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

[Levi68]

Has SCOTT confirmed it will be an I6? I still am thinking about V6 for M and I6 (x30i/x35i/x40i) for BMW. I6 is not a typical BMW engine. Ten years ago Mercedes also had I6, the last Nissan Skyline and Silvia had I6 engines, the Toyota Supra had I6 engine. In fact BMW used I6 as marketing purpose, just as they used RWD and NA. But now time are changing and BMW goes FWD, M AWD and FI and M AUTO so V6 is not impossible. The M3 would then be only V6 BMW in the line-up what wouls make it more exclusive and thus justify the high price, and money is what BMW wants. Nobody complained the Nissan GT-R got a V6 instead of the I6 as in the Nissan Skyline. For me Tripple-Turbo makes more sense on a V6 than on an I6, unless it is a similar setup as on the Tripple-Turbo I6 Diesel, that has three real turboes. What the M3 needs is not power or torque, but alot more respnsivnes, and fot this reason we are looking at such a special configuration. You can't say the GT-R and 911 Turbo lack something, but they are no LF-A and 911 GT3, and the M3 is more of the cheaper and daily usable 911 GT3.
I think the engine will still be a 90° V6 with two turboes and twin-power technology as seen in the M5, but with an third electic turbo not driven by any gases. The two turboes would give the power up to 8.000 RPM and the electric one should be used to eliminate lag at low revs and ad responsivnes. This third electric turbo could be placed on the top or under of the two inside placed turbos, so the M3 should again see a hood bulge, what not needed in the M5.
If the M3 gets a V6 it will be a 90° V6, today it would be the only one, as all other V6 are 60°. A 90° V6 would have to use larger balancing shafts and than a 60° V6, with a counter-rotating balancing shaft the 90 V6 ° will be as smoth as an I6, this is what Mercedes did. The down side of this compared to the I6 is complexity and weight, but if the M3 loses weight in other places and yet ahving an even shorter engine pushes the engine backwards, it is a WIN in all ways. Then A 90° V8 would also be slighty lower the a 60° V6, what would leave more place for puting the tuboes inside the engine, with the M5 heart issues seem to be resolved. If the engine even got a dry sump lubrifiaction, it could really be very close to a true sportscar. I would also love a transaxle dualclutch gearbox instead of a cheap manual gearbox as the actual M3 has, it is nothing compared to MT6 in a Porsche.

BMW said they are thinking of building an M3 Touring? Even and M3 GT? So there will surely be an M3 Sedan, and I think this is a true M3 Sedan than we will see in production. Being that way, I think the M3 moniker will remain, but the M4 moniker could be added for the Coupé, Cabrio and GranCoupé. Nonetheless I do not car how the car is called, what I want is a could car. The same goes for the 911, whatever name it has, the Cayman kills it, it jsut needs to have the right engine: 4.0l Flat with 500 PS.

 

[south]

It will be an I6, and yes, Scott has confirmed it.


Best regards,
south

 

[Human]

^

Here it is - The first prototype of the new BMW M3 which leaves a N/A V8 behind for an advanced inline six cylinder with tri-turbo configuration. Tri-Turbo? It has something to do with a new development of M-Technology which will also find it's way into the M5 and M6 eventually.

 

[Levi68]

Sad, because I would really have loved such a special V6.

 

[SCOTT27]

BMW said they are thinking of building an M3 Touring? Even and M3 GT? So there will surely be an M3 Sedan, and I think this is a true M3 Sedan than we will see in production. Being that way, I think the M3 moniker will remain, but the M4 moniker could be added for the Coupé, Cabrio and GranCoupé. Nonetheless I do not car how the car is called, what I want is a could car. The same goes for the 911, whatever name it has, the Cayman kills it, it jsut needs to have the right engine: 4.0l Flat with 500 PS.

Yes we are thinking about a Touring for the M3 this time - As many have taken drives in the latest C63 AMG T-Modell. There will not be an M GT. M-Sport Packet yes, but no full M - It is not that kind of car. 4er will consist of a Coupe , Cabrio and Gran Coupe. However next year BMW want to show their first Shooting Brake Concept based on the 6er and if that is well received and sells well. Then BMW will think about a Shooting Brake for the 4er.

As it stands a total of 10 models are aimed to be spun off the new 3er modular architecture. Coming and already approved for production is the 3er Sedan and China only 3er Sedan Li , 3er Touring and 3er Gran Turismo. waiting in the wings especially in regards to the smaller 1er FAST if the concept takes off is the 3er Advanced Family Activity Sports Tourer - To understand it's direction - check out the Citroen DS5 which is possibly the closest thing to the idea.
The 4er will resort to Coupe , Cabrio and Gran Coupe but a Shooting Brake is being considered.

Also coming off the same architecture will be the BMW Z5 Roadster , allowing the BMW Z3 to return to the family - Both Z5 and Z3 will be Rear Wheel Driven.
Whilst coming with folding hardtop again (Z5) The Z3 will feature a soft-top and additional Coupe model. Interestingly enough one of the Z's is being considered to become an additional Z speedster model - A lightweight ltd edition Inspired by the BMW 328 Hommage Concept Car which showcases the design language of the next Roadster family.



The M3 is set to continue regarding it's position with the other BMW Sub-brand BMW M. Whereas the current M3 has showcased some ideas in expansion - GTS and CRT. Next years return of the CSL will be the gran finale for the current M3 Coupe. It expands on the ideas of the CRT but the inclusion of the coupe's CFRP roof and addition of a CFRP bootlid sheds some more weight when combined with the CFRP Bonnet.
The next generation M3 @ 450PS is capped to allow further development and performance expansion throughout the years ahead.

 

[martinbo]

SCOTT, are you in any position to tell us a little bit more about BMW's tri-turbo technology without comprimising your employer? Any hints / tidbits? If so, could you please share them here?

 

[Levi68]

I understand the M3 (F32) is getting 450 PS, and the M3 CSL (F32) that should be a proper porduction car as for example the 911 GT3 will get 480 PS. The fact it is nearly sure we shall see a CSL version of the M3 (F32) very early in its life-cycle, I am afraid the standard M3 (F32) will be watered down to leave place for the CSL.

 

[Zafiro]

Autocar says its a twin turbo.

The new unit is also scheduled to be used in a successor to the BMW 1-series M Coupé, but in a lower state of tune. The engine has been described to Autocar as being heavily differentiated from the company’s existing twin-turbocharged ‘N54’ and twin-scroll turbocharged ‘N55’ 3.0-litre engines.

New M3 gets twin-turbo six - Autocar.co.uk

 

[klier]

It will be an I6, and yes, Scott has confirmed it.


Best regards,
south

That doesn't mean anything

 

[go0gle]

I've been saying that the v8 in the current m3 was a mistake, especially without a turbo.. this is (the new I6 turbo) what they should have done instead! It makes more sense. And now for this new gen, just improve it.. make it lighter, a little bit more power, maybe some KERS tech leftovers from their F1 program... u know

I know, you would all say that I am crazy.. But look at the GTR, no need for a V8..turbo is the magic. IF you are going to go NA V8, it needs to be BIG, like the AMG mercs, or the one in the z06.. otherwise, wasted space, added weight.. and no muscle. Or it needs to be very, very expensive with a just as expensive gearbox to match it, and placed in the rear of the car, ala 458 Italia. I feel like bmw tried to be in the middle.. and it just didn't do anything for me

 

[mini_cooper4]

The V8 in the current M3 is a masterpiece.
It has the perfect power for a 4.0l engine and the weight is kept down.
Bigger displacement = more weight
Turbo = No more precise cornering
When you buy an M3... it's not about drag racing

 

[go0gle]

^ so why are they going turbo with the new one? I guess it won't be going around bends very well.. and looking at GTR, precision while cornering is the last thing that comes to mind. I am not saying that the V8 in the M3 is not an amazing piece of engineering, It just doesn't work for the M3, at least in my world. The old e46 engine was special, unique.., it made the M3, an M3. The new one doesn't have any of that..

The new V8 has what.. 400 nm and 414 hp, the old engine was putting out 340 hp with 360 nm spin,.. a mild turbo job would have been just fine maybe they just didn't have the turbo tech that they have now to deal with the lag, but ..i dunno, whatever I am way more excited about what they have for us this time around

 

[330CIZHP]

x 2

S65 is indeed a great engine. The only thing I felt while driving it was the exhaust was too quiet. Aside from that, throttle response, sound, linear powerband that does not fall on its face at high revs etc. all are wonderful.

p.s. Do you mind me asking why you sold your 1M??

The V8 in the current M3 is a masterpiece.
It has the perfect power for a 4.0l engine and the weight is kept down.
Bigger displacement = more weight
Turbo = No more precise cornering
When you buy an M3... it's not about drag racing

I don't want to turn this into an N/A vs turbo debate.

Why would you say an inline-6 is a true M engine?? Using your analogy, even an inline-6 is not true M engine. Only a 2.3 Liter inline-4 is the true M3 engine and a racing homologation racing engine found in the E30 M3.

Reading two numbers off a piece of paper will never give you an accurate picture. The GT3 RS only makes 315 ft-lbs so using your analogy, that is not a good thing. But, the results speak for themselves when the GT3 RS beats cars with over 100 ft-lbs more torque. The redline and gearing make up for the other 50%.

The S54 engine was way too peaky. Again, you read two numbers off the page, but if you know how the S54 engine worked, most of that torque was very high up in the powerband and it did not pull as strongly near the redline as the S65 engine either. In short, the powerband was very narrow in the E46 M3. The torque across the rev range is much more improved in the S65 V8.

I loved the S54 engine and the metallic engine sound is one of the most unique sounds I have heard, but when it comes push comes to shove, despite the E9X being 150 - 200 lbs heavier, it is a full 1 second quicker to the 1/4 mile than the E46 M3.

^ so why are they going turbo with the new one? I guess it won't be going around bends very well.. and looking at GTR, precision while cornering is the last thing that comes to mind. I am not saying that the V8 in the M3 is not an amazing piece of engineering, It just doesn't work for the M3, at least in my world. The old e46 engine was special, unique.., it made the M3, an M3. The new one doesn't have any of that..

The new V8 has what.. 400 nm and 414 hp, the old engine was putting out 340 hp with 360 nm spin,.. a mild turbo job would have been just fine maybe they just didn't have the turbo tech that they have now to deal with the lag, but ..i dunno, whatever I am way more excited about what they have for us this time around

 

[mini_cooper4]

x 2

S65 is indeed a great engine. The only thing I felt while driving it was the exhaust was too quiet. Aside from that, throttle response, sound, linear powerband that does not fall on its face at high revs etc. all are wonderful.

p.s. Do you mind me asking why you sold your 1M??

I sold all my cars because I went to live in the US for a couple of months (it was intended to be longer)
But the thing I didn't liked about the 1M was the engine. It's a great TURBO engine but I expect more from M and I mean N/A... but it's good for the average Joe who won't see the difference. But the main reason is that I earned a lot of money selling this car

@ go0gle: I agree with you that there are a lot of negatives going to V8 and that the I6 is better but the S65 is on another level much more like Ferrari and there comes the positive sides like better output without adding turbochargers.

 

[330CIZHP]

Like I mentioned in the previous post, the S54 engine was way too peaky and had a very narrow torque band despite a relatively better peak torque figure.

Also, if we are talking "true M3 engine" then the 2.3 Liter inline-4 is the true M3 E30 and racing homologation engine. Neither inline-6 nor V8 are true M3 engine layouts.

I sold all my cars because I went to live in the US for a couple of months (it was intended to be longer)
But the thing I didn't liked about the 1M was the engine. It's a great TURBO engine but I expect more from M and I mean N/A... but it's good for the average Joe who won't see the difference. But the main reason is that I earned a lot of money selling this car

@ go0gle: I agree with you that there are a lot of negatives going to V8 and that the I6 is better but the S65 is on another level much more like Ferrari and there comes the positive sides like better output without adding turbochargers.

 

[mini_cooper4]

Like I mentioned in the previous post, the S54 engine was way too peaky and had a very narrow torque band despite a relatively better peak torque figure.

Also, if we are talking "true M3 engine" then the 2.3 Liter inline-4 is the true M3 E30 and racing homologation engine. Neither inline-6 nor V8 are true M3 engine layouts.

I prefer small displacement engines and the weight kept to the minimum. I'm in motor sports that's why I don't like BIG BIG doesn't work on the track...
But I agree with you about everything you say and what I meant is that I6 concept is better than S65 which is a V8 concept not about the S54 in particular (still a good engine)

 

[go0gle]

x 2
I don't want to turn this into an N/A vs turbo debate.

Why would you say an inline-6 is a true M engine?? Using your analogy, even an inline-6 is not true M engine. Only a 2.3 Liter inline-4 is the true M3 engine and a racing homologation racing engine found in the E30 M3.

Reading two numbers off a piece of paper will never give you an accurate picture. The GT3 RS only makes 315 ft-lbs so using your analogy, that is not a good thing. But, the results speak for themselves when the GT3 RS beats cars with over 100 ft-lbs more torque. The redline and gearing make up for the other 50%.

The S54 engine was way too peaky. Again, you read two numbers off the page, but if you know how the S54 engine worked, most of that torque was very high up in the powerband and it did not pull as strongly near the redline as the S65 engine either. In short, the powerband was very narrow in the E46 M3. The torque across the rev range is much more improved in the S65 V8.

I loved the S54 engine and the metallic engine sound is one of the most unique sounds I have heard, but when it comes push comes to shove, despite the E9X being 150 - 200 lbs heavier, it is a full 1 second quicker to the 1/4 mile than the E46 M3.

I know man.. just reading off paper doesn't really work, what I am trying to say, is that the s54 with small improvements and a turbo job would have been sufficient for the new car. That V8 is an overkill in one way, and restraining in another.

I guess that "inline" setup is what I was referring to.. I am glad they are bringing it back I am also not surprised that they are..

I've never driven the M3, I've been in the passenger seat around laguna seca for 6 laps on full throttle and I didn't like it. Maybe it was because I was in a z06 right before..i dunno. I've also driven a C63 and a 2009 z06 on the street, and the "big" v8 engines in both were a lot of fun,. i didn't get that same feel from the M3 on the track..maybe I should drive one and things would change. I also talked to the drivers (it was during a BMW driving school event) and they were saying that the the old m3 is more fun..

 

[klier]

I've never driven the M3, I've been in the passenger seat around laguna seca for 6 laps on full throttle and I didn't like it. Maybe it was because I was in a z06 right before..i dunno. I've also driven a C63 and a 2009 z06 on the street, and the "big" v8 engines in both were a lot of fun,. i didn't get that same feel from the M3 on the track..maybe I should drive one and things would change. I also talked to the drivers (it was during a BMW driving school event) and they were saying that the the old m3 is more fun..

Pfff. Go drive one and come back.

 

[martinbo]

The S85/S65 family of engines is a masterpiece of naturally aspirated engine technology. The S65 as an all-aluminium unit is already 15 kg lighter than the S54 which it replaced. The S65 has a throttle response that has to be felt to be believed. No turbo'd engine can ever match its zing and pep at high rpm. Not only is the S65 lighter than the S65 it also features a much shorter stroke - 75mm vs 91mm - which is ideal in the high-revving engine applications because of the reduced internal velocity of the reciprocating components. Such a rev-range is ordinarily the preserve of just a few exotica and yet BMW makes available a high-revving, eight throttle bodied wonder in a 3 series. It never ceases to amaze me, really.

It's the end of an era - legislative, economic, environmental and social factors all contribute to this enormous wave of change coming our way. We're now in the transition period where an engine like the S65 is simply no longer viable - not from a performance point of view but rather as a result of the factors mentioned above. Eventually, the end of the fossil fuel-powered reciprocating engine has to come just as it did for the steam engine. But there's going to be some history between now and then that we're yet to experience.

So for now, fossil fuels are still very much in and in demand and as such manufacturers are under pressure to do more with less of the stuff. Enter the multi-turbo six cylinder engine for the next M3. What configuration will it take? Those who do know aren't telling and the rest of it is conjecture. I find it commendable that BMW holds on to the straight six (because it's a very special layout) but I am altogether suprised that in this day and age of acceptable change, of pragmatism over sentimentalism that BMW persists with the heavier, more expensive and more difficult to package straight six format over a chopped block hot-side inside N/S63-derived V6.

Ja, ja, we all know about the perfect primary and secondary balance of the inline 6 imparting that exquisite smoothness but did that ever stop BMW from selling four cylinder engines? Make it a 90 degree V6, work on getting the balance right and leverage off that reverse-flow engine technology to differentiate yourselves from your competitors. Use the cross-flow turbo manifold in the M3. You'll easily make 335 kW and 500 Nm without batting an eyelid. The shorter V6 will afford options for hybrid applications in non M derivatives and you'll achieve economies of scale as a result of the component and engineering synergies with the N/S63 - I mean isn't modularity such a big buzz word in the BMW engine department these days? [Ref video of BMW's modular 3,4 & 6 cylinder engine approach].

As much as I absolutely adore the BMW straight sixes (adoration has done little to disuade BMW from pursuing multiple, "non-traditional" paths these days by the way) for me the logical approach is to consign the straight six to the annals and to pursue a hard-line, pragmatic approach to the future application of six pot internal combustion engines.

Personally, I see no need whatsoever for a tri-turbo inline 6. Why three turbochargers? To eliminate lag? BMW have claimed to have "virtually eliminated turbo lag" already and we haven't even seen a twin, twin-scroll turbocharger with cross-over manifold on the existing 6. Tri-turbo? Sequential or parallel? Staged boost? What the hell for??? How much power are you looking to make? More than 350 kW and 550 Nm? You don't need a tri-turbo for that or less. It sounds like complete overkill to me but let's see how this pans out.

 

[klier]

Personally, I see no need whatsoever for a tri-turbo inline 6. Why three turbochargers? To eliminate lag? BMW have claimed to have "virtually eliminated turbo lag" already and we haven't even seen a twin, twin-scroll turbocharger with cross-over manifold on the existing 6. Tri-turbo? Sequential or parallel? Staged boost? What the hell for??? How much power are you looking to make? More than 350 kW and 550 Nm? You don't need a tri-turbo for that or less. It sounds like complete overkill to me but let's see how this pans out.

And what about two turbo chargers and one super charger?

Either way, whatever happens, it will be glorious.