M3 / M4 V6 Speculation

[Jason]

Yes, very old photo from when the F80 M3 prototypes were equipped with F30 instruments. Not telling of anything.

[gblansten]

Originally Posted by solstice

As I said before I think this new M3 is going to be superb, IMO it has to if BMW in general and M in specific is going to keep their enthusiast status. They need a redemption car after the F10 and F30. The 3 and 5 are no longer the undisputed drivers cars in the segment and what to say about the new M5 and M6, powerful yes, but the massive weight, size and isolation is not helping generating much awe as the pinnacles of the ultimate driving machines. I can't wait to get my hands on one of these to see what BMW has come up with to create yet another udisputed king of it's segment and for the icon to live on and thrive. If a V6 serves them better in this quest I think there is no strong enough arguments to stop it.

Completely agree

[chmura]

Have F10 M5 sales been that bad?

Dr. Sound keeps mentioning this. Would like to know how well the F10 M5 sales are doing?

[SCOTT26]

The competition may (have) caught up with the E92 but it can still show its competitors a thing or two.

The M3 and M4 are now a new chapter and whilst they may not have the figures as some are expected (500HP, really?) the car will have plenty to say and plenty to show.

The new M4/M3 can be described as an origins car - it progresses that history for the perfect balance of innovation ,performance and precision.
Its an M car that much is true but it looks to the future in its genetics thanks to the BMW i3 city car which one competitor who has spoken to the media and mentions that it will be a few years before they are at BMWs level of volume CFRP.

That is just one area on why the M3 and M4 will be fully deserving of an M car and why M truly does stand for Motorsport.

BMW have no desire to re-enter F1 , especially when they are more thrilled with the performance in DTM.

[bimmerjph]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

That is just one area on why the M3 and M4 will be fully deserving of an M car and why M truly does stand for Motorsport.

How exactly? The Z4 in ALMS and GT3 races with a V8 (therefore completely unrelated to the F80). The GT3 doesn't even have the same type of front suspension as the road going Z4. Also I don't see BMW or RLL starting development over again with a F80 anytime soon considering they just launched the Z4 GTE. The DTM cars use a spec chassis and a V8 (again nothing to do with the F80). I am not trying to troll, I am seriously asking how you can say that the M truly does stand for motorsports when nothing in the BMW M lineup has anything to do the race cars? If you are just saying that because the F80 has a few bits of carbon fiber then I think you need to re-evaluate what motorsports is.


Please prove me wrong and tell me BMW is going to put turbocharged engines into their racecars, and is going to push for production based chassis in DTM. Because so far the F80 is looking like it will be the least motorsport derived M3 yet.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Where are BMW f***** as you state?
The competition may (have) caught up with the E92 but it can still show its competitors a thing or two.

The M3 and M4 are now a new chapter and whilst they may not have the figures as some are expected (500HP, really?) the car will have plenty to say and plenty to show.

The new M4/M3 can be described as an origins car - it progresses that history for the perfect balance of innovation ,performance and precision.
Its an M car that much is true but it looks to the future in its genetics thanks to the BMW i3 city car which one competitor who has spoken to the media and mentions that it will be a few years before they are at BMWs level of volume CFRP.

That is just one area on why the M3 and M4 will be fully deserving of an M car and why M truly does stand for Motorsport.

BMW have no desire to re-enter F1 , especially when they are more thrilled with the performance in DTM.

No mention about the main topic of the thread?

Can you give us insight?

Probably not, worth the try though

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I agree wholeheartedly!... With all but the last statement.

The benchmark for the car will be a variety of very high performance domestic and import cars who are all also going down the road of more power and in many cases less weight.

Are cars like the new Stingray, the Mustang Boss 302 Laguna Seca, the Camaro ZL1 and the GT-R truly competitors? Many of those are really just 2+2s but if not direct competitors they certainly are similar and are cross shopped. What about the 911? BMW made direct reference to competing against the 911 with the launch of the E92 M3. Perhaps the new Lexus RC F is a closer competitor which will probably be a 460 hp V8. The "classic" competitor the C63 will be getting the M177 twin turbo V8 with around 480+/- 20 hp. The current C63 AMG is no handling slouch either when compared to the current M3. BMW certainly knows and watches all this and more.

Since handling, suspension and tires seem to progress at a pretty even and natural pace both within and among brands, ultimately it is all about power to weight ratio and both may be big surprises for me and many of us here.

Well put.

Which also points out why the M3/M4 cannot be down too much on power compared to its competitors.

Albeit power to weight is a key factor in performance, if the F8X is down too much in ultimate power, it will lose ground in high speed drags (thinking of long straights on race tracks). This is why I don't believe the 415hp claim, which is also part of the "released" BMW info.

Regardless, IMO, both I6 and V6 configurations could provide adequate power here (450hp range). What remains to be determined is what configuration would provide the best character (throttle response, power delivery, low end torque, high revs, etc...) for the car.

[Boss330]

Have we discussed, or considered, BMW's new modular engine as a M3/M4 engine:

http://paultan.org/2012/10/01/bmws-b...in-a-1-series/

http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-te...meant-mpg-play

http://blog.caranddriver.com/first-l...engine-family/


The M3/M4 could be the first 6cyl version of that engine?

The modular engine is in-line, 3, 4 and 6 cyl

The in-line engine construction principle forms the common basis for the basic variant of all petrol and diesel engines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=XzAmH5T4C6E

The modular engine has the camdrive chain on the flywheel side, as opposed to on the front on existing gen BMW engines. Meaning that the front end of the head will not necessarily be as wide as on the N55 (as there is no need to accomodate chain sprockets on the front of the camshafts).

Is it just me, or do the front of the engine in the spy photo lack something compared with a N55...
Look on the right hand side of the oil filler cap, underneath the valve cover. Doesn't the N55 have a wider casting than the one in the M3 spy photos?

Or, am I just imagining things here???

Regardless, the new modular engine would probably not have the limitations of the current N55.

[bimmerjph]

I remember the original rumors said that the M3's engine would be based on the new modular engine family, but they appear to have slowly died off. Quite frankly the news about the new modular engine family in general have died off. I think the last ones were saying it will debut with the 4GC. But who knows.

[BMW269]

The modular engines are BMW AG engines, not BMW M.

[fuddman]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

The competition may (have) caught up with the E92 but it can still show its competitors a thing or two.

Confident, feisty, passionate - gotta love it!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sound

I dont´t know the exact second in the Video (3 minutes blasting...)
..
And here I measured for testing and comparison my e46, just a second before shifting quite near to the max RPM:
...
Additional to the frequency calculating method of Audacity I counted the combustions by myself, as you can see.
Same result!
Before I could do this I had to uncompress the file and I added a low- and a highpass filter above and below the expected frequencies, including some safety distance, of course!
Always 19-20 combustions per 1/20th of a second!

In short your analysis seems very flawed and specifically the conclusion of an 8000 rpm redline from the recordings. I am not sure how you arrived at 400 Hz which in the moving reference frame is 8000 rpm. Let me be more specific:

1. I believe one of the major missing factors in your analysis is the Doppler effect. I trust you know and understand it? In the video you mention which I have found and reanalyzed the vehicles are typically approach or receding from the camera. Angles will confound this calculation further but a decent approximation is simply directly approaching or receding. At around 95 mph the Doppler effect can account for nearly 1000 rpm of correction!
2. As noted in my post on this topic: You must sample/record the Youtube audio digitally not through your computer speakers. Also, no filters are required, a simple, straight forward Fourier transform will precisely pick up the fundamental combustion frequency and hence with calculations the rpm.
3. In your baseline E46 M3 work I'm guessing that your microphone was moving with the car? In such a case no Doppler correction is required and if you calculated 8000 rpm in that case you may have been correct.
4. In the video you mentioned I captured audio at potential redline events just pre-shift at around 1:08, 1:19 and 1:53. With no Doppler corrections the primary engine combustion frequencies were determined to be approximately 457 Hz, 416 Hz and 407 Hz respectively. The first two event sound like DCT shifts whereas the last is very clearly a MT shift with shift duration of about 0.4 seconds. In all of these cases the car is moving away from the camera at a significant speed, probably again 3-4 gear shift perhaps at 90-100 mph. The lowest possible frequency from these numbers give 455 Hz actual combustion frequency (i.e. Doppler corrected) or 9100 rpm. Now if it were a V8 the lowest corresponding rpm would be about 6800. Perhaps a V8 AND a massive short shift? Doubtful. Surely there is a problem here and it isn't with my analysis. Which leads me to...
5. The video especially right around the opening corner around the 0:38 second mark, well through that entire sequence and other sequences as well appear to be sped up. They just do not look real to me. Could be intentional to make the car look faster or could just be a mistake or crappy software involved somewhere in the process.
6. Either way, the frequencies I have found are both too erratic and too high in frequency to determine a consistent redline nor an 8000 rpm redline.

Let's continue the discussion with the consensus from my analysis and that of bradeyland here in this post of a redline of 7250-7550 rpm.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

The S55 will be plenty exclusive and special. Dare I say that, regardless of engine configuration, it will set the standard for turbocharged engine technology in performance applications.

Well, certainly not the "dime a dozen" common engine component shared with a ton of other models (if it is indeed an N55 based variant) . And also only if it includes a very novel "routable", triple or electric turbo system! There is a lot of other very good turbo technology and achievement out there in the marketplace. VW Twincharger, Porsche VTG, McLaren high rpm turbo, etc. Also the BMW tripe turbo on their diesel is a Borg Warner innovation. Surely they partnered closely with BMW but I think they had the lead on the turbo system development.

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I agree wholeheartedly!... With all but the last statement.

The benchmark for the car will be a variety of very high performance domestic and import cars who are all also going down the road of more power and in many cases less weight.

Are cars like the new Stingray, the Mustang Boss 302 Laguna Seca, the Camaro ZL1 and the GT-R truly competitors? Many of those are really just 2+2s but if not direct competitors they certainly are similar and are cross shopped. What about the 911? BMW made direct reference to competing against the 911 with the launch of the E92 M3. Perhaps the new Lexus RC F is a closer competitor which will probably be a 460 hp V8. The "classic" competitor the C63 will be getting the M177 twin turbo V8 with around 480+/- 20 hp. The current C63 AMG is no handling slouch either when compared to the current M3. BMW certainly knows and watches all this and more.

Since handling, suspension and tires seem to progress at a pretty even and natural pace both within and among brands, ultimately it is all about power to weight ratio and both may be big surprises for me and many of us here.

i would say PEOPLE like to compare those cars. What people do not understand is that they are not really the same type of car. M3 has a nice luxury feel at the same time very sporty feel. those cars are more of the sports side. more of a all out performance cars, and lack in the luxury/classy side to things.

the C63 AMG and RS5 are more like the M3 in a way of a classy and sporty car. so i agree

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Levi

The modular engines are BMW AG engines, not BMW M.

As would a N55 based S55 engine be! Why can't BMW M develop a M engine based on the new modular engine? That would make more sense than developing a M engine based on the N55...

The S63 is based on the N63. Several M engines have been based on BMW AG engines in the past.

To me the modular engine makes a better foundation for a BMW M engine with a larger bore if displacement needs to be increased to 3,2-3,3l.

In "BMW AG" spec BMW’s target output for each 500 cc cylinder is about 40 hp to 67 hp for petrol engines and as for torque output, each 500 cc cylinder is expected to produce between 60 Nm to 90 Nm.

This means 402HP and 540Nm on a 3l straight six in "BMW AG" spec.

Not very far off BMW M3/M4 predictions and means BMW M would have a great starting point for their new engine. Without further tuning a 3,2-3,3l engine would make 430-440hp, and plenty of capability to push the envelope well beyond that.

[Tåst]

Originally Posted by Uli_HH

THAT HAS NOBODY SAID !!!

Only that an N55-based S55 with 3.3ltr. as rumored in german forums and 8.000U/min Redline is impossible ... and also that by an 3.0ltr.S55 8.000U/min Redline are not easy to reach.

As you know, using turbocharger there is no reason to stroke engine, 3.0l is enough to get 450bhp.

What comes N55, it has no capacity to rev reliable near 8000rpm, you are right. Same thing is that M54 has no capacity to rev 8000rpm, long crank starts easily "oscillate" high revs. But they solve problem, using bigger crank bearings on S54, which make that crank is stiffer. Also they use iron block, but I think only reason was, that it allows bigger bore and displacement which was necessary to allow low rev torque.

There is also speaking that "V6 is better because it is individual engine like S65" and S54 is not? or S52Euro? Remember that S54 and S50EU, S52Eu compared to M5X engines not share any engine component, block, rods, pistons, crank, cylinder head, exhaust manifold, intake manifold...everything is different, so totally individual engine. I think N55 derivative S55 is not exception.

If they really want use fastets layot/best balance layot they put Naturally aspirated V8 or flat six or even V6 or I6, not heavier V6 turbo. But choosing between V6tt or Inline six turbo is easy, of course inline six belongs to BMW, even that induction noise, best part of the inline six engine is gone.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by swamp2

^ Thanks for the clarification!

One additional thought on V6 engine acoustics.

I suspect that the odd firing (somewhat dated design) vs. even firing may affect engine sound much more than I6 vs. V6.

Odd-fire V6's fire at 90° & 150° increments. They fire at 90° - 240° - 330° - 480° - 570° - 720°.

Even fire V6's fire every 120° of crankshaft rotation. That is 120° - 240° - 360° - 480° - 600° - 720°. These require split crank pins.

Of course an I6 shares the same (even) 120° firing just like the even fire V6, further evidence that they would be very difficult to distinguish acoustically.

Swamp, this would be true of a 60 degree V6, the common config. Surely a sawn off M5 would be 90 degree?

I doubt the engine bay is wide enough for 60 degree with turbo's either side, and would eliminate any suggestion of tri turbo set up. The plumbing would just be too complicated to make it worth it efficiency wise (and would almost certainly mean a front of engine mounted 3rd turbo, which undoes some of the rearward CG you were attempting in the first place.

It would be possible to fit a 90 degree V6 with turbo's between banks like M5......perhaps.
But then you are trading forward but low CG to high but rearward CG, which one is the lesser of two evils?

Balancing a 90 degree V6 is not easy, and goes against the "Almost 8,000rpm" statement. It also adds cost to both development and piece part costs with extra balancing shafts, etc.

The 60 degree does not avoid these costs either.

And in terms of cost, twin heads are always significantly more expensive to produce, especially so in FI format (twin intercoolers, twin throttle valves, twin plumbing, twin cats, etc etc)

Due to the engineering complexities I'm not swayed from an I6 at all.

I'll be completely shot down for this, but I would have hoped BMW would have put a very advanced inline 4 in the new M3/4.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Have we discussed, or considered, BMW's new modular engine as a M3/M4 engine:

Yes. You can search the forum for past discussion if you are curious.

My personal feeling is that the new engine would not have been far enough along in development to form the basis of an M Power mill that started development at least three years ago. It may technically be possible, but I think that M will want to use the proven architecture. Aside from the different timing assembly and possibly some advancements in cooling and lubrication, there probably is not much to be gained since M will completely reengineer all of the components that determine output (which is to say most of the engine).

I don't think there is anything technically keeping an N55 or N20 from 133hp/L today - the same target for the B* family. And I don't think that, for example, an S54 would have gained anything if it had been based on the N52 instead of the M5*. Now the N53 on the other hand... an S53 with HPI would be neat. But it would probably need the S54 block and displacement to exceed output of the CSL engine. Maybe someone will try that out someday.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

Swamp, this would be true of a 60 degree V6, the common config. Surely a sawn off M5 would be 90 degree?

I doubt the engine bay is wide enough for 60 degree with turbo's either side, and would eliminate any suggestion of tri turbo set up. The plumbing would just be too complicated to make it worth it efficiency wise (and would almost certainly mean a front of engine mounted 3rd turbo, which undoes some of the rearward CG you were attempting in the first place.

It would be possible to fit a 90 degree V6 with turbo's between banks like M5......perhaps.
But then you are trading forward but low CG to high but rearward CG, which one is the lesser of two evils?

Balancing a 90 degree V6 is not easy, and goes against the "Almost 8,000rpm" statement. It also adds cost to both development and piece part costs with extra balancing shafts, etc.

The 60 degree does not avoid these costs either.

And in terms of cost, twin heads are always significantly more expensive to produce, especially so in FI format (twin intercoolers, twin throttle valves, twin plumbing, twin cats, etc etc)

Due to the engineering complexities I'm not swayed from an I6 at all.

I'll be completely shot down for this, but I would have hoped BMW would have put a very advanced inline 4 in the new M3/4.

Good points about V angle. To make any sense, I'm sure they would use the S63 as a base and not develop both the modular engine and a new 60deg V6 only for the M3/M4...

A 90 deg V6 can be made to work. In fact, next years F1 engines are 90deg V6. But they are inherently unbalanced and needs a lot of extra "equipment" to be smooth enough for a modern production vehicle. For F1 purposes that is not a issue, just like the flat plane crank V8. But for a production vehicle that shall combine low weight, high performance and smooth engine characteristics, a 90 deg V6 would not be the white paper choice.

To sum up:

A 90 deg V6 derived from the S63 would (I believe) need quite a lot of modifications (balancer shafts etc.) to meet the requirements of a engine suitable for the M3/M4. A 90 deg V6 would also not be the ideal 6 cyl engine design (according to current sources).

A 60 deg V6 would be a better starting point, but needs to be designed from the ground up as BMW don't have a 60 degree engine today. But even a 60 deg V6 isn't as balanced as a I6. And, as NISFAN pointed out, turbo installation would be difficult as there isn't as much room between cylinder banks (as per N/S63) and outside mounting is old school and probably not what BMW would do.

A I6 would not need a white paper design, it could be based on the N55 or the new family of modular engines (B38, B48, B68), it is the best 6cyl engine design apart from length. Multi turbo installation is quite easily achieved. It would also continue BMW engine architecture and be one feature unique to the M3/M4 compared with the competition.

To me, it doesn't make sense to discard a "better" 6cyl design (I6) for a V6 that is "riddled" with vibration issues that needs addressing before you can think about high performance. Obviously it can be made to work, as proven by Nissan GT-R etc. But why don't use the best 6cyl engine design there is? Especially since the modular engines show that the in-line engines (incl. I6) are an integral part of BMW's future! The M3/M4 are halo models that others aspire to own. If that car has a I6, it's a much better marketing tool than a V6 engine architecture, not found in any other BMW model...

I'm still inclined towards the I6 being the next gen M3/M4 engine

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Yes. You can search the forum for past discussion if you are curious.

My personal feeling is that the new engine would not have been far enough along in development to form the basis of an M Power mill that started development at least three years ago. It may technically be possible, but I think that M will want to use the proven architecture. Aside from the different timing assembly and possibly some advancements in cooling and lubrication, there probably is not much to be gained since M will completely reengineer all of the components that determine output (which is to say most of the engine).

I don't think there is anything technically keeping an N55 or N20 from 133hp/L today - the same target for the B* family. And I don't think that, for example, an S54 would have gained anything if it had been based on the N52 instead of the M5*. Now the N53 on the other hand... an S53 with HPI would be neat. But it would probably need the S54 block and displacement to exceed output of the CSL engine. Maybe someone will try that out someday.

Good points

It will be interesting to see what engine the M3/M4 will have

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by NISFAN

Swamp, this would be true of a 60 degree V6, the common config. Surely a sawn off M5 would be 90 degree?

I doubt the engine bay is wide enough for 60 degree with turbo's either side, and would eliminate any suggestion of tri turbo set up. The plumbing would just be too complicated to make it worth it efficiency wise (and would almost certainly mean a front of engine mounted 3rd turbo, which undoes some of the rearward CG you were attempting in the first place.

It would be possible to fit a 90 degree V6 with turbo's between banks like M5......perhaps.
But then you are trading forward but low CG to high but rearward CG, which one is the lesser of two evils?

Balancing a 90 degree V6 is not easy, and goes against the "Almost 8,000rpm" statement. It also adds cost to both development and piece part costs with extra balancing shafts, etc.

The 60 degree does not avoid these costs either.

And in terms of cost, twin heads are always significantly more expensive to produce, especially so in FI format (twin intercoolers, twin throttle valves, twin plumbing, twin cats, etc etc)

Due to the engineering complexities I'm not swayed from an I6 at all.

I'll be completely shot down for this, but I would have hoped BMW would have put a very advanced inline 4 in the new M3/4.

A 90° V6 with counter balance shafts is (almost) as smooth as an I6, it is more smooth than a conventional 60° V6.

Keep in mind other than Mercedes, no german car manufacturer builds 60° V6 engine. All VAG V6 enginjes are 90°, with exception of the VR6 engine (15°). Only Japanese engines are 60° so as the new Ferrari engine. 2014 Formula 1 engines are also 90°. Jaguars V6 engine is also a 90° engine. Infact listen the sound, and it is very similar to the M3/M4 spy sounds.

Mercedes is to go back to I6 however, following the same modular engine concept of BMW. This does not mean the next generation C AMG (not the coming one but the one after) will not get a 90° V6 based.

Originally Posted by Boss330

As would a N55 based S55 engine be! Why can't BMW M develop a M engine based on the new modular engine? That would make more sense than developing a M engine based on the N55...

The S63 is based on the N63. Several M engines have been based on BMW AG engines in the past.

To me the modular engine makes a better foundation for a BMW M engine with a larger bore if displacement needs to be increased to 3,2-3,3l.

In "BMW AG" spec BMW’s target output for each 500 cc cylinder is about 40 hp to 67 hp for petrol engines and as for torque output, each 500 cc cylinder is expected to produce between 60 Nm to 90 Nm.

This means 402HP and 540Nm on a 3l straight six in "BMW AG" spec.

Not very far off BMW M3/M4 predictions and means BMW M would have a great starting point for their new engine. Without further tuning a 3,2-3,3l engine would make 430-440hp, and plenty of capability to push the envelope well beyond that.

Exactly that is what the concept was, and it will stay so: one engine platform for all BMW's (except V12) that will be tuned by M for M cars. However we have not yet come to that new platform. The 3 cylinder is the first engine of that platform, 4 and 6 cylinder will follow, with 8 cylinder later (7 Series G11?). N54/N55 is not part of that advanced engine platform.




On a side not, could the V6 powered M3/M4 be the bgeinning of the end of I6 engines? No other car manufacturer builds I6 engines (well Volvo has the T6). Where are all those I8 engines of before?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Levi

On a side not, could the V6 powered M3/M4 be the bgeinning of the end of I6 engines? No other car manufacturer builds I6 engines (well Volvo has the T6). Where are all those I8 engines of before?

Seems strange that BMW is about to launch a new line of modular in-line engines if they were to go V6 for the future

With the modular engines they have 3, 4 and 6 cyl engines. Basically the engine's they need for most cars in their line up. The V8 and V12 will still be separate architecture.

Obviously it's also possible to create a V6 out of two 3-cyl modular engines, but not as straight forward as a I6...

Interesting article on why MB is (?) reverting to a straight six:

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs...3-275fd6eb5068