• BMW M admits the new turbo motors do not match the previous naturally aspirated motors and that they want their own car

      Insideline published this news a little while ago and what every other site focused on was that Albert Biermann (head of M product development) stated BMW M would like to build their own car. That is great news as a dedicated M car built by M is something that we have been waiting for... well, for forever. What struck us was this quote by Biermann though, "It's about employing the right technology at the right time and we're on a steep learning curve with turbos. We're getting damn close to matching the response of a naturally aspirated engine but with much lower fuel consumption."

      It is kind of odd to see the head of M product development say the turbo motors do not match their previous naturally aspirated motors. It shows we lost something in the transition. They say they are getting close but the turbo motors simply will never match the response of the naturally aspirated motors. It is interesting to see BMW basically blatantly state they sacrificed response for miles per gallon. We all knew this, but it is nice to finally get a direct statement and for BMW to admit the move was not made with the M enthusiasts best interests at heart.

      This article was originally published in forum thread: BMW M admits the new turbo motors do not match the previous naturally aspirated motors and that they want their own car started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 36 Comments
      1. GTR-Dad's Avatar
        GTR-Dad -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by KB Click here to enlarge
        Why wouldn't a turbo be worthy of the M designation? Also, does "purist" mean hate turbos...
        M has traditionally been about response, agility, and balance. The turbo adds power (which is not on the list) and reduces response. - I should have said 'M puristist'.

        That said, I drive nothing but turbo'd cars. Click here to enlarge
      1. Jimefam's Avatar
        Jimefam -
        This is silly, a turbo has no effect on the cars agility or balance. The problem is NOT turbos it's the added weight these cars are carrying. If anything you should be thankful for the turbos cause with an NA motor the F10 would be an absolute pig.
      1. GTR-Dad's Avatar
        GTR-Dad -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jimefam Click here to enlarge
        This is silly, a turbo has no effect on the cars agility or balance. The problem is NOT turbos it's the added weight these cars are carrying. If anything you should be thankful for the turbos cause with an NA motor the F10 would be an absolute pig.
        2 out of 3 ain't bad. Unless you realllly care about response.

        Light>Heavy - agreed, but there plenty of NA motors that'll make 560 hp. Torque from the basement? Nope...

        Yeah, there's plenty of silly.
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        I think we are all forgetting where the roots of BMW performance come from.

        1968 BMW 2002 Turbo was the predecessor of all M cars and it came with a 4 cylinder turbo engine.
      1. angelic0-'s Avatar
        angelic0- -
        I like the S62 and S85 in the old M5s !

        I miss the times when everyone watched me with envy as i drove a 2001 E39 M5... back in 2006...

        a year later when everyone was like WTF when i rolled in a E60 M5....

        I have limited interest in the F10.... so sorry... and all the F-series don't really charm me...

        I'll just stick with my E34... plenty of parts lying around and i can swap a S85 in it if i want Click here to enlarge
      1. lughed's Avatar
        lughed -
        I seems to me that Berg. is saying that turbo is the way to go and with a little time and learning it will surpass there n/a engines in response. In BMW's defense and something i have come to terms with is, it is not particularly BMW wanting to go this route but regulations and the larger customer base forcing them to. Building n/a engines for these heavy cars is simply to much of a demand. Enthusiest are asking 600hp, regualtions are asking for better mpg, enthusiast are asking for more luxury and space, purists want better handling, independant magazine comparos are looking at time slips and paper racers are looking at numbers, etc. What is BMW to do? They have to satisfy there largest % of buyers. On top of all of this BMW is in a competition and needs to keep cost down and make profits. BMW M would never survive with BMW's entire fleet of base models being turbo cars and their M's being n/a. They would all need S70's pushing around 45,00 lb cars and we know what the mpg was in the F1.
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by lughed Click here to enlarge
        I seems to me that Berg. is saying that turbo is the way to go and with a little time and learning it will surpass there n/a engines in response. In BMW's defense and something i have come to terms with is, it is not particularly BMW wanting to go this route but regulations and the larger customer base forcing them to. Building n/a engines for these heavy cars is simply to much of a demand. Enthusiest are asking 600hp, regualtions are asking for better mpg, enthusiast are asking for more luxury and space, purists want better handling, independant magazine comparos are looking at time slips and paper racers are looking at numbers, etc. What is BMW to do? They have to satisfy there largest % of buyers. On top of all of this BMW is in a competition and needs to keep cost down and make profits. BMW M would never survive with BMW's entire fleet of base models being turbo cars and their M's being n/a. They would all need S70's pushing around 45,00 lb cars and we know what the mpg was in the F1.
        This,

        I've said many times, dont blame the business blame the market demand. Business can only survive if they sell $#@!, and people will only buy what they want. It's a symbiotic relationship that is controlled by the demand for products, you cant blame a business at all for reacting to a market.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jimefam Click here to enlarge
        Sticky your talking about two different things though, in the thread your talking about the difference in motors and turbo vs NA. These motors are not the reason why the cars aren't sharp handling track cars. Look at the 911 turbo and its not even about weight because the GTR is turbo and heavy as he'll and it's very sharp. The problem is BMW is focused on comfort and competing with MB and Lexus for the older luxury car buyer who wants a sedate ride that hauls in a straight line. I agree with you that these cars have gotten to fat and the handling has been numbed down.
        What two different things? The difference in philosophy is about turbo vs. NA. Nice to see BMW still values the response of their motors and is trying to get to where they were.

        Nobody ever said the motors were the reason the cars handled well but a high revving NA motor is what gives that race car experience. Porsche gets it and the GT3 outhandles the turbo significantly being the better drivers car as well due to mimicking what M used to do, high revving, rwd drive, and lighter than the competition.

        M cars aren't designed to compete with Lexus, what are you talking about?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
        Interesting answers from Albert Biermann - the current head of BMW M - to questions asked in this months Road & Track:

        Q - "Is turbocharging the future of M?"

        A - "At least for the point where we are today. Already the M5 will be the 4th turbocharged M model. We are convinced that this is the way to go, to bring the best results for the customer."

        Q - "What would you rather drive around the Nurburgring: an M3 or an M5?"

        A - "The M3 GTS! It is much better to drive. It is very close to a race car. The new M5 is very close to the regular M3, but we aren't ready to tell you which is quicker."

        Q - "Why not 600 horsepower for the M5?"

        A - Enough is enough. Compared to the V-10, our new engine's peak torque begins just above 1500 rpm and holds it to 6000 rpm, so unlike other turbo cars our new M5 surges forward all the way to it's 7250 rpm redline."

        I personally thought that the 2nd question/answer was the most remarkable. It's almost marketing AGAINST the M5 in my opinion. It's almost unbelievable that he said this - but is nice to hear an honest answer to a question.Pretty cool car nonetheless. I am sure we all know what's quicker - the M5... I find it pretty interesting that he finds the M3 (GTS) to be a better car for the Nurburgring and/or that the new M5 is "very close to a regular M3".

        Cheers.
        These are some really interesting statements.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by GTR-Dad Click here to enlarge
        Sticky, I feel your pain. I suspect it was a difficult decision for BMW (unless they've taken the keys to the M dep't away from the purists and given them to the business managers) and the efficiency POTENTIAL of the turbo'd engine wins more points than throttle response.I shout 'potential' because in my experience a boosted engine can burn astonishing amounts of fuel when you ask it to. Having sympathized with you (because you seem to need it a bit today Click here to enlarge) I'll confess that I'll trade a bit of throttle response for big bags of torque throughout entire rev range any day of the week - on the track or on the road. Now add tunability to the equation and, to me, you've got a compelling package.It may not be worthy of the M designation, which is probably the main point, but it sure ticks a lot of boxes on my 'must have' list.
        You are on the Nurburgring and can only drive one M car, which do you choose? I put the GTS and CSL ahead of anything with a turbo motor they have built thus far. Seems the M head guy does the same which is interesting.

        There are many things that are appealing about the change as well so I definitely see your point.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by M3_WC Click here to enlarge
        It is the twilight zone, where the M-car is heavier, less nimble, but has more power. While the AMG is lighter, more nimble, with less power.(although E63 recorded a quicker 0-60)
        Exactly, M has lost a lot more than just throttle response with the change.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Jimefam Click here to enlarge
        If anything you should be thankful for the turbos cause with an NA motor the F10 would be an absolute pig.
        Depends on what kind of NA motor. I don't think a 5.8 liter V10 with a screaming redline and a DCT would be a "pig" by any means.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DBFIU Click here to enlarge
        1968 BMW 2002 Turbo was the predecessor of all M cars and it came with a 4 cylinder turbo engine.
        I don't know if I would call that the predecessor of all M cars.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by lughed Click here to enlarge
        I seems to me that Berg. is saying that turbo is the way to go and with a little time and learning it will surpass there n/a engines in response.
        Surpassing the NA motors in response will not be possible. He is saying they are getting close but still not there. I don't think they ever will be able to match it and he admits they have a lot to learn to get there.
      1. maxnix's Avatar
        maxnix -
        "It is kind of odd to see the head of M product development say the turbo motors do not match their previous naturally aspirated motors."Big difference between a actual quotation and an interpretative summation.Fact is, in the real world, the turbo cars are out performing the non-turbo cars. And we don't even have to mention the most important quotation, "We're getting damn close to matching the response of a naturally aspirated engine but with much lower fuel consumption." Italics are mine for those who don't recognize this phrase's supreme importance.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
        Big difference between a actual quotation and an interpretative summation.
        Fact is he said there is a major aspect where they don't match the naturally aspirated motors and that is a big point.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
        Fact is, in the real world, the turbo cars are out performing the non-turbo cars.
        Oh, you mean newer cars with more horsepower are outperforming the previous generation? Wow, what a shocker. Not like a naturally aspirated motor could not run 122 in the 1/4 mile or anything. Didn't S85's with bolt on's do that? Without turbos? Which is more impressive?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by maxnix Click here to enlarge
        Italics are mine for those who don't recognize this phrase's supreme importance.
        If fuel consumption matters to you, get a Prius. I don't want any shortcuts and don't give a crap about MPG. I want my M motors razor sharp and like their race cars. Let me know when they start using the new M5 in ALMS. Porsche seems to be able to do both, because they are still catering to the enthusiast instead of making choices for them.