M3/M4 [Spy Shots] 2014 BMW M3 (Impressions, SpyPhotos, Renderings)

[footie]

Of all the companies you mentioned none of the better ones like Ferrari or Porsche or Lamborghini makes a V6.

Are you so sure that Ferrari haven't used a V6 engine? I think I recall one of Ferrari's most famous cars used that very configuration.

But you are correct that such an engine isn't balanced in the same manner as a V8 will be, but the same is true about a V10 yet it's been used not only by BMW but have a decent career in F1 as well. Imbalance is easily overcome so that is no need to try and use it as a reason to dismiss such a design because the benefits else where out weigh the small disadvantages.

The bottom-line is Vee is better from a packaging point of view and from the view of force feeding it with turbos.

P.S.
Why do you always turn any discussion to an Audi vs BMW debate? I don't.

And why mention the 2.5TFSI? It's been acclaimed by the motoring press and engineers alike as an exceptional engine.

 

[footie]

Very true but the engineer in me knows the physics and engineering involved, I guess it was easy for me to point out the obvious pros and cons.
With respect to packaging yes, a V-config does present better packaging benefits viz-a-viz turbo but it doesn't negate the advantages of the in-line engine. I am sure you do understand the downside of placing the turbo in the valley: heat management



I am sure there is a valid reason why we do not get inline-8 engines in cars.
In engine design there are competing forces: geometry vs efficiency. Beyond 6 cylinders the benefits of geometry out-weighs those offered by efficiency.




You need to be careful with the use of the word "efficient". From a purely mechanical POF an in-line engine will always be more efficient than a V-config engine.
From a systemic POF 6 cylinders is the cut-off point where the V-config adds the strongest benefits.



Other than strong philosophical reasons, from an engineering POF I think engineers out to open to either an I-6,V-config or even a flat 6.
If you want a lower COG, better weight distribution thus traction a V-6 config sure sounds like a good option, a flat will be the best.
From the philosphical POF - who knows. That is the interesting thing because company philosophy influences engineering design as well.

I have to agree that boxer is best when debating CoG, but it's compromised in terms of packaging in that it's width can become an issue. Likewise in-line is best in terms of refinement but is compromised in terms of CoG and packaging. Vee is the middle ground, having a decent benefit in both CoG and packaging which is the reason why it's the number one choice beyond 3000cc and this is without including the benefits it has with FI.

Finally I know without a doubt that the next M3 will still be an exceptional machine, no matter which engine they chose to throw under the hood, but from a personal point of view and opinion I feel it would be that little bit better if it were a V6 instead of an in-line6.

 

[south]

Apart from BMW, who else chooses in-line configuration when developing a hi-performance engine of decent capacity?

If this was the case then McLaren, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Mercedes, Audi , etc would all be following suit don't you think.

Oh my, are we far from the thread's topic, but I have to comment on this:

First of all, as chonkoa said, the typical inline vs V debate only makes sense for 6 cylinders. As far as balance or vibration is concerned, the perfect engines are V12, inline 6 and flat 6. Only these engines are perfectly balanced and thus need no balance shafts (which make for less efficiency).

Hence, it doesn't even make sense to talk about McLaren, Ferrari and Lamborghini in this regard, none of them even has a 6 cylinder. Porsche has a perfectly balanced engine with their flat 6. It doesn't share the cons with a V6, but the pros with an inline 6.

Finally, sunny mentioned already that Mercedes used to have inline 6 engines. Their primary reason to then go for a V6 layout instead was costs. Merc's V6 engines are closely related to the respective V8s, so they can reduce their costs by developing them together, using the same parts and producing the engines on the same production line. That's also the reason why Merc uses a less than optimal 90° configuration for their V6 engines. Also, have a look at Merc's latest V8 and V6 engines, bore, stroke and layout are identical for a reason.

You're right that a V6 has advantages regarding packages, but that's mostly a concern for Audi due to their FWD platforms. For others, it's mainly a welcome side effect, but not the deciding factor.


Best regards,
south

 

[Zafiro]

Personally I dont care if its a V6 or I6. But BMW have had I6 for decades so it would be sad to abandon such tradition of fine engines.

 

[Mr Robert]

Any thoughts on versions of the next M3?

Coupe, convertible and GT? GTS/CLS?

 

[footie]

Personally I dont care if its a V6 or I6. But BMW have had I6 for decades so it would be sad to abandon such tradition of fine engines.

I would also hate for BMW to abandon their roots but that wasn't what I was ordinally suggesting, only that I wished for the M3 to have a unique engine compared to the rest of the 3er range and if they chose to chop 2 cylinders off the S63 then it would have a mechanical link between it and the other bigger M models.

South like Sunny are trying to suggest that packaging is only a consideration for Audi (yawn) but the reality is it's a benefit for every brand because of the reasons mentioned above. Balancing a V6 is not a problem and debating such things as a valid reason to not chose it is plain silly.

Any thoughts on versions of the next M3?

Coupe, convertible and GT? GTS/CLS?

I think we will all know more when we see what changes BMW will have made to the F30 compared to the E9?. In that I mean the choice of materials used in it's construction, the changes if any to the drivetrain. Coupe is confirmed and convertible will also be seen but I wouldn't be surprised it they decided on a touring.

Will KERS be shown at launch or not.

 

[south]

South like Sunny are trying to suggest that packaging is only a consideration for Audi (yawn) but the reality is it's a benefit for every brand because of the reasons mentioned above. Balancing a V6 is not a problem and debating such things as a valid reason to not chose it is plain silly.

Read my comment again. I'm not suggesting that packaging is only a consideration for Audi, I'm suggesting that Audi doesn't have a choice. Imagine what an inline6 FWD A6's front would look like and you know what I mean.


Best regards,
south

 

[footie]

Read my comment again. I'm not suggesting that packaging is only a consideration for Audi, I'm suggesting that Audi doesn't have a choice. Imagine what an inline6 FWD A6's front would look like and you know what I mean.


Best regards,
south

It would definitely be a handicap for sure, if not in weight (clearly a 6cyl weighs less than a v10) but in packaging. But mentioning Audi in these discussion only turns attention else where (i.e. audi vs BMW) which usually detrails a thread.

All I would like from both you and Sunny is to admit that from a packaging point of view a Vee configuration would be beneficial from the M3. Debating which engine is more balanced is not something which benefits overall performance but the basic size and shape of the engine does.

That is all I am trying to say here.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

Of all the companies you mentioned none of the better ones like Ferrari or Porsche or Lamborghini makes a V6.

Porsche offer a V6 in both the Panamera and Cayenne.

 

[footie]

Porsche offer a V6 in both the Panamera and Cayenne.

But that was simply because of their ties with VAG. Given the choice they would have picked either a boxer or in-line configuration.....obviously.

 

[south]

All I would like from both you and Sunny is to admit that from a packaging point of view a Vee configuration would be beneficial from the M3.

Not sure what more I can say than already stated in post #43.

Debating which engine is more balanced is not something which benefits overall performance but the basic size and shape of the engine does.

How so? Is a V6 more powerful by design?


Best regards,
south

 

[Sunny]

The packaging advantage that a V6 offers over a I6 for a proper front engined, RWD layout is very minimal for a street car. And balancing a V6 does effect it's performance and efficiency. You have to add counterweights on the crankshaft and/or a counter rotating balancing shaft all of which add rotating mass to the engine with all the cons that come with it, including making engines less rev happy and less efficient. Most manufacturer's use V6 for economy reasons (either cause they can share the engine on cars with AWD/FWD layout or they can share the block and other engine parts with a V8), not dynamics or performance. And if BMW switches to V6, it would be the same motivation, despite whatever marketing spin we would hear.

Porsche offer a V6 in both the Panamera and Cayenne.

I said "make a V6", not offer one someone else makes.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

But that was simply because of their ties with VAG. Given the choice they would have picked either a boxer or in-line configuration.....obviously.

The reasons are beside the point. I'm not getting into the debate about the suitability of V6 engines. I'm simply correcting Sunny in that Porsche do sell cars with V6 engines.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

The packaging advantage that a V6 offers over a I6 for a proper front engined, RWD layout is very minimal for a street car. And balancing a V6 does effect it's performance and efficiency. You have to add counterweights on the crankshaft and/or a counter rotating balancing shaft all of which add rotating mass to the engine with all the cons that come with it, including making engines less rev happy and less efficient. Most manufacturer's use V6 for economy reasons (either cause they can share the engine on cars with AWD/FWD layout or they can share the block and other engine parts with a V8), not dynamics or performance. And if BMW switches to V6, it would be the same motivation, despite whatever marketing spin we would hear.



I said "make a V6", not offer one someone else makes.

Oh for God's sake, stop splitting hairs. The sentiments are the same. So are you saying if Porsche didn't think a V6 was an acceptable power plant for the Panamera they'd still offer it in their cars? Obviously they're happy with it.

 

[footie]

Not sure what more I can say than already stated in post #43.


How so? Is a V6 more powerful by design?


Best regards,
south

I am only trying my damnest to stop turning this into a one brand vs another debate that a certain member is. If you are looking at performance from purely the engine's perspective then you are completely missing the point of this discussion. Sunny believes the benefits of being able to place the weight of said engine lower and further back offers little advantage, yet believes that having to counterbalance has more of a bearing on it's overall performance.

My argument to that is that you can increase the capacity if necessary, because the engines dimensions are already smaller to begin with. But I have yet to hear anyone make a comment on the fact this engine will be FI, something that a Vee engine has obvious advantages with.

 

[Mr Robert]

The way I see it, the one and only real reason why anyone would use a V6 in a RWD car is because you need the space for something else... like an electric engine in with the main engine and the gearbox.

In a FWD car, it makes perfect sense.

 

[footie]

Oh for God's sake, stop splitting hairs. The sentiments are the same. So are you saying if Porsche didn't think a V6 was an acceptable power plant for the Panamera they'd still offer it in their cars? Obviously they're happy with it.

The main reason for suppling a V6 was to allow Porsche to offer a cheaper Panamera and as the car was developed to use a V8 the obvious engine choice would be a V6. So why didn't they just chop to cylinders off their V8? Simple answer is you were right, the engine met their expectations as it was both powerful and offered a board spread of torque.

 

[Sunny]

The reasons are beside the point. I'm not getting into the debate about the suitability of V6 engines. I'm simply correcting Sunny in that Porsche do sell cars with V6 engines.

Except I never said Porsche didn't sell cars with a V6. I specifically used the word "make" a V6 to make that point. If you think the distinction between actually designing and manufacturing an engine and shoving someone else engine into a car is "splitting hair's", sure, that is your prerogative. It is a world of a difference for me.

 

[Betty Swollocks]

Except I never said Porsche didn't sell cars with a V6. I specifically used the word "make" a V6.

This is pure semantics. Your argument that Porsche are somehow too good for a more undesireable engine in your eyes such as a V6, falls flat on it's face when they actually sell two cars powered by a V6. Just because they are sourced from outside of Porsche is irrelevant.

 

[Sunny]

^My point was never Porsche is too good/bad for V6. If that is how what I stated came across, my apologies, that is not what I meant. I was countering specifically what Footie said here -

Apart from BMW, who else chooses in-line configuration when developing a hi-performance engine of decent capacity?

If this was the case then McLaren, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Mercedes, Audi , etc would all be following suit don't you think.

By pointing out that
a. you can't generalize the in-line vs V configuration when pros and cons of V6 vs I6 is completely different from V8 vs I8. And of the companies he mentioned, McLaren, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche none of them actually developed a V6 in recent times.

If you still feel it is semantics, go right ahead.