BMW M4 - Sport Auto test ride and interview with Albert Biermann

[JoeFromPA]

Originally Posted by BMW M3 CRT

The M3 of the E9x Family has only 20% common parts with the standard E9x .. this meen parts overall, not only body parts! Also the precessors are quoted in the same common part range. This was also specially marketed by the M-GmbH.

And in Jasons official review of the new M3/M4 in this forum, I read about 50% common parts ... much less than the previously quoted 20%, and this includes all CRFP-Part that are new in the F8x!

And also Mr.Biermann says in his SPORTAUTO interview, that they have made many parts together with the AG-Models to reduce productions costs.
He says this like it was a good move, but until now it was an important marketing issue that an M3 ist totally different from his 3er counterpart (it only looks like an 3er) and that this is the reason for its higher price.

Seems like the new M3/M4 is getting much cheaper ... but not for the customer ... only for BMW!?

Ok, I'm going to rant on this a bit. There was a famous American car company who, when looking at their costs, found that they had developed 6 different unique fasteners to hold the car seat down to the body across their line. Each one had development costs and manufacturing costs, and accomplished the same thing. It was determined that one of the fasteners was really over-engineered and could function for ALL applications and save the company a ton of money moving forward in:

1. Parts tooling costs
2. Parts manufacturing costs
3. Parts storage cost
4. Long-term parts supply costs

Now you could say each of those cars had more unique content, but it didn't actually do anything except drive costs up.

An f80 is a 3-series. It's always been a 3-series. It's a seriously beefed up 3-series.

For upfront and long-term reasons, I don't want 80% unique parts. That's ridiculous. 50% is an excellent blend indicating lots of new body panels, drivetrain parts, suspension, steering, and brakes. And of course interior bits.

However, we know that they are using unique parts when it counts most. This means that they STOPPED using unique parts where it didn't matter as much.

What does this mean for us?

More R&D and development dollars went into the vehicle's performance. Long term ownership will be less expensive for an M vehicle because some of the little stuff won't be 3x as expensive. And there's less opportunity for some uniquely developed part to be absolutely terrible because it's already been in use for 3 years.

As an owner of a ~13 year old, 127k mile e39 m5, let me tell you: It pisses me off when my front porkchop (read: lower fender liner in front of tire) is 2x the cost of a e39 540i because the e39 m5 used a unique part in that location. It's not a brake duct or anything performance related. It's a fender liner that has a thick rubber lip where it meets the body for God knows what reason - and it's 2x as much as a result.

In the e39 m5 crowd and many other older M crowds, it's a point of joy when you find a non-performance part that's shared across the line and therefore is a more reasonable cost

/Rant

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Ok, I'm going to rant on this a bit. There was a famous American car company who, when looking at their costs, found that they had developed 6 different unique fasteners to hold the car seat down to the body across their line. Each one had development costs and manufacturing costs, and accomplished the same thing. It was determined that one of the fasteners was really over-engineered and could function for ALL applications and save the company a ton of money moving forward in:

1. Parts tooling costs
2. Parts manufacturing costs
3. Parts storage cost
4. Long-term parts supply costs

Now you could say each of those cars had more unique content, but it didn't actually do anything except drive costs up.

An f80 is a 3-series. It's always been a 3-series. It's a seriously beefed up 3-series.

For upfront and long-term reasons, I don't want 80% unique parts. That's ridiculous. 50% is an excellent blend indicating lots of new body panels, drivetrain parts, suspension, steering, and brakes. And of course interior bits.

However, we know that they are using unique parts when it counts most. This means that they STOPPED using unique parts where it didn't matter as much.

What does this mean for us?

More R&D and development dollars went into the vehicle's performance. Long term ownership will be less expensive for an M vehicle because some of the little stuff won't be 3x as expensive. And there's less opportunity for some uniquely developed part to be absolutely terrible because it's already been in use for 3 years.

As an owner of a ~13 year old, 127k mile e39 m5, let me tell you: It pisses me off when my front porkchop (read: lower fender liner in front of tire) is 2x the cost of a e39 540i because the e39 m5 used a unique part in that location. It's not a brake duct or anything performance related. It's a fender liner that has a thick rubber lip where it meets the body for God knows what reason - and it's 2x as much as a result.

In the e39 m5 crowd and many other older M crowds, it's a point of joy when you find a non-performance part that's shared across the line and therefore is a more reasonable cost

/Rant

Well said & very true!

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I know how a special plant works when we are talking about a small dedicated number of engines. I have been at the Cosworth facility in the UK and seen the assembly process of their F1 engines and road going engines (Like some Aston Martin and Ford Cosworth Duratec engines). However those are fairly small numbers, like a few hundreds or maybe low thousands a year, the S65 was made in 60.000 so it's hardly hand built.

To me, that indicates that the S65 and other M engines are mass produced on a assembly line, not hand built. Then the Munich assembly line has to be better than the one at the Steyr plant to make a difference.

The Munich engine facility makes 300.000 engines per year and the Steyr plant makes just over 1.000.000 engines per year, but with "only" 300.000 of those engines being petrol engines, the rest being diesels.

Overvierw over BMW plants:
http://www.bmwgroup.com/e/0_0_www_bm...rte/index.html

BMW Munich plant:
http://www.bmw-plant-munich.com/lowb.../en/index.html



The above plant info hasn't been updated for some time it seems... And, looks like it's only the V12 of the above engines still being produced on the "Special assmbly line" at Munich.

BMW Steyr plant:
http://www.bmw-plant-steyr.com/

So far I haven't found any indications of such a low volume manufacturing process at Munich to compare with a true dedicated plant such as I witnessed at Cosworth's facility and assembly of Aston Martin engines etc. In fact it seems more like the special plant is there to assemble the "odd" engines that doesn't fit in the mainstream lines than it exists for higher tolerances etc.

This thread also shows that the S65 "sticks out like a sore thumb" compared to other BMW engines when it comes to clearances...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892838

You need to compare apples to apples when comparing volumes...

The S65 was produced over 7 years, meaning a yearly volume of about 8500 engines. That represents less than 1% of the Steyr plant output and less than 3% of the Munich plant production.

I work in the engine manufacturing business, and I can attest that an engine built on a dedicated production line with dedicated resources gets more attention. It is however much more expensive because of it...

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

You need to compare apples to apples when comparing volumes...

The S65 was produced over 7 years, meaning a yearly volume of about 8500 engines. That represents less than 1% of the Steyr plant output and less than 3% of the Munich plant production.

I work in the engine manufacturing business, and I can attest that an engine built on a dedicated production line with dedicated resources gets more attention. It is however much more expensive because of it...

I agree on that, but before we can compare Apples to Apples we also need to know what kind of Production line the S55 will be built on at the Steyr plant

From the link in my previous post it seems the S65 has it's fair share of tolerance related issues though...

[BaLLzZz]

Purists hate change.

They feel much more comfortable using verbage such as evolution. I for one feel like the ///M brand is growing and setting targets for itself where it has to break some of the long standing individualism. Do I agree with any of it NO. But life goes on.

If the new M4 is a lighter, faster, and more rewarding(doubtful) I don't see how I can be mad. If that's not the case then that's more of a reason to look for an e92 or e46 or e30.


First build for these cars is May 14'

[M54ccibo]

Originally Posted by gblansten

Have you enjoyed your M5?

Yessir. Love the car.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

From the link in my previous post it seems the S65 has it's fair share of tolerance related issues though...

Is it a design or a manufacturing issue...

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Is it a design or a manufacturing issue...

It could be either one or both... A manufacturing issue with bearings, con rods or crank. But most likely a design issue IMHO

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

It could be either one or both... A manufacturing issue with bearings, con rods or crank. But most likely a design issue IMHO

Agreed, I also think it more likely a marginal design. In which case the factory cannot be blamed...

[duk]

Really hoping M3/M4 will be GREAT, really do.

Just really on the fence about it too. Can't wait til the reviews and responses from you guys with a few years into the new cycle. I suspect a few kinks to be worked out with the S55...esp being built on the same prod line as regular engines.

[MIL.SPEC]

How have the other clearcoat roofs held up to the elements? Any fading issues?

Personally, I have never owned a BMW. Great cars, but I didn't see the point of spending money on an M3 when it was an NA car (I like to modify things). Now with the twin turbo going to be in it, I am completely interested.

I feel once people drive it, they won't be complaining. With the lighter weight and added torque, it's going to be awesome. And turbo engines love to be modified. It's going to be a very fun car.

[playitfunky]

Sorry put this in the wrong thread!!

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

[crypticc]

Originally Posted by playitfunky

Sorry put this in the wrong thread!!

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

Now then, if they only made alpina in manual or with DCT? Would be interesting to see the area under the curve.

[ixse]

alpina just doesnt look special to me.. little too understated