M3/M4 CS Owners Thread

[dezzracer]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

Well, fck me I came across this thread. CS sounds so much more fun than my upcoming G87 6MT order. How do the brakes hold up?

Lol .. funny. On F CS cars really the only things you need to do if you want to track hard and often (unless you have CCB) are upgraded pads, brake fluid, and add CC plates. I’m sure you will love your new G car. As many have stated tho you can pick up a really nice low mileage FCS car for 65 to 75K.

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

Well, fck me I came across this thread. CS sounds so much more fun than my upcoming G87 6MT order. How do the brakes hold up?

Same brakes as any other F80/2 - pads + fluid + stainless lines takes the car pretty far. You know this stuff tho considering how much you’re at the track!

[kyrix1st]

Originally Posted by RugbyBro

Same brakes as any other F80/2 - pads + fluid + stainless lines takes the car pretty far. You know this stuff tho considering how much you’re at the track!

One thing to note: I found the stainless steel lines no better than the stock ones because stock lines are actually metal fibered inside, with its outside covered by rubber.
I used to mod my cars a lot, but now I find it increasingly appealing to track in the OEM+ form (with the exception of bucket seat, Castrol brake fluids, Endless brake pads, and tires). F80 CS just seems like a better platform all around. We'll see.

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

One thing to note: I found the stainless steel lines no better than the stock ones because stock lines are actually metal fibered inside, with its outside covered by rubber.
I used to mod my cars a lot, but now I find it increasingly appealing to track in the OEM+ form (with the exception of bucket seat, Castrol brake fluids, Endless brake pads, and tires). F80 CS just seems like a better platform all around. We'll see.

The biggest difference from base or ZCP is the damping (even though it uses ZCP dampers) - it’s significantly better than the non-CS damper coding. Great car to do your version of OE+ to. I only upgraded my suspension because I had to (unfortunate circumstance), but otherwise I felt like there was a lot left in the OE suspension for me to squeeze out.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by kyrix1st

One thing to note: I found the stainless steel lines no better than the stock ones because stock lines are actually metal fibered inside, with its outside covered by rubber.
I used to mod my cars a lot, but now I find it increasingly appealing to track in the OEM+ form (with the exception of bucket seat, Castrol brake fluids, Endless brake pads, and tires). F80 CS just seems like a better platform all around. We'll see.

CS made a believer out of me, they're just fantastic machines. I'm so glad I bought mine back in September and didn't wait for the M2. Get one now and wait a couple years to see how the M2 shakes out with aftermarket parts.

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by dezzracer

And after you guys spend all that money and time trying to make it better than the BMW M engineers and factory drivers did it won’t be. BMW nailed the CS suspension setting’s. The chassis, E-diff, bushings (or lack of in the CS), springs, and MDM are all tuned to work perfectly together on track and supple on street. Unless your a track rat pro driver and suspension tuning expert I suggest to leave the CS alone.

Yah agree to disagree on this one. It’s all about how you use the car and what you want out of it. M Engineers designed it to be a street car with maybe the occasional track day, so in that context I agree it’s probably best to leave it alone. But you can make it more fit for purpose, hence running a tighter suspension setup. You lose some of the street car and gain more of the track car - and at the end of the day times determine whether a suspension is better for the track or not, not the M Engineers. Otherwise they would have put the street setup on the GT4 cars

I do agree with the sentiment that a lot of the bucket tier coilover and lowering spring options can negatively affect the car’s performance all around. But then again, some people don’t push the car to the zone where it would matter so those options work for them.

Also CS has all the same bushings as the base cars - there is no proprietary mechanical hardware that the CS has. It has tuning, coding, and some nice carbon pieces. All put together very well.

[THEROK]

Originally Posted by RugbyBro

Also CS has all the same bushings as the base cars - there is no proprietary mechanical hardware that the CS has. It has tuning, coding, and some nice carbon pieces. All put together very well.

The CS engine, like the GTS, has increased oil capacity by .5 liter per BMW. It's documented to also feature the magnesium oil pan (again) and higher lateral/longitudinal limits than a non-CS/GTS S55.

I've yet to see someone list out the actual differences in parts with BMW part #s.

[TTM0TION]

Can the damper “coding” or whatever it is be put onto a ZCP car?

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by THEROK

The CS engine, like the GTS, has increased oil capacity by .5 liter per BMW. It's documented to also feature the magnesium oil pan (again) and higher lateral/longitudinal limits than a non-CS/GTS S55.

I've yet to see someone list out the actual differences in parts with BMW part #s.

Yah from what I understand it’s the same oil pan dimensionally as the regular one just made of magnesium (pan straight off the GTS) and the increased capacity is due to a longer sensor + spacer. There is a different part number for the magnesium pan, I’ve checked before which is shared only with GTS and CS variants. But yah it’s not that the actual oil capacity is greater

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by TTM0TION

Can the damper “coding” or whatever it is be put onto a ZCP car?

100%

There’s a few threads about it and I 1000% recommend anyone with ZCP dampers to have it coded. The damping itself is significantly better. CS is a hodgepodge of base and ZCP hardware so ideally you’d also throw on a base front sway bar which comes on the CS. Softens the front for more grip, part of the CS “magic”

[csboi]

Originally Posted by RugbyBro

Yah from what I understand it’s the same oil pan dimensionally as the regular one just made of magnesium (pan straight off the GTS) and the increased capacity is due to a longer sensor + spacer. There is a different part number for the magnesium pan, I’ve checked before which is shared only with GTS and CS variants. But yah it’s not that the actual oil capacity is greater

There exists design charactersistics of an oil pan other than just capacity and material. I'm interested to know if the capacity is the same and material is different, what other differences there may be.

Has anyone compared the two oil pans directly, or are we all just speculating that since capacity is the same therefore must be identical with the exception of material being the difference? (I have yet to see this proven or disproven)

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by csboi

There exists design charactersistics of an oil pan other than just capacity and material. I'm interested to know if the capacity is the same and material is different, what other differences there may be.

Has anyone compared the two oil pans directly, or are we all just speculating that since capacity is the same therefore must be identical with the exception of material being the difference? (I have yet to see this proven or disproven)

It’s pn 11137838706

Track/S has seen both - does a lot of bespoke machinery on F8X parts

[DaiLyCS]

I thought cs has additional oil pump on the back, make it 2 pumps front and back or I’m wrong and it’s come with all the s55?

[THEROK]

Originally Posted by RugbyBro

Yah from what I understand it’s the same oil pan dimensionally as the regular one just made of magnesium (pan straight off the GTS) and the increased capacity is due to a longer sensor + spacer. There is a different part number for the magnesium pan, I’ve checked before which is shared only with GTS and CS variants. But yah it’s not that the actual oil capacity is greater

Is it the same mag pan that was on the first year models?

I have a hard time visualizing how a sensor and spacer could require an additional .5L of oil. I’m guessing the CS mag pan is larger and different to the supercession that occurred to an aluminum pan.

Would be interesting to see a YouTube technical review of this esoteric enhancement.

[csboi]

It makes a bit of sense that a different sensor setup might allow a bit greater capacity in the same pan (it's just overfilled a bit and doesn't trip the sensor, I imagine?). It also makes sense that it's a pan of a different design, allowing greater capacity. I'm def more interested than I need to be in seeing photos or diagrams of each pan to determine the design differences, if any.

It wouldn't surprise me if the pans are identical other than material, but I am just looking for a conclusive resource stating one or the other.

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by THEROK

Is it the same mag pan that was on the first year models?

I have a hard time visualizing how a sensor and spacer could require an additional .5L of oil. I’m guessing the CS mag pan is larger and different to the supercession that occurred to an aluminum pan.

Would be interesting to see a YouTube technical review of this esoteric enhancement.

Don't know exactly, I just know that the specific part is tied only to GTS and CS models on the schematic.

Basically there is a longer oil sensor than the normal cars which would yield too high of an oil capacity reading, so BMW added a spacer to artificially shortens it to the level of a 7.0L reading. BW sells their solution that replicates the GTS/CS:

Originally Posted by csboi

It makes a bit of sense that a different sensor setup might allow a bit greater capacity in the same pan (it's just overfilled a bit and doesn't trip the sensor, I imagine?). It also makes sense that it's a pan of a different design, allowing greater capacity. I'm def more interested than I need to be in seeing photos or diagrams of each pan to determine the design differences, if any.

It wouldn't surprise me if the pans are identical other than material, but I am just looking for a conclusive resource stating one or the other.

100% I'm always for demystifying this stuff - if in 6 months we don't have an answer, I'll pull my skid plate and take some external pics during my next oil change.

[NickyC]

Hope everyone had a wonderful Easter weekend of driving! Gorgeous low 70s here both days with barely a cloud in the sky so lots of driving! Bumped into some cool people including an olive green Huracan owner who just loved the CS! Got her all washed up this morning and ready for the next weekend cruise.

[FRZN CS]

Wait... is the PPF in front of the rear fenders OEM?!?

Those bastards at the dealership charged me for that!

[THEROK]

Originally Posted by RugbyBro

Don't know exactly, I just know that the specific part is tied only to GTS and CS models on the schematic.

Basically there is a longer oil sensor than the normal cars which would yield too high of an oil capacity reading, so BMW added a spacer to artificially shortens it to the level of a 7.0L reading. BW sells their solution that replicates the GTS/CS:

100% I'm always for demystifying this stuff - if in 6 months we don't have an answer, I'll pull my skid plate and take some external pics during my next oil change.

I've never witnessed or read about the S55 suffering from oil starvation and this is coming from a self-confessed dry sump engine fan boy.

Actual technical documentation with third party backed visuals would put the CS/GTS S55 mechanical improvement(s) conjecture to rest. It'll for sure debunk all the lazy YouTube troglodytes denigrating the CS as an overpriced carbon fiber with a small bump in factory power badge job.

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by THEROK

I've never witnessed or read about the S55 suffering from oil starvation and this is coming from a self-confessed dry sump engine fan boy.

Actual technical documentation with third party backed visuals would put the CS/GTS S55 mechanical improvement(s) conjecture to rest. It'll for sure debunk all the lazy YouTube troglodytes denigrating the CS as an overpriced carbon fiber with a small bump in factory power badge job.

Dry sump would have been amazing, so I'm there with you. Once aero is part of the equation you can definitely start pulling those types of Gs. Here's the spacer straight from BMW (from the attached GTS tech doc)

Edit: There is no M3 / M4 CS technical document, but attached is the M2 CS technical doc. Just like the regular M2, the M2 CS is a direct carryover suspension, engine, transmission, etc.

[THEROK]

Originally Posted by RugbyBro

Dry sump would have been amazing, so I'm there with you. Once aero is part of the equation you can definitely start pulling those types of Gs. Here's the spacer straight from BMW (from the attached GTS tech doc)

Edit: There is no M3 / M4 CS technical document, but attached is the M2 CS technical doc. Just like the regular M2, the M2 CS is a direct carryover suspension, engine, transmission, etc.

I recall reading the oil level sensor mention in the GTS doc that you so kindly attached. It's also noted in CS BMW documentation the 1.4g spec (lat/long), but then could never cite the g-force value for the non-CS/GTS S55s.

Question remains as to whether the actual engine oil pan is physically different to take on more oil capacity or whether Bimmerworld has already done the research to not just shill the sensor+shim. If in fact the CS/GTS mg pan is modified in construction accounting for the .5L extra oil capacity, is it then different to the mg pans that they first used in the first year run of 6L F80/82s?

Unsolved mysteries.

[RugbyBro]

Originally Posted by THEROK

I recall reading the oil level sensor mention in the GTS doc that you so kindly attached. It's also noted in CS BMW documentation the 1.4g spec (lat/long), but then could never cite the g-force value for the non-CS/GTS S55s.

Question remains as to whether the actual engine oil pan is physically different to take on more oil capacity or whether Bimmerworld has already done the research to not just shill the sensor+shim. If in fact the CS/GTS mg pan is modified in construction accounting for the .5L extra oil capacity, is it then different to the mg pans that they first used in the first year run of 6L F80/82s?

Unsolved mysteries.

Hehe well today is your lucky day - I've got a lot of tech docs saved. Regular S55 @ 6.5L is rated for 1.2Gs per the S55 tech doc.

BW has seen countless F8X, have been racing their GT4 cars for years, and are currently developing track products as the chassis enters its next phase of life - so they would definitely know. Regardless of the dimensions the point of their product is to allow you to "overfill" a regular S55 without throwing a code.

But yeah, I'd love to pull my pan to compare it, though, I don't have a reason to yet. Possibly if someone has a CH installed they can see - I don't believe in that issue or ever plan to tune so it won't be from me lol