We Imagine the BMW F80 M3

[Calmwinds]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

oh no, here we go again...
marketing is such a wonderful instrument for automotive companies...

Do you really think that a E92 M3 is any better than any other E9X M3, just because it has a carbon fibre roof ?

Well, that's what marketing wants to believe you, yes.
If you're Michael Schumacher or one of the likes, the carbon roof might save you 1/10th of a second per lap. For all other mortals, it doesn't mean sh*t, except for the looks.

Yes! Which is what the 1 series M is missing.

[m630]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

oh no, here we go again...
marketing is such a wonderful instrument for automotive companies...

Do you really think that a E92 M3 is any better than any other E9X M3, just because it has a carbon fibre roof ?

Well, that's what marketing wants to believe you, yes.
If you're Michael Schumacher or one of the likes, the carbon roof might save you 1/10th of a second per lap. For all other mortals, it doesn't mean sh*t, except for the looks.

dont get too concerned with his comments, he's a kid who doesnt even own a bmw.

[Calmwinds]

Originally Posted by m630

dont get too concerned with his comments, he's a kid who doesnt even own a bmw.

another psychic lol

[doc19]

Originally Posted by m630

dont get too concerned with his comments, he's a kid who doesnt even own a bmw.

Agreed.

Anyway, after seeing the f30 in person, I really bought into the styling... the design of the car sitting next to my e90 m3 the regular f30 is a bit, "flatter" I guess in design (as in the rear looks like it sits lower). I think it will look plenty aggressive once we get the fender flares, the 19s, the drop and the quad exhaust. I love the e90 m3 design, but I think the new f80 will be a looker as well.

2 years from now I will have a tough decision, keep my e90 m3, or get into the f80... its going to be a really tough decision I think. It will have to come down to how I feel driving the car.

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by Uli_HH

OK ... I think that the new F80M3 would be an great improvement over all previous M3s and we would get an really great sportscar !

BUT Dr.Nischke isn´t right when he stated that the engine desision shouldn´t count or none should put this desision in the focus of attention.

Its right in the hp point of view, if the F80M3 would ~200kg lighter as the ongoing M3, none should be afraid of the coming hp-numbers ... 450 to 460hp would be great ... on the other hand also 420 to 430hp should be enough - but that doesn´t meen, that they could simply choose thís AG-engine, which is the cheapest to fulfil their hp-predictions. The M in BMW and more the M in M-GmbH stands for Motor/engine and therefor all previous M3 has one common property - the unique and M-specific engine that only remotely are based on an AG-engine ... in N/A times AG-engines must be strongly modified to become an powerfull M-engine and the peak of development was the great and totally unique S65 V8 ... sadly in turbo times its much more simple to get more hp out of an standard engine - make it stronger so that it would withstand the higher pressure and put an better (greater!) turbosystem on it to achieve the needed hp-numbers - but an pimped N55 with an stronger crankcase and an TriTurbosystem would never be an M worthy engine ... the same is the case if the new M engine would be based in the same manner on an N55 successor (N56?) !!!

Thats meen, that - because the great S65 is sadly ruled out, because its an really expensive engine ... and the engine must be based on an existing engine layout from the cost reduction point of view - the only M worthy engine would be the developed V6, because only this engine fulfil the previously sacred requirement of an unique, innovative and M specific engine !


An M3 with an cheap AG-based engine could be an great performer but thats meet not that it would be automatically an great M3 ... an lightweight M3 with an unique engine wuod be an great performer an an real great M-car ... also all rumors say the F80M3 with the AG I6 would be great, but the F80M3 with the V6 would be greater/faster/better in all respects !!!

Greats Uli_HH

I have no idea what you just wrote or what you were commenting on but the point he was making is that the technology they are using is a bigger improvement than the actual engine layout.

As for your continuing statement that M engines must be bespoke- there have been more tuned M engines in the past than bespoke one's so does that M's entire history is nothing until the S65/S85?

Dr. N was correct in saying that it doesn't matter if it is a V or I if the product meets all the core M values, pushes the envelope and intros new tech to the world.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by mapezzul

I have no idea what you just wrote or what you were commenting on but ...

No reason to be rude about this. I'm sure that by now you know quite well it's not that easy to learn a foreign language.


Best regards,
south

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by southlight

No reason to be rude about this. I'm sure that by now you know quite well it's not that easy to learn a foreign language.


Best regards,
south

Learning a foreign language sucks... I am proof positive of that! I wasn't trying to be rude and I apologize if that is how it came off but I honestly have no idea what he was targeting from my post except Nitschke being wrong about the "v" or "i" not mattering- it doesn't if the engine does what is supposed to. And if that is Dr. N's take and his opinion, how can it be wrong?

People are hung up on marketing, the S65/S85 were marketing driven motors- the V10 was created to be like "F1" then F1 dropped the V10- even in the S65 they used the marketing speak "eight individual throttle bodies (like F1)". Some of the F1 budget was dumped into them.

All Nitschke is saying is that the cylinder count/arrangement doesn't matter if the tech is right and the product is right- and he is 100% correct. He was saying that at the end of the day it is the final package that matters and how they get to that final product- can anyone argue that? Is the F80 engine going to be the same as an N55 with a software tune- not a chance so it will be altogether separate and like the F80 gets its own chassis code the engine will be a full on "S" code which is more than putting lipstick on a pig.

I am as die hard as they come- I have 60k miles on my E90 M3 and they are hard. I have driven every BMW I've had hard and the engines have always been the best in their class. Will I miss the sound/revving nature in the F80? Sure, but do I care what the engine is if it is effective and introduces new tech? No. M has a history of tuning AG engines, they have a history of building bespoke so why can't they do a little of each?

I am once again sorry if my original reply came off as picking on the posters english-that was not what I meant and didn't even consider that (my day job is in linguistics etc. so I can process the message without grammar usually well...) it was more that I didn't get what his commentary was targeting in relation to the head of M having an opinion.

[SCOTT26]

I admit I have become a little perplexed on some of the comments here , which are by supposed "enthusiasts."

Take the "non-aggressive" appearance.
Given the car in question is showcased by a rendering impression with some relative elements, it is in theory showcasing typical M looks. The current M3 is not a car I would call aggressive , rather a car which is understated and that is one priority example that contributes to its success.

BMW M is not really one to make their cars aggressive they are more understated. The Aerodynamics of the M-Packet are purely sculpted for function over cosmetic purpose. A BMWM. cannot return to the brutality of the 1980's the market has moved on and so has the customer.

The understated function over form appearance gives a more mature , restrained and tasteful look unlike competitors from Mercedes-Benz AMG which look way overdone cosmetically.

Power? Why only _ _ _ BHP?
Again this is what makes M great. Audi can flash higher HP and straight-line speed as much as they want but at the end of the day is the RS5 the better car? That answer is no. Because M do a complete overhaul of the chassis , steering and dynamics that reflects its position as a drivers car , having an equally good chassis from the standard model is very helpful because they know where to begin. M cars must not always be about speed it must fully involve the driver and this is a worthy sacrifice over having the top performance credentials. M knows this and has been implementing this since its conception.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

I admit I have become a little perplexed on some of the comments here , which are by supposed "enthusiasts."

Take the "non-aggressive" appearance.
Given the car in question is showcased by a rendering impression with some relative elements, it is in theory showcasing typical M looks. The current M3 is not a car I would call aggressive , rather a car which is understated and that is one priority example that contributes to its success.

BMW M is not really one to make their cars aggressive they are more understated. The Aerodynamics of the M-Packet are purely sculpted for function over cosmetic purpose. A BMWM. cannot return to the brutality of the 1980's the market has moved on and so has the customer.

The understated function over form appearance gives a more mature , restrained and tasteful look unlike competitors from Mercedes-Benz AMG which look way overdone cosmetically.

Power? Why only _ _ _ BHP?
Again this is what makes M great. Audi can flash higher HP and straight-line speed as much as they want but at the end of the day is the RS5 the better car? That answer is no. Because M do a complete overhaul of the chassis , steering and dynamics that reflects its position as a drivers car , having an equally good chassis from the standard model is very helpful because they know where to begin. M cars must not always be about speed it must fully involve the driver and this is a worthy sacrifice over having the top performance credentials. M knows this and has been implementing this since its conception.

+1

[Xelloss]

+1

Thank you Scott of putting things in perspective. I grow tired of people posting about the F8X possibly not having a bespoke engine or the styling might be understated. M cars were never meant to be true sports cars; They're meant to elevate the current mainstream series and further extend the ultimate driving experience. And it's my faith that BMW will get the F8X M line perfect as they have with every successive generation. Change is constant and we must adapt to it. Though, if they put a V6 in it, I'll have second thoughts but my feelings to such a thing are not absolute. In the mean time, I6 twin/triple turbocharged FTW!!!

[Calmwinds]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

I admit I have become a little perplexed on some of the comments here , which are by supposed "enthusiasts."

Take the "non-aggressive" appearance.
Given the car in question is showcased by a rendering impression with some relative elements, it is in theory showcasing typical M looks. The current M3 is not a car I would call aggressive , rather a car which is understated and that is one priority example that contributes to its success.

BMW M is not really one to make their cars aggressive they are more understated. The Aerodynamics of the M-Packet are purely sculpted for function over cosmetic purpose. A BMWM. cannot return to the brutality of the 1980's the market has moved on and so has the customer.

The understated function over form appearance gives a more mature , restrained and tasteful look unlike competitors from Mercedes-Benz AMG which look way overdone cosmetically.

Power? Why only _ _ _ BHP?
Again this is what makes M great. Audi can flash higher HP and straight-line speed as much as they want but at the end of the day is the RS5 the better car? That answer is no. Because M do a complete overhaul of the chassis , steering and dynamics that reflects its position as a drivers car , having an equally good chassis from the standard model is very helpful because they know where to begin. M cars must not always be about speed it must fully involve the driver and this is a worthy sacrifice over having the top performance credentials. M knows this and has been implementing this since its conception.

+1

[theArgiope]

It will look silly seeing that body style whip a comparable 911 around the track.

[theArgiope]

I love the M brand, but still nervous about the new leadership

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

I admit I have become a little perplexed on some of the comments here , which are by supposed "enthusiasts."

Maybe people are getting frustrated because of the long waiting for news about this M3.
So tell us what engine it will be

I for one do not care what kind of engine lay-out it will be, and I welcome turbo-charging technology.
Look at this vid (M5 E60 vs M5 F10):

[Calmwinds]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

Maybe people are getting frustrated because of the long waiting for news about this M3.
So tell us what engine it will be

I for one do not care what kind of engine lay-out it will be, and I welcome turbo-charging technology.
Look at this vid (M5 E60 vs M5 F10):

This is probably what will happen when you race E9X VS F8X with the F8X having 26-27mpg combined

[FogCityM3]

Anyone who has driven the E60 M5 SMG will say that the gearbox and not the engine was the issue. Put the new DCT in the old M5 and the results performance wise would be pretty close.

[mapezzul]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

I admit I have become a little perplexed on some of the comments here , which are by supposed "enthusiasts."

Take the "non-aggressive" appearance.
Given the car in question is showcased by a rendering impression with some relative elements, it is in theory showcasing typical M looks. The current M3 is not a car I would call aggressive , rather a car which is understated and that is one priority example that contributes to its success.

BMW M is not really one to make their cars aggressive they are more understated. The Aerodynamics of the M-Packet are purely sculpted for function over cosmetic purpose. A BMWM. cannot return to the brutality of the 1980's the market has moved on and so has the customer.

The understated function over form appearance gives a more mature , restrained and tasteful look unlike competitors from Mercedes-Benz AMG which look way overdone cosmetically.

Power? Why only _ _ _ BHP?
Again this is what makes M great. Audi can flash higher HP and straight-line speed as much as they want but at the end of the day is the RS5 the better car? That answer is no. Because M do a complete overhaul of the chassis , steering and dynamics that reflects its position as a drivers car , having an equally good chassis from the standard model is very helpful because they know where to begin. M cars must not always be about speed it must fully involve the driver and this is a worthy sacrifice over having the top performance credentials. M knows this and has been implementing this since its conception.

Couldn't have said it better. I guess there were those that hated when fuel injection killed the carb, those that moaned when the cassette was replaced by the CD- those that hated the idea of BMW moving to an inline six... at the end of the day technology and products move on and if you don't move on as well you are left in the past.

M has a history of making the best daily drivable all around product. The F80 will be just that and however the engineers and managers at M see fit to move the bar higher it will be the best on the market and the best M(3) ever on every level.

Audi will never be able to match M- they have flawed DNA and until they change that the results will always be subpar. AMG can if they would put the effort in and not take short cuts... Hearing the C63 AMG on the track at Hockenheim made me laugh up against the BMW M3 GT4- it was like a burp vs a pissed off hornet in a jar- I'll take the M powered hornet.

[bklynbimmer]

Everyone stay 'Calm'.... the new M3 will be great.... but e90/92 was special in its own right (especially the rare e90's) just like the legendary e46's before that!

All i know is once I rev that V8 I know how special of a car it is and will be for many years!

[StylePoints]

Im sorry but I really believe BMW needs to bring back the design team that did the e46s. The e90/92s were nice and refined, wash't as raw. But these new 3s omg, I think they are just ugly.

[Blindside_137]

Originally Posted by StylePoints

Im sorry but I really believe BMW needs to bring back the design team that did the e46s. The e90/92s were nice and refined, wash't as raw. But these new 3s omg, I think they are just ugly.

I saw a brand new Melbourne red 335 drive through campus yesterday, and with the bright sun out it was gorgeous. Have you seen any of the modded ones yet by LTBMW for instance?

The M-performance f30 even looks mean.

The next m3 is going to look as good as the e9x (with time) or better. And performance will be better.

I can't wait to learn more about it and hopefully I can pick it up in 5 years as my first M car

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by mhabs

Interesting. When one thinks about it logically, in all likelihood, the new M3 performance gains will probably be more incremental.
...
Seems pretty unlikely we'll see a quantum leap in performance, but ultimately, we'll see what happens!

Those are somewhat imprecise terms. The peformance of the call over the existing model will be substantial due to its weight being about the same or a bit less with a lot more power. Have a look here are my "ancient" predictions of the cars performance. Link.

Originally Posted by mhabs

Anyone who has driven the E60 M5 SMG will say that the gearbox and not the engine was the issue. Put the new DCT in the old M5 and the results performance wise would be pretty close.

A DCT is good for an amazing amount of "equivalent power". Probably at least 50 or so hp. The equivalent power simply comes from nearly instant shifts (not from any ratio magic or lower losses, etc.). Thus the race of an E60 M5 with M-DCT compared to an F10 M5 with a manual transmission could indeed be a close race. However, DCT vs. DCT would still have the F10 as the hands down winner.

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

I admit I have become a little perplexed on some of the comments here , which are by supposed "enthusiasts."

...

BMW M is not really one to make their cars aggressive they are more understated. The Aerodynamics of the M-Packet are purely sculpted for function over cosmetic purpose.

I firmly disagree with this. More marketing mumbo jumbo...

Just like the highly functional side vents on the E9X M3. Just like the highly aerodynamic rear bumper cover styling on the E9X M3. Just like the Powerdome (or whatever BMW like to call it) on the E9X M3. There is plenty of function over form at BMW and that is good, however, there is plenty of form over function and when it comes specifically to body styling form rules over function.

[FogCityM3]

Interesting. What is precise is we already know the performance of the new M5, which has a .3 sec faster to 60, .4 secs in 1/4 vs. current gen M3. Track times of the M5 thus far on an apples-to-apples basis w/ M3 DCT (and to make it really apples-to-apples, should equip M3s with SuperSport tires like the M5) show improvement, but it's still pretty close. The new M3 will not outperform the M5 at least in a straight line, makes no sense from a marketing perspective (M5s have always been faster in straight line and building past 100 mph). We also know the M3 GTS and CRT, which both have close to 450 hp, and much lighter weight can do in a straight line and on a track vs. the normal M3. Weight reduction on the new M3 given the larger size will probably not be as much as the GTS and CRT, which essentially have nothing in them and the current M3 has quite a few weight saving items (many of them due to lower torque that the aluminum the drivetrain can handle), and if you CF the rest of the body parts, maybe you are saving 100lbs-120 lbs net of the larger size of the F30 (current M3 has plastic front fenders, aluminum alloy engine, aluminum wheels, aluminum hood, aluminum flywheel, aluminum driveshaft, aluminum suspension, CF roof, so basically you'd be talking about CF doors, back fenders, trunk, CF flywheel, and exhaust as sources of weight savings, offset by larger body size, larger/heaver wheels--will be 20 inch--electric differential, heavier driveshaft to handle torque, safety components/airbags, more leather). Would characterize a leap as being .5 secs advantage to 60 and .5 secs on quarter and 4 secs on most tracks and a 15 sec advantage on the Nurburgring. My guess is the performance of the new M3 stays well inside of all these parameters (just like the current M3 GTS and CRT), but we'll see what happens..speculation is 90% of the fun.


[QUOTE=swamp2;11917368]Those are somewhat imprecise terms. The peformance of the call over the existing model will be substantial due to its weight being about the same or a bit less with a lot more power. Have a look here are my "ancient" predictions of the cars performance. Link.