Close

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 207
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,681
    Rep Points
    31,507.9
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by StinkyM Click here to enlarge
    People thought the m5 lost all credibility when it went to tt. It didn't.
    It didn't lose all credibility but it lose a bit of that M magic and got a hell of a lot heavier. Also lost it's weight balance.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    103
    Rep Points
    174.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    If BMW makes the engine out of carbon fiber then MAYBE.
    Click here to enlarge

    That'll be the day...

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,888
    Rep Points
    1,422.5
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It didn't lose all credibility but it lose a bit of that M magic and got a hell of a lot heavier. Also lost it's weight balance.
    Agree, BMW cut costs on the F10 chassis going back to all steel. It is a porker.


  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,681
    Rep Points
    31,507.9
    Mentioned
    2062 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by M3_WC Click here to enlarge
    Agree, BMW cut costs on the F10 chassis going back to all steel. It is a porker.
    The E60 was aluminum?

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,177
    Rep Points
    801.6
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torgus Click here to enlarge
    f1 used to use high reving turbos...1300-1500hp from from a 1.5l...
    The only reason you would do this is if you're displacement limited. Which they were. Really has nothing to do with the f80 M3. Guess what the drivability is like on a 1500hp F1 car?
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    Bettet yet (for production cars) - the McClaren MP4/MP4-12C is a turboed V8 revving to 8500 RPMs. I would love to drive that thing (or the F1 car) Click here to enlarge
    Again, you sacrifice drivability. In the context of this car, it doesn't make sense. If you are trying to build big potential into a $250k sports car, sure. At those price points you are trying to separate yourself from the competition in every possible way.
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinchy Click here to enlarge
    no point? try telling that to an RB26 or 2jz owner Click here to enlarge
    Again, displacement limited. No OE is going to choose to do over 200/liter at high rpm stock, because it drives like $#@! compared to adding some displacement, never mind the added stress on the motor.
    Last edited by rudypoochris; 01-25-2013 at 04:34 AM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,177
    Rep Points
    801.6
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno@ProTUNING Freaks Click here to enlarge
    There's enough to make a 3.2-3.3L N54 by slight overboring given what my race engine shop said that build my cylinder head..
    That's ballsy as hell. 3mm more per bore... I don't think it will work, but I m not a race engine shop. If they go for a bigger bore I think they will be changing bore spacing almost definitely. Same reason GM didn't supercharge the LS7 for the ZR1. They needed more cylinder wall. In either case it makes more sense to turn up the boost than to thin out the cylinder walls.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,888
    Rep Points
    1,422.5
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The E60 was aluminum?
    The front portion was aluminum.

    BMW reasoning for going all steel, it was too difficult and too costly to repair aluminum frame. In other words, a cop out. They are not in the business of repairing bent frames on cars.


  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -231.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Delete
    Last edited by Sorena; 01-25-2013 at 05:38 AM.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -231.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by M3_WC Click here to enlarge
    Agree, BMW cut costs on the F10 chassis going back to all steel. It is a porker.
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The E60 was aluminum?
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by M3_WC
    BMW reasoning for going all steel, it was too difficult and too costly to repair aluminum frame. In other words, a cop out. They are not in the business of repairing bent frames on cars.
    The E60 had aluminum-steel made front frame. 29.5kg of aluminum and 16.5kg of steel was used. The main idea behind changing to all steel was the disappointing crash results of the E60. It gained 3 out of 5 stars due the weak front end, and only when Euroncap let BMW do some changes things got a little better.

    As for the cost to build, what stated is not true. With the aluminum-steel front frame, the E60 saved 65kg. That means an all steel frame would weigh 110kg. In financial crisis days when BMW was developing the F10, steel experienced a huge jump in it's price. If you do the math you will see that a aluminum-steel frame would cost less to make than all steel frame. So they actually chose the more expensive route to make the front frame.
    If you want to hate BMW, find something legit. Like the fact that the F10 chassis is nothing but a short version of what you can find in the F01. That's what i call going cheap, not choosing steel over aluminum. Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Flinch
    no point? try telling that to an RB26 or 2jz owner Click here to enlarge
    Isn't 2JZ's rev limit 6800rpm?

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    le Paris
    Posts
    6,653
    Rep Points
    -231.0
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/t...lvetronic.html

    It's basically for fuel efficiency. Makes the valvetrain heavier. Hence why they never incorporated it on anything truly high revving.
    N63 vs N63tu, the only thing that was changed was valvetronic in the N63tu and gained 45hp. I don't understand how it benefits the performance though.

    Why it never made it to high revving engines? Because ITB Click here to enlarge

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    286
    Rep Points
    291.7
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    I have not read through the whole comment spread but it will definetly be an ///M engine and not a N54/N55 derivative. More likely is that the future replacements for the N54/N55 will derive from the new M3 engine.

    However.. this is my guess.

    3.0L straight six
    Twin turbo, but some kind of a sequential system (I am however hoping for a tripple setup).
    Same weight as the E46 M3 ( 1550-1600kg)
    HOPING it will have some kind of a KERS system, hence all the confusion with the electrical turbos and stuff. Kers will add weight but keep polution down since it should only weigh about 30-40kg in total, and does not need petrol to run it (like superchargers or turbos).

    the N54 only runs out of breath because the turbos are too small for higher revs. With a sequential system this will not be a problem, and we will get a +8000rpm motor, with quick spool and 420+hp rating (underrating).. however with added 50hp through KERS it will be a monster to deal with, instant power for 20seconds anyone?
    1995 BMW M3GT nr:111/350 TwinTurbo and some other mods.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Hamburg/Germany
    Posts
    40
    Rep Points
    60.5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    No matter what is currently reported so- I bet on a 3.3 liter V6 Click here to enlarge

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    3,268
    Rep Points
    1,418.2
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sorena Click here to enlarge
    N63 vs N63tu, the only thing that was changed was valvetronic in the N63tu and gained 45hp. I don't understand how it benefits the performance though.

    Why it never made it to high revving engines? Because ITB Click here to enlarge
    aaaaaand the tuning, of course.. which pretty well accounts for 45hp there haha

    mmm i love the sound of trumpets, om nom nom nom nom

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Jersey City
    Posts
    3,857
    Rep Points
    3,642.6
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    37


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by M3GTtt Click here to enlarge
    I have not read through the whole comment spread but it will definetly be an ///M engine and not a N54/N55 derivative. More likely is that the future replacements for the N54/N55 will derive from the new M3 engine.

    However.. this is my guess.

    3.0L straight six
    Twin turbo, but some kind of a sequential system (I am however hoping for a tripple setup).
    Same weight as the E46 M3 ( 1550-1600kg)
    HOPING it will have some kind of a KERS system, hence all the confusion with the electrical turbos and stuff. Kers will add weight but keep polution down since it should only weigh about 30-40kg in total, and does not need petrol to run it (like superchargers or turbos).
    the N54 only runs out of breath because the turbos are too small for higher revs. With a sequential system this will not be a problem, and we will get a +8000rpm motor, with quick spool and 420+hp rating (underrating).. however with added 50hp through KERS it will be a monster to deal with, instant power
    for 20seconds anyone?

    Well said! I agree, people seem to have no faith. Look at each m car, none of them have the same engines and every time it's changed there are people complaining like this. I remember sitting on forums in college reading about how everyone hates the e46 m3 coming out, it's larger, it's ugly, etc.

    This happens with every m car. People are mad it went from a 4-6 cylinder, then a 6 to a v8! lol in the end it's all good. If you don't like the new one, buy a used e92. I bet people will be all over this new m3/m4.
    Click here to enlarge
    ESS 6XX kit

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
    Well said! I agree, people seem to have no faith. Look at each m car, none of them have the same engines and every time it's changed there are people complaining like this. I remember sitting on forums in college reading about how everyone hates the e46 m3 coming out, it's larger, it's ugly, etc.

    This happens with every m car. People are mad it went from a 4-6 cylinder, then a 6 to a v8! lol in the end it's all good. If you don't like the new one, buy a used e92. I bet people will be all over this new m3/m4.
    I am sure there will be people all over the new M3, but there will also be people that will move straight to their next option of NA, which is a 991 911. I don't think for a second that a current M3 owner will give up the responsiveness and fun of their car just to have more torque. In the past, the M3 had a "special" engine, now - well, I guess we'll see - but it doesn't seem like we are going to get that (like the new M5). I think all these people, that DO care about the engine - will move to the 911 as opposed to getting the next M3. I know I will.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The world...
    Posts
    1,331
    Rep Points
    1,202.2
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    I am sure there will be people all over the new M3, but there will also be people that will move straight to their next option of NA, which is a 991 911. I don't think for a second that a current M3 owner will give up the responsiveness and fun of their car just to have more torque. In the past, the M3 had a "special" engine, now - well, I guess we'll see - but it doesn't seem like we are going to get that (like the new M5). I think all these people, that DO care about the engine - will move to the 911 as opposed to getting the next M3. I know I will.
    just keep in mind that a 911 is a much much different car w a slightly different purpose. It's rear engine and has a flat six motor, and it doesnt have the street qualities of an m3, not everyone is alright with that.
    2007 335i (100% stock with mods)

    N54 is not a German 2JZ lol

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Q4P Click here to enlarge
    just keep in mind that a 911 is a much much different car w a slightly different purpose. It's rear engine and has a flat six motor, and it doesnt have the street qualities of an m3, not everyone is alright with that.
    Meh, yeah - this is true, but I think it's the closest thing to the current M3 as far as the "general idea" goes. I can't think of another car that is on the same parallel. Yes, it's definitely different - but also the same general overall purpose - being the best car you can drive everyday.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,198
    Rep Points
    1,800.2
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno@ProTUNING Freaks Click here to enlarge
    From the pics shown those water intercoolers will do a great job and provide the shortest path possible from the turbos to the intake manifold making for best possible throttle response.
    I'm sure it'll be incredible efficient & effective at cooling, but once the water temp gets up I have a feeling we're gonna see a lot of limp modes.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Brey335i Click here to enlarge
    At this point I wouldn't be too surprised if it was just an N54 with an upgraded FMIC, RB-copy turbos, high flow downpipes, the Performance Exhaust, and an M badge on the plastic engine cover...

    ///Marketing
    That would make things way too easy & take all the fun out of aftermarket modifying

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rudypoochris Click here to enlarge
    That's ballsy as hell. 3mm more per bore... I don't think it will work, but I m not a race engine shop. If they go for a bigger bore I think they will be changing bore spacing almost definitely. Same reason GM didn't supercharge the LS7 for the ZR1. They needed more cylinder wall. In either case it makes more sense to turn up the boost than to thin out the cylinder walls.
    The reason that GM didn't supercharge the LS7 was because they wanted 100 HP per Liter, so you would've been looking at 700+ HP. I don't think that your claims that the engine was "fragile" (^^needed more cylinder walls) is accurate, especially when we see companies like ProCharger getting ~625 RWHP & Vortech getting ~635 RWHP.
    COBB AP ProTune by Bren of ///Bren Tuning
    Akrapovic DP | Helix FMIC | Alpina TCM Flash | Walbro 450LPH Fuel Pump


    "The moment money becomes your motivation, you are immediately not as good as someone who is motivated by passion and internal will." -A. Senna

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,177
    Rep Points
    801.6
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
    The reason that GM didn't supercharge the LS7 was because they wanted 100 HP per Liter, so you would've been looking at 700+ HP. I don't think that your claims that the engine was "fragile" (^^needed more cylinder walls) is accurate, especially when we see companies like ProCharger getting ~625 RWHP & Vortech getting ~635 RWHP.
    I'm sure the last thing GM cares about is HP/liter or they wouldn't be running OHV. 625-635hp is peanuts for the typical 7L Chevy V8. OEMs build to certain safety factors. Its the same reason they don't make 8000rpm turbo motors. They like to be a bit more conservative across the board. If the LS7 did take to boost, you'd see a lot more power out of them. Cylinder wall thickness is a very real concern.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    67
    Rep Points
    80.5
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mkodama Click here to enlarge
    I'm more surprised that BMW is going to continue making an M3 sedan, when the E90 M3 sedan had sales numbers that were abysmal compared to even the convertible sales.
    I would only purchase the sedan if I was in the market for an m3, if I wanted a coupe I would buy a proper sports car built from the ground up and not a modified grocery getter Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
    Really wishing they stayed with air/air intercooling instead of switching to air/water like on the S63, feel like intercooling upgrade is going to be difficult to package & really pricey
    water/air > air/air all day every day. Check out the Ford GT's that are pushing 1000hp+ they are still using the stock water/air intercooler because it does such a great job. If the new m3 includes this like the m5 it will be great, no more intercooler upgrades needed.

    I think we will see a better breathing version of the n54/n55 in the new m3, I'm hoping we can swap the manifolds and turbos over.
    FBO / HFS-4 / Cobb PTF tune

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,677
    Rep Points
    3,327.5
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    34


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by redlineryder Click here to enlarge
    water/air > air/air all day every day. Check out the Ford GT's that are pushing 1000hp+ they are still using the stock water/air intercooler because it does such a great job. If the new m3 includes this like the m5 it will be great, no more intercooler upgrades needed.
    +1
    Click here to enlarge

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Jersey City
    Posts
    3,857
    Rep Points
    3,642.6
    Mentioned
    74 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    37


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    I am sure there will be people all over the new M3, but there will also be people that will move straight to their next option of NA, which is a 991 911. I don't think for a second that a current M3 owner will give up the responsiveness and fun of their car just to have more torque. In the past, the M3 had a "special" engine, now - well, I guess we'll see - but it doesn't seem like we are going to get that (like the new M5). I think all these people, that DO care about the engine - will move to the 911 as opposed to getting the next M3. I know I will.
    I hear you, but I think your really selling the car short before it even comes out. The m5 doesn't worry me, it's not engineered to appeal to a m3 buyer. This new m3/m4 won't just have more tq, it should be faster, better handling, nicer interior/exterior, better technology, hopefully a all around better car. I think people should relax and see what happens here. You never know, the engine in this new m could blow away the current s65 in everything (hp/tq, mpg, responsiveness, etc.)
    Click here to enlarge
    ESS 6XX kit

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,198
    Rep Points
    1,800.2
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by redlineryder Click here to enlarge
    water/air > air/air all day every day. Check out the Ford GT's that are pushing 1000hp+ they are still using the stock water/air intercooler because it does such a great job. If the new m3 includes this like the m5 it will be great, no more intercooler upgrades needed.
    But look at all the 2,000 HP Supras, Dodge Vipers, Porsche Turbos & GTRs that are all using air/air intercooling. Body layout is a big factor that plays into high HP cars like the the Ford GT & Lambo Gallardo that are forced into going air/water (air/air on those mid-engine cars would a nightmare between IC placement & piping).

    Air/Air vs. Air/Water can be debated endlessly, but it depends on your application. Air/air is going to be significantly more effective on a road car where there's consistently passive airflow going through the FMIC, which would be a more appropriate application on the M3. If you're just building a car to go as fast & quick as possible over a 1/4 mile or full mile, the air/water is going to make the most sense (especially when you can add ice chest & special fluids that'll really assist in the IAT cooling)
    COBB AP ProTune by Bren of ///Bren Tuning
    Akrapovic DP | Helix FMIC | Alpina TCM Flash | Walbro 450LPH Fuel Pump


    "The moment money becomes your motivation, you are immediately not as good as someone who is motivated by passion and internal will." -A. Senna

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    9400' ASL, Colorado
    Posts
    886
    Rep Points
    1,301.6
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Keep in mind the 3rd/electric turbo is designed to give boost at low RPM and make the car drive more like an NA powered car. variable vane turbos will give some flexibility as well, both in low and high operating ranges. Even with that, I doubt we'll see anything above 6500rpm for usable power. Would love to be wrong though.
    Current: '00 S2000
    Previous: '15 M235i xDrive | '15 Macan S | '15 WRX STi | '06 Cayman S | '12 E92 335is w/JB4 | '10 STi

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    3,852
    Rep Points
    2,346.5
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    24


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I'm with you @bobS If you go back and look at every platform including the M3 everyone always $#@!es everytime a new model comes out. We hate it, the engine sucks, it's too big, it's ugly, etc. Then a couple years later, it's the best thing ever produced. When I was researching Porsches it was the same thing. It'll be badass, I have a good feeling about it. In a couple years everyone will be raving about it. I guarantee it.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
    I hear you, but I think your really selling the car short before it even comes out. The m5 doesn't worry me, it's not engineered to appeal to a m3 buyer. This new m3/m4 won't just have more tq, it should be faster, better handling, nicer interior/exterior, better technology, hopefully a all around better car. I think people should relax and see what happens here. You never know, the engine in this new m could blow away the current s65 in everything (hp/tq, mpg, responsiveness, etc.)
    2011 335is DCT, JB4 + MHD BEF, stage 2 LPFP, e50 + 50/50 meth, FBO, MT ET Streets when needed


Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •