2014 BMW M3/M4, will it be tri turbo or not? Answer is sort of

[Dan_]

I understand the reaction from the M fanatics, but as far as technology goes, a big, naturally aspirated engine has no place in this class of car nowadays.

Anyway, Autocar is pointing out their expected figures for the next hot 3:
450bhp and 480lb

Neat, huh?

PS: The lack of manual option is quite disappointing, though.

 

[Denilson]

And what is the proper M way?

BMW are famous for it's superb engines.
It's the caracteristics of true N/A engine engineering.

Some manufactors create engines with a lot of volume or add turbos or superchargers..
So why is that?
An engine with a lot of volume obviously deliver a great deal of torque. Same goes for turbo/supercharged engines.
So, with the extra torque, you'll get tons of upsides.
1. Maintenance costs are kept down due to less strain on the engine (low revs).
2. Reliability
3. Sheap to develop (it's a simple yet effective method)
4. Engineering complexity (costs money) are'nt as important (note: Not, NOT important)
5. You get a user friendly powerband that does'nt require gearshifts every 5 seconds in everyday driving.

Other manufactors (Honda, Ferrari and BMW), famous for their amazing engines tend to take the engineering a bit further to develop engines that are just amazing to drive.. Note: DRIVE.
"Drive" is what I want from a car. I don't need a user friendly powerband (at least in a performance car, which we discuss here), good econimics, low maintenance bills or other such related stuff.
I want a "pure" engine. An engine that have caracter, amazing sound and revs a lot.

So how do these manufactors develop their engines, and why does that suit me (from a performance car point of view)?
1. Firstly, you need to have extremely skilled engine engineers (it's not an coincidence that these 3 manufactors race or have raced in F1) to develop a N/A engine that produce the same or at least around the same bhp numbers that the compeditors do.
2. Too develop an engine that produce those kind of bhp numbers without turbos or superchargers from a relatively small engine is to allow high revs.
(A sport bike engine produce around 200 bhp from 1000cc.. How's that possible? Answer: High revs)
High revs put much more strain on pretty much all parts in the engine = requires skilled engineers to make it cost effective.
3. The maintenance bill is higher.
4. Less user friendly powerbands..

But, and this is a HUGE "but"..
The caracter, noice and feeling to drive a high reving N/A engine is just something completely different from the more basic engines even if the performance and bhp output are similar.
This is where BMW (Ferrari and Honda as well) are different.
And that's what makes a true M engine.. IMO

I.e
An F1 engine
250ish Nm of torque
650 Bhp
Revs to 16000 rpm.
^ That's a proper race engine, and you don't get closer to that than what Ferrari, Honda and BMW put in their road cars.

We (petrolheads) say that 100 bhp/liter engine volume is when an N/A engine is at a high technical and engineering level.
Here's some examples:
BMW M3 E46: 3,2l = 343 bhp
Ferrari 360 Modena: 3,6l = 400 bhp
BMW M5 E60: 5l = 507 bhp
Ferrari 458 Italia: 4,5l = 560 bhp
BMW M3 E36: 3,2l = 321 bhp

These are proper engines as far as technology and engineering skills go..

And all of the above.. IMO.

What to expect is one thing, but current situations in the world must be taken into account, something most don't do; they just expect a sports car to be the way it was 10-20 years ago.

This is taken from my very first post in this thread:

And as all true M-fanatics, the addition of turbo/s is not something I like to see, but the way the industry is heading, I guess it's history with N/A sport cars in this range.
Ofc (At least for a few more years), we'll still see them in the Ferraris and Lamborghinis etc, but in a car like the BMW, I can't see the progress going any other way than towards turbos and smaller volumes.

I accept that the automotive industry heads in that direction. Or do you read something else from it?

And about the weight of the cars, if that's what you refer to as incorrect statements I've made..
When you said Mercedes, AUDI weigh more than the current M3, I was thinking of the AUDI RS4 (B7), and the Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG.

All of the weigh in at around 1700 kg. The merc perhaps a tad more, the BMW perhaps a tad less.. But still very close in terms of weight.
I think that an M3 is something else in comparison, and it should'nt (imo) weigh as much as the other 2.. The AUDI has it's heavy 4WD and a Mercedes is always heavy. A lot of luxury in those.. Same as for the E9X M3.. An M3 should be more about the driving in comparison.. That's why I think the E9X M3 is too heavy.

 

[McLaren]

I accept that the automotive industry heads in that direction. Or do you read something else from it?

Let's go with this.

And as all true M-fanatics, the addition of turbo/s is not something I like to see, but the way the industry is heading, I guess it's history with N/A sport cars in this range.

You claim to be speaking for all "true M-fanatics" when you claim you don't like to see turbos & then whatever else you seem to not like about where the M3 is.

I'm a true M-fanatic, & I don't share that sentiment at all. Turbos are fine with me as long as the M3 remains true to its core, and to this point, I have no reason to doubt BMW will do so.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm a true M-fanatic, & I don't share that sentiment at all. Turbos are fine with me as long as the M3 remains true to its core, and to this point, I have no reason to doubt BMW will do so.

Yup, I'll second this statement, I consider myself not only an M-fanatic, but a BMW enthusiast, and a lover of all things BMWMotorsport... and the turbo-charging does not really offend me at all. I love BMW 6 cylinder engines, so in a way I'm glad they are scaling back from the V8, the only way to do that and acheive all the other targets for the car is to go forced induction, for now it's a fact of life, accept it and appreciate M for doing all the things it still does so well.

I'm pretty sure the M3 will still feel like a scalpel when compared to the hammer like accuracy of an AMG engine.

For everybody else that does have a problem with it... eBay > "BMW E30 M3", buy it now... and hey presto, no need to complain anymore.

 

[Denilson]

Let's go with this.

You claim to be speaking for all "true M-fanatics" when you claim you don't like to see turbos & then whatever else you seem to not like about where the M3 is.

I'm a true M-fanatic, & I don't share that sentiment at all. Turbos are fine with me as long as the M3 remains true to its core, and to this point, I have no reason to doubt BMW will do so.

Ofc, not ALL (as in every single one) M-fans hate turbos.
But the vast, vast majority do, at least in Europe.
I don't know what the majority at E46fanatics say (don't like that site at all if it's not to find information about aftermarket parts and such), but in ever single European forum, the general opinion about turbos are that it does'nt suit a true M.
Perhaps it seemed like I was beeing arrogant when I said "all true M fanatics" in the first place, and you did'nt like that.
Sorry

 

[sumbrownkid]

How can you say the vast majority hate turbo M BMWs when you got two right here in this forum that just said they don't mind turbos?

The old school M engine was cool and all for it's time, but unfortunately time doesn't stay still. If the chiefs at BMW M feel that need to move on, then why can't the fans?

 

[Vegard]

But the vast, vast majority do, at least in Europe.

20 years ago this was the case.
Then again, 20 years ago they were right. Remember turbocharged cars from 1992?

It all boils down to one thing:

Why have BMW ///M enthusiasts traditionally been so negative towards turbocharging?

- The lack of direct throttle response.

The modern turbocharged engine doesn't even feel turbocharged and have great throttle response (not all force-fed engines, but BMW's).

This leaves the old argument obsolete.

Of course, some "pure" ///M enthusiast never understood why they objected to turbos in the first place, and so they cling on to the old way.

A "pure" ///M enthusiast.

 

[Azuremen]

The modern turbocharged engine doesn't even feel turbocharged and have great throttle response (not all force-fed engines, but BMW's).

This.

My biggest issue with turbo cars has been throttle response. And the way the Japanese have been doing it for ages just shows this more, big reason why I dislike the WRX and STi so much these days.

The current BMW turbos I've just go, with torque every where and smooth, linear power. None of this latency and spooling issues I have with the Japanese turbo setups.

Anyone claiming to be a purist is really more of a Luddite in my mind

 

[Frank Fox]

can i ask why the turbos all of a sudden?

 

[MatskiMonk]

can i ask why the turbos all of a sudden?

It's not possible to develop the natural aspirated engines much further and still keep them financially and environmentally viable.

 

[Vegard]

can i ask why the turbos all of a sudden?

Cars these days are generally rather heavy.
Combined with the necessity, and desire for more power it boils down to:

It's not possible to develop the natural aspirated engines much further and still keep them financially and environmentally viable.

 

[Denilson]

20 years ago this was the case.
Then again, 20 years ago they were right. Remember turbocharged cars from 1992?

It all boils down to one thing:

Why have BMW ///M enthusiasts traditionally been so negative towards turbocharging?

- The lack of direct throttle response.

The modern turbocharged engine doesn't even feel turbocharged and have great throttle response (not all force-fed engines, but BMW's).

This leaves the old argument obsolete.

Of course, some "pure" ///M enthusiast never understood why they objected to turbos in the first place, and so they cling on to the old way.

A "pure" ///M enthusiast.

So you'er saying that "The lack of direct throttle response." is the reason.. And the ONLY reaason.. Hmm, ok.
Last time I checked, the new F10 is'nt even close to the E60 when it comes to throttle response and sound, not to mention it's caracteristics.
(Yes, I know it's fast.. That's NOT the issue)


And I understand that some of you did'nt like when I said "pure" M fanatics.
I'll take that back. It was a bad choice of word from my side.
I did'nt mean to offend anyone.

 

[Kent]

Maybe Im noob here but my sti has great throttle response in S# amd really only lags below 3k, by 2.5k its generally more responsive than some of the smaller NA units Ive owned like the k20. Then again the k20 was definitely lacking torque through the whole range so its not sayingmuch.

Edit
Drove home from work since this post... 30 miles 70mph interstate limit...
Yeah, 2.5k rpmisnt bad, by 3.5 you can tell you are accelerating faster than needed, by 4.5 its great, and 5.5 is why you buy the car.

Turbos are a great thing and I cant wait to see bmw do it. 👍

 

[Vegard]

So you'er saying that "The lack of direct throttle response." is the reason.. And the ONLY reaason..

Of course people have their own reasons, but throttle response would probably be the number one reason.

BMW ///M's own reasons was throttle response, weight, and the very nature of turbocharging traditionally being seen as a low-tech solution.

But perhaps you would like to tell us your objection to turbocharged ///M cars?
(I'd really like to know)

As I mentioned in my previous post, many are probably afraid of change and faithful to tradition.
(I hate that, if there is no meaningful reasoning behind it).

 

[eSZee]

Maybe Im noob here but my sti has great throttle response in S# amd really only lags below 3k, by 2.5k its generally more responsive than some of the smaller NA units Ive owned like the k20. Then again the k20 was definitely lacking torque through the whole range so its not sayingmuch.

Edit
Drove home from work since this post... 30 miles 70mph interstate limit...
Yeah, 2.5k rpmisnt bad, by 3.5 you can tell you are accelerating faster than needed, by 4.5 its great, and 5.5 is why you buy the car.

Turbos are a great thing and I cant wait to see bmw do it. 👍

I think you're confusing throttle response with turbo lag, I think.
WRX/STI both have awful throttle response due to the DBW and throttle tuning itself, fixed with basically every tune out there. Turbo lag on the other hand is not that bad really, if it's lagging, you're in the wrong gear. It simply feels like a NA car til 2.5k, and sounds like a diesel.

 

[Kent]

I thought throt response was just how quikly you feel the engine repond to input but since you obviously know both the wrx and (my car) the sti better than me I will simply say meh.
Then again Ive only owned 7 cars in my life so I cant say I have a ton of knowledge. (well 9 if you include when I was a kid driving mom's gmc jimmy and dads northstar sts... Oh maybe 10 if we include the car I bought them 2 years ago).
But like I said, you know that sti better so I stand corrected.

 

[eSZee]

But like I said, you know that sti better so I stand corrected.

I'm glad we agree.

 

[Kent]

Yeah I figured you were one of the journalist sheep who thinks driving an sti in S mode is an accurate evaluation.
But like I said.

 

[Azuremen]

Yeah I figured you were one of the journalist sheep who thinks driving an sti in S mode is an accurate evaluation.
But like I said.

The STi isn't bad, but it is far more noticeable than the engine in the 335i. It also has turbo lag and builds power later, which is basically the result of making that much power with that size of engine. Also, kind of easy to think you're talking about lag with the RPM figures.

Have you driven any BMW turbos? It is basically torque and response through out the entire rev range.

 

[eSZee]

Yeah I figured you were one of the journalist sheep who thinks driving an sti in S mode is an accurate evaluation.
But like I said.

BRB, driving car in default configuration is not an accurate evaluation of car. wut?
BRB, have to put car to S#(SI drive is basically a throttle map dial) every time I get in to have "better" throttle response. Therefore base throttle map = bad. S# still bad, just not as bad.

STI sheep, y u mad?

 

[sumbrownkid]

The STi isn't bad, but it is far more noticeable than the engine in the 335i. It also has turbo lag and builds power later, which is basically the result of making that much power with that size of engine. Also, kind of easy to think you're talking about lag with the RPM figures.

Have you driven any BMW turbos? It is basically torque and response through out the entire rev range.

Could it be that the Subbie was designed to be like that? To have a sudden surge of power for the excitement factor, while BMW is more concerned about drive quality?

 

[eSZee]

Could it be that the Subbie was designed to be like that? To have a sudden surge of power for the excitement factor, while BMW is more concerned about drive quality?

No. Subaru has older turbo tech than BMW. Combine that with less than preferable ways to meet emissions and you have wrx/sti cars of the last 3-5 years.

 

[Kent]

Yeah mad

Never done a turbo beamer but Im not sold on the idea the sti has bad response. More like, not as good as bmw turbos but that doesnt make itbad. Im thinking the logic behind the s# comment is goingto be powerful in future debates about cars with launch control, tcs, asm, and other driver controlled computers.
Actually, that logic comes across like your mad, you mad?

I mean, ignore the performance setting so you can poorly judge based on the default mode of compramise all in an effort to say TR is bad.

 

[Azuremen]

The fact is the STi's from the past few years have had crap mapping in general, simply to meet emissions standards. eSZee is 100% correct on this matter. I'd say current STi's are actually worse than the previous generation for this reason as well.

Then you consider the 2 liter turbo BMW is using in their cars, which makes more torque and power than the 2.5 in the WRX, while getting much better fuel economy, it isn't hard to realize Subaru is pretty far behind in the turbo game now. Or that the VW GTi has much better power delivery than the WRX, and again with better fuel economy.

 

[Denilson]

But perhaps you would like to tell us your objection to turbocharged ///M cars?
(I'd really like to know)

As I mentioned in my previous post, many are probably afraid of change and faithful to tradition.
(I hate that, if there is no meaningful reasoning behind it).

I wrote this answer earlier in the thread on that subject. 👍

BMW are famous for it's superb engines. We all know that.

Some manufactors create engines with a lot of volume or add turbos or superchargers..
So why is that?
An engine with a lot of volume obviously deliver a relatively great deal of torque. Same goes for turbo/supercharged engines.
So, with the extra torque (wider BHP curve), you'll get tons of upsides.
1. Maintenance costs are kept down due to less strain on the engine (lower revs).
2. Reliability
3. Sheap to develop (it's a simple yet effective method)
4. Engineering complexity (costs money) are'nt as important (note: Not, NOT important).
5. You get a user friendly powerband that does'nt require gearshifts every 5 seconds in everyday driving.
6. Better MPG's

Other manufactors (Honda, Ferrari and BMW), famous for their amazing engines tend to take the engineering a bit further to develop engines that are just amazing to drive.. Note: DRIVE.
"Drive" is what I want from a car. I don't need a user friendly powerband (at least in a performance car, which we discuss here), good econimics, low maintenance bills or other such related stuff.
I want a "pure" engine. An engine that have caracter, amazing sound and revs a lot.

So how do these manufactors develop their engines, and why does that suit me (from a performance car point of view)?
1. Firstly, you need to have extremely skilled engineers (it's not a coincidence that these 3 manufactors race or have raced in F1) to develop an N/A engine that produce the same or at least around the same bhp numbers compared to what the compeditors do with larger volumes (Mercedes, Dodge, Corvette), turbos (AUDI, NISSAN, Mercedes again ) or superchargers (Chevrolet again , Mercedes again ). I'm perfectly aware that these manufactors are'nt using turbos, superchargers or huge volumes in all their productoin cars. But they do pretty often when it comes to their performance cars. Still haven't seen an NA engine from any of these manufactors that produce 100 BHP/Liter. The AUDI RS4 B7 is close.. 417 bhp from a 4,2 liter V8. And ofc the AUDI R8 V10 with 525 BHP @ 5,2 liter. 👍
2. To develop an engine that produce those kind (same as the compeditors) of bhp numbers without turbos or superchargers from a relatively small engine is to allow high revs.
(A sport bike engine produce around 200 bhp from 1000cc.. How's that possible? Answer: High revs and a lot of technology)
High revs put much more strain on pretty much all parts in the engine = requires skilled engineers to make it cost effective and reliable, I know.
3. The maintenance bill is higher.
4. Less user friendly powerbands..

But, and this is a HUGE "but"..
The caracter, noice and feeling to drive a high reving N/A engine is just something completely different from the more basic engines even if the performance and bhp output are similar.
This is where BMW (Ferrari and Honda as well) are different, and IMO totally shine!!
And that's what makes a true M engine.. IMO

I.e
An F1 engine
250ish Nm of torque
650ish Bhp
Revs to 16000 rpm.
^ That's a proper race engine, and you don't get closer to that than what Ferrari, Honda and BMW put in their road cars.

We (petrolheads) say that 100 bhp/liter engine volume is when an N/A engine is at a high technical and engineering level.
Here's some examples:
BMW M3 E46: 3,2l = 343 bhp
Ferrari 360 Modena: 3,6l = 400 bhp
BMW M5 E60: 5l = 507 bhp
Ferrari 458 Italia: 4,5l = 560 bhp
BMW M3 E36: 3,2l = 321 bhp

These are proper engines as far as technology and engineering skills go..

And all of the above.. IMO.

As you can see, I do see that there's up's with turbos.. It's not that.
It's just that I'm not convinced that the addition of turbos will leave the NA M engines caracter and sound untouched.
The M5 F10 is sadly a proof of that.

So that's my reason for it. If it's menaigful or not for you is ofc totally up to you.
I think it's a meaningful reason.

But I really need to finish this post with what I've said from the very beginning.
If BMW M GmbH manage to implement the turbos and still keep the high reving engines, keep the caracteristics of a high reving engine, and keep the sound of a high reving engine, and get rid of all delays in throttle inputs, I'd welcome the addition of the turbos in the M cars.
Let's hope they do, cause torbos it is..


👍

 

[Kent]

Does throttle response not apply through the rev range? Power delivery and throttle response are not one in the same.

 

[Ibonibo]

Denilson: Good post, but one might forget that BMW also had a fair share of problems with their M engines, partly due to ****head drivers and partly due to as you say " stay cost effective".

As an exemple, till 2002-2003 the M3 E46 had a massive problem with the crank bearings as did the Z3M.
Then they made the fault in the E46 with the xmas tree lighning up way too soon as customers thought they could already trash the gas pedal.

The E36 had an horrible front crash impact zone, and even the E46 had still some problems with it, but way less.

I honestly loved the old (as the new ones will not have it anymore) NA high rev'ing engines, but they weren't bullet proof and BMW was sometimes dickish about warrenty even though the ECU clearly showed you didn't trash the engine.

Also before the E46 the engines often had less power (within the legal limit) as advertised. Even some E46 suffered from this.

I love BMW as much as some here but the fanboyism that is critizised on some other drivers here,... ? Take a mirror!

Does throttle response not apply through the rev range? Power delivery and throttle response are not one in the same.

So true, and we all know that high rev'ing engines need to be rev'ed to show their full potential.

Also I doubt BMW puts more research in the 3 series than say Merc puts in the C-class or Audi put's in the A4.

For the last 15 years there is so little room between these 3 competitors that is simply silly saying one is better then the other.

Now will come exemples as BMW pioneered in some domain, which is ok as did other companies.

 

[Denilson]

*ibo* S3 Racer: You're right about BMW having issues with the 01-02 models.
Same goes for the V8 in the E39 M5. It had a lot of problems with the VANOS.

But fact is, that the V8 in the E39 recieved prizes for beeing the best engine in the world, and the E46 engine is used an example of how to build NA engines.
So both had it's issues, but it does'nt take away the fact that both engines are a joy to drive. 👍

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

 

[Dennisch]

I don't hear no turbo.