[JoosyJoos]

Originally Posted by E82tt6

I don't get the 4cyl thing... Unless the engine is heavily built from the factory, it will deliver inferior power to a tuned N54. I suppose just to keep it from outperforming the M3?

Well I get the feeling I'm mostly alone here but I do a lot of autocross so that might explain a lot of it. I'm assuming that the new 1series M will focus extensively on weight savings. If they can take a significant amount of weight out of the car by going to a 4 cylinder while increasing efficiency I'm all for it.

I personally have the feeling that lighter weight = better sports car. In my mind cars are plenty fast these days in a straight line. I'd much rather see them address handling by reducing weight. Like I said though, I think most people are just power hungry... and there is nothing wrong with that but if you are lucky enough to drive an old e30 or e36 M3 I don't find it exactly lacking in power.

I also think you are absolutely right about it possibly over stepping the M3 if they kept a 6 cylinder in there. Lets remember that BMW is clearly a business... and they'll do whats in their best interest to build shareholder value which often means compromising their products to achieve the best monetary results.

Either way I'm stoked for a 1 series M variant with proper cooling, less weight, wider track, slightly more efficiency and a sweet 4 banger!

[E82tt6]

I agree 100% in terms of weight.

If they built a 3000-3100lb 1 series I'd buy it regardless of HP or straightline acceleration. Something basically an E36 M3 clone in fun-to-drive, with braking/grip on par or superior to an E90 M3, and straightline power similar to a 135i+SSTT/JB+ would be an excellent car, IMHO.

I generally like my streetcars to trap in the 111-118 range for DDing, I think that's comfortable. I don't think the car will be quite that fast stock, but if it could get there with very minor tweaks, I'd be completely satisfied.

Originally Posted by JoosyJoos

Well I get the feeling I'm mostly alone here but I do a lot of autocross so that might explain a lot of it. I'm assuming that the new 1series M will focus extensively on weight savings. If they can take a significant amount of weight out of the car by going to a 4 cylinder while increasing efficiency I'm all for it.

I personally have the feeling that lighter weight = better sports car. In my mind cars are plenty fast these days in a straight line. I'd much rather see them address handling by reducing weight. Like I said though, I think most people are just power hungry... and there is nothing wrong with that but if you are lucky enough to drive an old e30 or e36 M3 I don't find it exactly lacking in power.

I also think you are absolutely right about it possibly over stepping the M3 if they kept a 6 cylinder in there. Lets remember that BMW is clearly a business... and they'll do whats in their best interest to build shareholder value which often means compromising their products to achieve the best monetary results.

Either way I'm stoked for a 1 series M variant with proper cooling, less weight, wider track, slightly more efficiency and a sweet 4 banger!

[MidwestBimmerFan]

[QUOTE=aus;4751993]I don't think BMW has made a 6 cylinder motorcycle yet!! ie: Beemer = BMW motorcycle.


Yeah I know I own a BMW bike also. I was expressing that I love all things BMW.

[cagekicker]

GREAT!

[oneginee]

Originally Posted by southlight

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these cons you mention are all related to a flywheel/mechanical KERS (Torotrak). BMW is favouring an electric system however which I agree will add weight.


Best regards, south

Transforming kinetic energy to eletrical energy requires a dynamo (same as a generator). The very process of converting kinetic energy to another energy form be it mechanical (flywheel) or electrical (battery) always result in a resistance to rotation. A progressive coupling/decoupling transmission helps. The peak resistance will be proportional to the amount of energy salvaged.

BR

[BMWI6]

Originally Posted by kooper

Again, I am probably making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

The way I see it, a BMW is engine and drivetrain first, everything else second. It's supposed to be an engineering company after all.

I fail to see how a V6 vs. an I6 could improve BMW's financial position to be honest. It's not as if one is cheaper to make or maintain than the other, unless someone can enlighten me.

But anyways, I still stand by my statement, if BMW goes V6, I'm not going to BMW's dealerships.

10000000+++++++ WTF IS IT WITH YOU GUYS AND THE V6 IDEA???? I WILL NEVER BUY A BMW IF THEY GO V6!!!!!!

[BMWI6]

Originally Posted by godora

well, whats the point of getting a new m3 if its not going to have more power and if the 1 series M will have around 300 hp why not just get the current 135i and put JB2-3 in it ??

thank you!!!!!!!

[155MPH]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

I'm assuming it would be 350 hp or more, lighter and tighter, more focused.

If the 3 series and the current bi-turbo isn't pushing close to 400HP by the time the new M3 comes out I will be very surprised. We already know it can be tuned to that today.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by 155MPH

If the 3 series and the current bi-turbo isn't pushing close to 400HP by the time the new M3 comes out I will be very surprised. We already know it can be tuned to that today.

You are right; my post #111 later acknowledged that the 350 hp number was low, unless they take 400 lbs out of the car, which isn't going to happen.

[footie]

Originally Posted by oneginee

Transforming kinetic energy to eletrical energy requires a dynamo (same as a generator). The very process of converting kinetic energy to another energy form be it mechanical (flywheel) or electrical (battery) always result in a resistance to rotation. A progressive coupling/decoupling transmission helps. The peak resistance will be proportional to the amount of energy salvaged.

BR

How I understand it the Torotrak system requires their ICT, this is unlike all of the others which combine electric motors to give the additional boost in power.

That gives it a major weight advantage over all the others and should be the one to give the best solution in the commerical sector of car manufacture.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by FStop7

8200rpm redline on a turbo car... not likely.

Not only that, but it would make so little torque in the upper rpm region there would be absolutely no point to having a high redline. Plus, it would just grenade. Since BMW opted to go to the E46 block for the current N54 TT, wonder which old block they'll use for the next turbo?

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by 155MPH

If the 3 series and the current bi-turbo isn't pushing close to 400HP by the time the new M3 comes out I will be very surprised. We already know it can be tuned to that today.

It can be tuned to peak at that on a very ambitious dyno, which means very little to torque values across the entire rev range and especially at higher rpms where you would want it. Tuning = waste of money and high potential for reliability and/or warranty problems! BMW may as well build a plant in Japan as that's the audience they are appealing to these days. Number seekers and those that can't translate them to real output. In other words, ricers.

[footie]

I am expecting a setup similar to the one Jaguar are using on their new XF 3.0d S, a larger turbo complimenting the bottom end of the rev range with a smaller unit coming in a bit higher up the rev range to increase to power and maintain the torque levels. This would give excellence overtaking and everyday driving ability but would probably still not give anything like the throttle response or high end zing that is common in previous M engines.

I can't see it having more than 6 cylinders and more than 3.0L capacity, if it even has that much.

[MVF4Rrider]

No matter how the air/fuel is introduced to the motor, power is at the expense of fuel economy. With massive fossil fuel price fluctuations across the globe, I really can't see the horsepower war continuing the way it has been. At some point cars getting city epa economy in the teens per US gallon have got to go. I bought a MINI JCW as my new daily driver just for the cross between fun factor and fuel economy. It still gets high 20s mixed and 34 highway! I love my Z4M and vow to never sell it, but one gas guzzler is enough. Even the current 135i/335i are gas guzzlers compared to where I hope BMW is headed with the smaller displacement, lower powered turbos. Afterall, BMW is selling to the mass market, not the enthusiast anymore.

[hector]

Originally Posted by footie

If it will not be about turbo lag then possibly the possible switch to a Vee instead of inline meant do it.

i don't care about all that; i was just wondering how you guys achieved synchronization of your emoticons.

[southlight]

With the introduction of the V8 TT engine (code S63) in the X5 M and X6 M there are rumors coming up again that the next M3 engine might indeed be a V6 TT.
This engine is said to be based on the S63, being basically a S63 minus two cylinders.

Any thoughts or comments?


Best regards, south

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by southlight

With the introduction of the V8 TT engine (code S63) in the X5 M and X6 M there are rumors coming up again that the next M3 engine might indeed be a V6 TT.
This engine is said to be based on the S63, being basically a S63 minus two cylinders. Any thoughts or comments?

Best regards, south

That is a very logical prediction. Assuming a 3.3L TT six at 75% of the V8's figures would yield 416 hp @ 6,000 rpm, but more importantly, 376 lb ft of torque. Is it a 90-degree V8? If so, balance would certainly not come close to the I6.

I would definitely miss the instant response and high-revving nature of the current NA engines, but I'm sure I'd learn to adapt, especially if there were significant economy gains over the S65.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by southlight

With the introduction of the V8 TT engine (code S63) in the X5 M and X6 M there are rumors coming up again that the next M3 engine might indeed be a V6 TT.
This engine is said to be based on the S63, being basically a S63 minus two cylinders.

Any thoughts or comments?


Best regards, south

Sure south, I have a thought.

Why not just destroke and/or debore the S63 to 3.3L (or whatever) and use that in the M3 instead. Sure it is a bigger package, but who cares? The next 3 series chassis is very unlikely to get smaller (though it will likely be lighter) so a V8 will still fit I'm sure. If they want lower weight then they should look at employing the magnesium block for the turbo motors, including the V8s. I am sure it is technically feasible, it just needs more R&D. Don't waste that money on a new V6.

Alternatively, they'll have a successor to the N54 ready for the next 3 series so that too could form the basis on an M motor.

It does not seem worth the development effort to go with the V6.

[Sedan_Clan]

I'm all for a turbo ///M3. I have faith that BMW will do right by us. I'll be sticking w/ my V8 monster though.

[bigjae1976]

The only thing I hate about the M3 is the fuel efficiency. The M3 is dead last in the class.

I welcome a I6T...something different and I don't mind evolution. There is nothing that says an M3 can't be turbocharged.

[sparkyg]

What about the supercharged V8 going into the 7 Series?

I just heard about this engine today,

[footie]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Sure south, I have a thought.

Why not just destroke and/or debore the S63 to 3.3L (or whatever) and use that in the M3 instead. Sure it is a bigger package, but who cares? The next 3 series chassis is very unlikely to get smaller (though it will likely be lighter) so a V8 will still fit I'm sure. If they want lower weight then they should look at employing the magnesium block for the turbo motors, including the V8s. I am sure it is technically feasible, it just needs more R&D. Don't waste that money on a new V6.

Alternatively, they'll have a successor to the N54 ready for the next 3 series so that too could form the basis on an M motor.

It does not seem worth the development effort to go with the V6.

If there is no performance benefit keeping the cylinder count up but the capacity the same then it's more logical to go with the least weight and that's the least amount of cylinders.

Another thing, a Vee engine is much shorter than an in-line so this will also allow for better packaging inside the engine bay, allowing it to move futher back thus improving it's natural weight balance of the chassis and allow for less use of exotic materials to achieve the idea weight balance.