is included in the calculation). Those estimates line up well with BMW's claim that the M4 will be 80kg lighter than a similarly equipped e90. In the US, BMW quoted the e90 at 3704 lbs which is where everyone is getting the 3528 lb number.

These are all estimates but it looks like it will come in somewhere between 3480 - 3540 pounds when using the same measurement that you currently see on BMW's web site for all their other US cars.

Hope this was helpful

fantastic, concise explanation. Nicely done.

[flinchy]

any word on compression ratio?

at least 10.2:1 i'd assume?

10.5?

[iceman335]

Does anyone know if the carbon front lip on the concept car will be included on the production cars?

[swamp2]

Some good and some bad here in my evaluation. Either way the cars is going to be Porsche 991S type fast or very close. Pretty much a drivers race.

Weight:

The apples to oranges BS with the weight obviously continues and thanks for all of the non-sheeple who were very quick to point of the BS marketing of car weight without driver. It's great that Jason clarified 3300 without driver with 90% fuel. That means apples to apples is:

3305 lb (i.e. less than 3306 lb) + 68 kg (driver) + 7 kg (cargo) = 3470 lb

Now the CSiC brakes are almost for sure included here despite being an option because that is just how BMW marketing rolls. No CSiC brakes should add about 20 kg. Thus

E92 M3 = 3704 lb (US curb weight with driver, gas, cargo)
F82 M4 = 3514 lb (US curb weight with driver, gas, cargo)

IIRC my best prediction for car + driver (not counting CSiC brakes) was right about 3599 (3450 less driver).

Again to all of those who said 33XX. Sorry you are were definitively over optimistic and wrong and hate to say it but ... I told you so...

Composites:

Yeah, yeah, Scott, this is "i3/i8 derived" (or whatever you claimed), it welcomes the M4 to the new Carbon age, yada, yada, yada. Total BS. The only parts that are new and save any significant weight are the drive shaft, probably saving about 25 lb and the CF trunk lid, saving about 11 lb. Too bad Mazda has been using CF drive shafts in the RX8 in 2004 and probably in other models before that time... Where are the rumored composite unibody parts like tranny tunnel or composite non structural body parts like package tray? They aren't here and thus the weight savings was modest. Why aren't they here? Because they simply cost way too much in these low volumes. Same comment goes for those European fellows also claiming we'd get composite suspension components. Get real, wake up and smell the roses.

Engine:

Relative lack of turbo technology is a bit odd. What other than these turbo's being small is going to deliver a near lag free experience. I was really hopeful for some real FI innovation here like an electric turbo or 3 turbos with one electric or something just novel and lag reducing. Perhaps more will come to light in the future.

On the positive side, if the bore numbers are correct from C&D I think it means it is indeed an entirely new engine. An 89.6 mm bore can not coexist with a 91 mm bore spacing that was on both the S54 and N54/N55. Thus the bore spacing had grown and thus a new block and new head. Sure it will have some things quite in common with the N55 but it is still a clean sheet design. This is quite surprising from a cost perspective. I guess it is more than made up for with over 20 lb of weight savings in the engine.

Engine cooling seems thorough, albeit complex. I've wouldn't have any worries about tracking the car in the heat.

I'll make a separate post with a full performance prediction ASAP.

[flinchy]

Originally Posted by caneaddict

That is exactly why the listed weight is 3704 lbs. The listed weight accounts 165 lbs for driver and cargo.

which is stupid.. because every driver weighs differently

list it as weight with fluids but NO driver, then let people calculate the +driver weight by themselves ffs?

[ron_jeremy]

Wow, mighty impressive, BMW M shows the competition how it's done - again!
I guess alot of hear sayers need to STFU by the look of those specs, BMW M are alive and kicking, and by the looks of these figures, i'm very confident this is going to be the best M3 yet!

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Some good and some bad here in my evaluation. Either way the cars is going to be Porsche 991S type fast or very close. Pretty much a drivers race.

Weight:

The apples to oranges BS with the weight obviously continues and thanks for all of the non-sheeple who were very quick to point of the BS marketing of car weight without driver. It's great that Jason clarified 3300 without driver with 90% fuel. That means apples to apples is:

3305 lb (i.e. less than 3306 lb) + 68 kg (driver) + 7 kg (cargo) = 3470 lb

Now the CSiC brakes are almost for sure included here despite being an option because that is just how BMW marketing rolls. No CSiC brakes should add about 20 kg. Thus

E92 M3 = 3704 lb (US curb weight with driver, gas, cargo)
F82 M4 = 3514 lb (US curb weight with driver, gas, cargo)

IIRC my best prediction for car + driver (not counting CSiC brakes) was right about 3599 (3450 less driver).

Again to all of those who said 33XX. Sorry you are were definitively over optimistic and wrong and hate to say it but ... I told you so...

Composites:

Yeah, yeah, Scott, this is "i3/i8 derived" (or whatever you claimed), it welcomes the M4 to the new Carbon age, yada, yada, yada. Total BS. The only parts that are new and save any significant weight are the drive shaft, probably saving about 25 lb and the CF trunk lid, saving about 11 lb. Too bad Mazda has been using CF drive shafts in the RX8 in 2004 and probably in other models before that time... Where are the rumored composite unibody parts like tranny tunnel or composite non structural body parts like package tray? They aren't here and thus the weight savings was modest. Why aren't they here? Because they simply cost way too much in these low volumes. Same comment goes for those European fellows also claiming we'd get composite suspension components. Get real, wake up and smell the roses.

Engine:

Relative lack of turbo technology is a bit odd. What other than these turbo's being small is going to deliver a near lag free experience. I was really hopeful for some real FI innovation here like an electric turbo or 3 turbos with one electric or something just novel and lag reducing. Perhaps more will come to light in the future.

On the positive side, if the bore numbers are correct from C&D I think it means it is indeed an entirely new engine. An 89.6 mm bore can not coexist with a 91 mm bore spacing that was on both the S54 and N54/N55. Thus the bore spacing had grown and thus a new block and new head. Sure it will have some things quite in common with the N55 but it is still a clean sheet design. This is quite surprising from a cost perspective. I guess it is more than made up for with over 20 lb of weight savings in the engine.

Engine cooling seems thorough, albeit complex. I've wouldn't have any worries about tracking the car in the heat.

I'll make a separate post with a full performance prediction ASAP.

As usual great post. Just keeping it real.

[signes]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'll make a separate post with a full performance prediction ASAP.

Looking forward to it.

[roadmax]

Impressive automotive technological details with more carbon fiber parts and other lightweight materials.
Fixed rear sub-frame is interesting and is any other car in the same class with the CF driveshaft?
We will have to see how it will compare to the competitors and how reliable and durable is in general but particularly the engine with turbo chargers.

[caneaddict]

Originally Posted by flinchy

which is stupid.. because every driver weighs differently

list it as weight with fluids but NO driver, then let people calculate the +driver weight by themselves ffs?

That's obviously a joke. In all seriousness the measurement was created to give consumers a realistic view of weight while retaining a consistent factor. Since all manufacturers (except Porsche sometimes) use it the same way, its easiest to keep to the pattern. If you want to know what the weight is for you just subtract (or add) the difference between your weight and 165 from the official number.

[caneaddict]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Some good and some bad here in my evaluation. Either way the cars is going to be Porsche 991S type fast or very close. Pretty much a drivers race.

Weight:

The apples to oranges BS with the weight obviously continues and thanks for all of the non-sheeple who were very quick to point of the BS marketing of car weight without driver. It's great that Jason clarified 3300 without driver with 90% fuel. That means apples to apples is:

3305 lb (i.e. less than 3306 lb) + 68 kg (driver) + 7 kg (cargo) = 3470 lb

Now the CSiC brakes are almost for sure included here despite being an option because that is just how BMW marketing rolls. No CSiC brakes should add about 20 kg. Thus

E92 M3 = 3704 lb (US curb weight with driver, gas, cargo)
F82 M4 = 3514 lb (US curb weight with driver, gas, cargo)

IIRC my best prediction for car + driver (not counting CSiC brakes) was right about 3599 (3450 less driver).

Again to all of those who said 33XX. Sorry you are were definitively over optimistic and wrong and hate to say it but ... I told you so...

Composites:

Yeah, yeah, Scott, this is "i3/i8 derived" (or whatever you claimed), it welcomes the M4 to the new Carbon age, yada, yada, yada. Total BS. The only parts that are new and save any significant weight are the drive shaft, probably saving about 25 lb and the CF trunk lid, saving about 11 lb. Too bad Mazda has been using CF drive shafts in the RX8 in 2004 and probably in other models before that time... Where are the rumored composite unibody parts like tranny tunnel or composite non structural body parts like package tray? They aren't here and thus the weight savings was modest. Why aren't they here? Because they simply cost way too much in these low volumes. Same comment goes for those European fellows also claiming we'd get composite suspension components. Get real, wake up and smell the roses.

Engine:

Relative lack of turbo technology is a bit odd. What other than these turbo's being small is going to deliver a near lag free experience. I was really hopeful for some real FI innovation here like an electric turbo or 3 turbos with one electric or something just novel and lag reducing. Perhaps more will come to light in the future.

On the positive side, if the bore numbers are correct from C&D I think it means it is indeed an entirely new engine. An 89.6 mm bore can not coexist with a 91 mm bore spacing that was on both the S54 and N54/N55. Thus the bore spacing had grown and thus a new block and new head. Sure it will have some things quite in common with the N55 but it is still a clean sheet design. This is quite surprising from a cost perspective. I guess it is more than made up for with over 20 lb of weight savings in the engine.

Engine cooling seems thorough, albeit complex. I've wouldn't have any worries about tracking the car in the heat.

I'll make a separate post with a full performance prediction ASAP.

Great factual post.

Regarding the turbo lag, BIMMERPOST mentioned (in the review) that when the car senses quick acceleration/decelaration it will keep the turbos wound the entire time for instant response. It won't be sustained over a longer drive but if you are driving aggressive or on a race track the small turbos coupled with the pre-tension is what is supposed to create a lag free normal aspirated feeling.

[solstice]

As mentioned I'm disappointed in the weight. And yes swamp you're guess was better than mine since the CFRP seats will not be enough to get even near 33XX lbs in US curb weight. Congrats to you, pound your chest and gloat, you earned it.

Now to move on, I'm still cautiously excited about this car. These were my main concerns:

1. Numb, over boosted, artificial steering.
Indication: New HW from ZF with M specific tuning and unboosted return to center force sound very promising.

2. Throttle lag making power unpredictable and spongy.
Indication: Special manifold and new pre-loading at off throttle sounds promising but also complex. I hope it has consistency, predictability and reliability. Some concerns here for sure but still exciting.

3. Typical FI power plateau with modest redline.
Indication: power charts look like usual FI charts, not much new here it seems.

4. Death of in cabin engine note.
Indication: BIMMERPOST reports very good engine note from the cabin. Promising but is it real or fake?

5: EDC only.
Fact. Passive suspension is offered and standard. Awesome.

All in all very good job and to go back to the weight, it is certainly good that it's lesser than the current car so it's a plus not a minus. I just wish it was an exclamation mark to it but it does not ruin the chances of this new car being a leap forward if all else works together with balance and precision in usual M3 fashion. Nice job BMW.

[brisance]

It has to produce a lot more than 369 lb-ft at that kind of boost pressure. Otherwise it would mean that the engineers are utterly incompetent.

Back in the 2000s, the old-school 2L Mitsu 4G63 was pushing about 290 lb-ft @ 17.4 psi without MIVEC.

This S55 engine is 50% larger in displacement and has double VANOS, Valvetronic and direct injection. The piston crown design suggests a high static compression ratio. I would be disappointed if it didn't produce at least commensurately more under similar boost pressure. i.e. >435 lb-ft. My wild ass guess is that it's going to end up at 450 lb-ft.

OK, maybe they might limit it due to drivetrain reliability concerns. But the predicted torque at 369 lb-ft is a laughably low bar to clear given such specs.

[autopal]

Originally Posted by Jason

Final torque numbers aren't actually revealed yet. But the press release states that the final torque figure will be "far beyond" 369 lb-ft.

As we stated in our writeup, our guess is that it ends up about 390 lb-ft.

I hear you Jason, and i hope your guess is wrong and the final torque comes in at around 420 ft lbs. I guess we'll all find out in a few months. I've been waiting on this F80 M3 as a replacement for my E90, but i don't know what it is, i'm just not as excited as i should, now that we have the details. I hardly take my car to the track, so now i'm thinking maybe i should just get a F30 335i with M sport, get the Dinan stage 2 and the akrapovic exhaust and just call it a day!
It's like this new M3 will be too similar to a well tuned F30. Go ahead, call me crazy, maybe i'm crazy.........

[flinchy]

Originally Posted by caneaddict

That's obviously a joke. In all seriousness the measurement was created to give consumers a realistic view of weight while retaining a consistent factor. Since all manufacturers (except Porsche sometimes) use it the same way, its easiest to keep to the pattern. If you want to know what the weight is for you just subtract (or add) the difference between your weight and 165 from the official number.

if it was 'well known' that this is how it was measured, there wouldn't be so much confusion

i want my 'kerb weight' to mean car with fluids and 90% fuel. that's it

i want to be able to go *car model kerb weight* and boom, have the numbers i require to make a weight comparison between two models.

[G80indy]

N55

Originally Posted by flinchy

never anything wrong with it.. just harder to tune, more complex, smaller turbo stock etc.

N55 has a cast crank, where this has a forged. I guess the valve train uses hydraulic lifters and roller bearings, but valvetronic has higher mass so inherently curbs high redline.
What's this about cylinder deactivation to slow the engine revs while the turbos are "pre-tensioned"?
I'm curious about the direct mounted rear suspension. A great amount of what makes the M cars special is the chassis and suspension. The use of forged aluminum in the unsprung mass is not new.
Also curious about the reliability of the electric waste gates. Magnets in motors don't like extreme heat, but I suppose M rated the motors for extremes. I wonder if the pumps keep the turbos cooling via water and/ or oil after hot laps and engine shutoff. Turbo bearings and coking would be an issue.
Also I bet this has a very sophisticated ECU. Reprogramming for mods? Yikes.
Change that oil often.

[0-60Motorsports]

hhmm skip the NA V8 E90 M3 dream and go direct to TT M3 2016-17 (facelift)?

Would get a GOLF R MK7 to pass the time till then

[caneaddict]

Originally Posted by flinchy

if it was 'well known' that this is how it was measured, there wouldn't be so much confusion

i want my 'kerb weight' to mean car with fluids and 90% fuel. that's it

i want to be able to go *car model kerb weight* and boom, have the numbers i require to make a weight comparison between two models.

Not sure I understand. I never said it was "well known" just that its fact. You can go "car model kerb weight" and boom, have the numbers you require to compare two cars. After a car is official and released you can go to the manufacturer web site and see the kerb weight to compare. Prior to the car being released some manufacturers will quote unladen weight (the weight you are looking for - no driver). As to you wanting the term curb weight to mean something different from its current definition; I'm not privy to your influence in the car world but it would take substantial international industry and political pull to change the term's definition - while your at it change the defined weight in a pound so I won't need to diet.

[johnofcross]

Love the fact that they continue to use and improve on the manual transmission. I've read that BMW have stopped offering manuals to higher level cars (> 3 series) because the tech platform has plateaued. Granted, it's still a 6 speed, but performance-wise it's still all there. Not sure about the auto throttle blip though... I bet it'd feel weird downshifting on a corner while pressing only two pedals.
Still, epic car overall.

[onefastdoc]

Originally Posted by gymtime

Nope. I'll take a high-revving V8 over a FI 6. I don't care if it's a little faster. Still going to be an awesome car.

Well, that all depends on how much hp the FI 6 makes.

A high revving V8 is nice, but I traded my E92 M3 in for an FI 6. If you drove my 2012 GT-R with 700hp, I think you'd change your mind...

I agree, my old M3 sounded better than the GT-R which sounds like crap, but I tend to forget about that since it is a daily driver that runs low 10s in the 1/4 mile.

The first thing I thought of when I read page one was, "with a few mods, we should be able to squeeze 550-600hp out of this car." I'm really excited that BMW went FI with this car.