1M is out... How does it compare to our cars?

[Eccentric]

Not an M car? What exactly does this mean? I always thought it meant street focus; track ready. Nothing wrong with the way the 1M achieves that. High revving na purists need to wake up. Turbo cars offer a perfect compromise between mpg, and bhp.

Guys, the car revs to 7krpm. It was good enough for the original m3, so why speak about blasphemy? After driving an e30 m3 for the first time last week I can honestly say that the lack of power isn't a detriment to the car's greatness.

But on another note, yeah BMw is going the way of merc and GM with all their stupid niche models. The X5Ms we didn't need, but the 1M is a fast, small car. Remember the BMW of the 70s? Yeah they made fast, fun, efficient cars too.

[ANILE8]

It is relatively easy and cheap to build a high horsepower forced induction motor compared to a naturally aspirated motor that develops the same HP and TQ figures.

Just turn up the boost and make the internals strong enough so it doesn't turn into a hand grenade.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Rick Hunter

BMW doesn't HAVE to produce a new M engine for each M car. I think the problem is that they HAVE a perfectly good M engine that is in the M3 that they aren't using in the 1er. Use that in the 1er if you're too cheap to develop a new engine (or chop off a couple of cylinders to make it 6 cyl, whatever)... that would still be purist M. The fact that they are weaseling their way out of the S65 in a 1er to prevent cannibalism to their beloved M3 is utter utter naff.

Hell... look at what they did with our Z4Ms... plopped in the S54 engine. Parts bin special? Yup. Cheaped out? Yup. Winning formula? Yup. Still a pure M.

Exactly Rick! They really got very little use out of the S65. And they seem to love saying "that engine will die" over and over again. It's a great engine but doesn't get to really shine as much as it could given the M3's weight. I can see perhaps why they wouldn't put it in the 1 series (it would really piss off the M3 guys) but man, imagine that car, I wouldn't be able to resist it (it would be in a car that's a reasonable weight and size) and I think very few others would be able to resist it as well. Then again, it's not like they haven't done this before (as you pointed out with the Z4M). The Z4M is lighter than the E46 M3, same engine though.

Merc, Audi, and heck, even Ford (the new Coyote in the Mustang is a hoot) all continue to produce V8s. Ford's latest effort actually is pretty high-revving (IIRC 7.5k, probably headroom for more), and the BOSS really caters to enthusiasts. Ford gets it. They're using the formula BMW used for years. I can see the appeal of turbos for fuel and CO2 efficiency in the main fleet of BMWs--the grocery getters and non-M cars. Like Epbrown said, the enthusiasts are not amused and the halo the M brand (and enthusiast crowd) brought to BMW will move on.

The M division sells very few cars relative to the overall sales of BMW--so why not keep they special? Why not use technology (S65) that already has sunk costs in R&D for something special? Like lightweight Z4 or the 1M? I'm really sick and tired of hearing about C02 and fuel efficiency for sports cars. Efficiency dynamics--whatever--keep that for the regular cars. M cars are sports cars not a Toyota Prius or some plug-in hybrid for crying out loud. Do enthusiasts care if it doesn't get 30 MPG highway? I don't care if it gets 20 MPG--I'd venture to bet that with the S65 in a lighter chassis it could get mid-20s highway with appropriate gearing for 6th. CO2? Having a kid puts out over 50 times as much CO2 as driving does over a lifetime (due to the resources children end up using). Population is really the enemy, not cars which as characterized as C02 villains.

Besides, the fuel efficiency is largely a bullshit argument IMO. I had a 335--never got anything more than 17 MPG all around (same as the M3, same as the Z4M) because I was hammering the heck out of it. Drive a turbo car hard and it will drink gas as surely as a NA car. Until it goes into limp mode due to overheating of course....

I totally agree with the points some have made re: racing and the direction of BMW going forward given the economy and their pullbacks on the racing front. But again, the technology is there in the S65--why the hell not use it?

Good discussion here and a lot of good points.

[Eccentric]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

It is relatively easy and cheap to build a high horsepower forced induction motor compared to a naturally aspirated motor that develops the same HP and TQ figures.

Just turn up the boost and make the internals strong enough so it doesn't turn into a hand grenade.

Bingo. Not a half-assed solution, just a logical one. If the car is still fun, why bitch?

[Eccentric]

And when I say bitch, I mean complain. No offense to anyone; the zpost users are amongst the most respectful forum members out there.

[ANILE8]

Alternatively as has already been suggested M division could have cut two cylinders off the V8 S65 engine to make a V6 and call it a S45 or something and put that into the 1M.

This would not piss off the current M3 buyers and owners and it would still give the 1M a unique engine developed my M.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Eccentric

Bingo. Not a half-assed solution, just a logical one. If the car is still fun, why bitch?

Sure, it's not a bad effort, but there are some things of concern here:

The turbo engines are buggy as hell with the HPFP failures. And there isn't a fix for that yet.

Unless they've made some significant improvements heat soak and limp are going to ruin your fun if you take it to the track. I don't know that this is an issue (they may have addressed it), so it's a question mark for now.

I think what a lot of us are saying is that we don't find turbo engines to be as much of a thrill to drive as a high-strung high-revving engine. The 1M may be faster (heck, with my piggy my 335 was faster than either car I drive now) but the thing was just boring to me. The power delivery and drop off at revs just isn't "the joy of driving for me". Subjective? Hell yes! But it's what I've like about the fun BMW's I've driven: the S54 and S65. (And what I like about my friend's F355.) And if turbo o rama is the direction BMW is headed (and I'm sure it is) I'll have to find my fun elsewhere....I think a lot of others may do so as well.

I hadn't driven the Z4M in a couple of months and took it out today. Damn the way that thing winds up is just a hoot! And I like the extra 1K of revs vs. the flat-6 with 7K I've been driving lately. I found having them there a lot of fun--and hard to go back to the 7K limit when in the afternoon I jumped back in the other car. Again, like I said, subjective as hell but it's what I like....

That said, I like everything about the 1M effort except the engine. It's the right size, the right weight (way to go there BMW--kudos), and looks pretty damn good (and mean) as well. M-tuned suspension, etc. Nice. 6MT. Nice.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Eccentric

And when I say bitch, I mean complain. No offense to anyone; the zpost users are amongst the most respectful forum members out there.

Yeah, I knew what you meant.... No worries!

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Alternatively as has already been suggested M division could have cut two cylinders off the V8 S65 engine to make a V6 and call it a S45 or something and put that into the 1M.

This would not piss off the current M3 buyers and owners and it would still give the 1M a unique engine developed my M.

That would be an epic win. Leverage the technology (just like the S85 -> S65) as Rick said. And like I said, the rest of the effort is a damn good! S45? I'd have a hard time resisting such a little beastie!

[Eccentric]

Good points here. Nice to see how everyone feels. IMHO the turbo hpfp problems will stop With the non m cars. After all, the gt2rs is faster around the ring AND more efficient than any other Porsche ever made. Turbos aren't a bad thing. Oh and the new mclaren mp4-12c has twin turbos. Doubt anyone will complain about that, despite the F1 being a driver's supercar

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Eccentric

Good points here. Nice to see how everyone feels. IMHO the turbo hpfp problems will stop With the non m cars. After all, the gt2rs is faster around the ring AND more efficient than any other Porsche ever made. Turbos aren't a bad thing. Oh and the new mclaren mp4-12c has twin turbos. Doubt anyone will complain about that, despite the F1 being a driver's supercar

I hope you're right about the HPFP. Even in a NA car DFI has advantages--I'd like to see that technology nailed down.

RE: Turbos--good points. With the right tuning and "feel" I wouldn't turn down a turbo just because it's a turbo. But I have my persnickety requirements: throttle sensitivity/control; want it to run like a bat out of hell to redline (even if that's only 7K); want it to not die of heatstroke when flogged or tracked. Give me that and turbos away!

Demanding customer ain't I??? But it's all about requirements in my book--meet those and I'd be sold. And if it's lower C02, lower fuel consumption (which means I can save money to blow on mods and track days ) then that's okay too!

[krnnerdboy]

Originally Posted by Eccentric

Good points here. Nice to see how everyone feels. IMHO the turbo hpfp problems will stop With the non m cars. After all, the gt2rs is faster around the ring AND more efficient than any other Porsche ever made. Turbos aren't a bad thing. Oh and the new mclaren mp4-12c has twin turbos. Doubt anyone will complain about that, despite the F1 being a driver's supercar

yup turbos aren't a bad thing but when it wheezes out way before redline there is no joy in taking it to the 7k redline as such in the n54. I would've been satisfied if M just developed an intake manifold suited for high RPM driving. At least that would have made it semi exclusive. Does anybody know if the tranny and gearing are the same also?

heck even the mini cooper s and JCW have completely different motors for just a 20hp gain. They completely redesigned the head and put in a built tranny to handle the rigors of tracking

[BlackMoupe]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

That would be an epic win. Leverage the technology (just like the S85 -> S65) as Rick said. And like I said, the rest of the effort is a damn good! S45? I'd have a hard time resisting such a little beastie!

5.0 V10= 500hp
4.0 V8=414hp >300 tq
3.0 V6 = less power, WAY less tq, and BMW doesn't do V6's because they're too "not inline sixish" in their Power deliver and smoothness

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by SSKE92

5.0 V10= 500hp
4.0 V8=414hp >300 tq
3.0 V6 = less power, WAY less tq, and BMW doesn't do V6's because they're too "not inline sixish" in their Power deliver and smoothness

Hmm. Well stated points there. On the other hand, BMW didn't do turbos at one point either and stated that an M car should be high-revving, etc. etc.

How about the S65? That would have been my first choice anyway. No additional tooling costs, etc. Too bad they're just going to toss it away....

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by SSKE92

5.0 V10= 500hp
4.0 V8=414hp >300 tq
3.0 V6 = less power, WAY less tq, and BMW doesn't do V6's because they're too "not inline sixish" in their Power deliver and smoothness

I am sure BMW could have pulled something out by increasing the capacity. Who says it has to be restricted to 3 litres.

Look at the Nissan 370Z engine.

3.7-liter DOHC 24-valve V6 aluminum-alloy engine
332 hp @ 7,000 rpm
270 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm

[Eccentric]

Interesting points about the cylinder counts. I actually wanted the opposite for the 1M. I wanted a turbo four-banger as a throwback to the original m3. If the evo makes due with reliable 400whp applications I'm sure BMW could have made a high revving 4 cyl turbo that doesn't run out of gas high in the revs.

And that's the main issue I think. Not the use of turbos but that the cars rev to 7 but run out of gas in the low 6's.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Eccentric

Interesting points about the cylinder counts. I actually wanted the opposite for the 1M. I wanted a turbo four-banger as a throwback to the original m3. If the evo makes due with reliable 400whp applications I'm sure BMW could have made a high revving 4 cyl turbo that doesn't run out of gas high in the revs.

And that's the main issue I think. Not the use of turbos but that the cars rev to 7 but run out of gas in the low 6's.

Yup. Like I said before, I want it to run like a bat out of hell to red line. I'm fine with more torque down low but not at the expense of excitement in the upper revs. A nice flat torque curve would be nice as well--something the S65 does very well.

This discussion made me remember that the Porsche Turbo gets its dynamics from variable geometry turbos rather than run-of-the-mill turbos. Took a quick look at Wikipedia, and this concept provides good boost at low and high revs by constantly changing the way the vanes on the turbo work--and they require no wastegastes (another area the N54 doesn't have a good track record with). If you set up a regular turbo to provide good boost at lower revs the upper revs naturally suffer; and the converse is true as well.

This type of technology sounds like this would be an effective way to really give a an engine a really nice flat torque curve as well as keep it from running of out steam at higher revs. If they plan to use this in the next series of M cars things could be interesting.

I wouldn't be opposed to a 4 banger in a very lightweight car with a broad and flat torque curve and good high rev dynamics. A E30 throwback would really hit the spot for a lot of enthusiasts. Cure the HPFP issues and heat soak issues and it could be a real winner on several fronts.

[BlackMoupe]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

I am sure BMW could have pulled something out by increasing the capacity. Who says it has to be restricted to 3 litres.

Look at the Nissan 370Z engine.

3.7-liter DOHC 24-valve V6 aluminum-alloy engine
332 hp @ 7,000 rpm
270 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm

Yes but the VQ engine line is well known for it's roughness.

I feel a 1 series "M coupe" deserves the S65, or maybe a tuned 550i engine. The turbo V8.

It should be called the 135M or BMW tii with no 1 series affiliation.

[gatorfast]

I understand BMW not using the S65 in the 1M for fear of pissing off M3 owners (there are a lot more M3 owners out there than there will be 1M owners and its a more expensive car and flagship of the company).

However, BMW could have waited another year or so until they were getting ready to stop producing the current M3 and then dropped the S65 into the 1M (kind of like they did to the Z4 M shortly before they stopped producing the last generation M3). That way M3 owners would be less hurt since their cars would then be a generation old anyway and BMW could have gotten more use out of the S65 (and made the 1M insane!). Just my thought...

[Eccentric]

If they gave the 1m the s65, it'd be like merc giving the slk roadster the v8 from the then current 5.5L (?) v8 of the e55. They detuned the engine and it was still fast as hell, but something felt uninspiring. Detuned engines aren't cool. No reason to restrict power in performance cars.

And the 1m getting the s65 is not the same as us getting the m3's s54. The z4 m was limited by it's gearing, and transmission, so it was only slightly faster bc of weight. M3 owners likely accepted this bc it only had 2 seats. The 1m has 4 seats, and despite complaints, they're actually usable if u have kids.. Which let's face it, if you're an adult you shouldn't be forced in the back of a coupe. That's just kinda degrading lol

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by Eccentric

And while the 1m's engine may be a torque-heavy "low-reving" engine, it still bangs up to 7krpm.. not exactly miniscule.

You say that, but the max power comes at 5900rpm. So, from 5900rpm to 7000rpm the power must be dropping (which makes sense because turbos can't keep up)... So who cares where the redline is, if there is no power there...

[BlackMoupe]

http://www.bmwblog.com/2010/12/12/bmw-1m-nurburging-lap-time-812-10-seconds-faster-than-e46-m3/

[thekurgan]

Originally Posted by SSKE92

http://www.bmwblog.com/2010/12/12/bmw-1m-nurburging-lap-time-812-10-seconds-faster-than-e46-m3/

Interesting ..


"The lap times are still slower than the M3 CSLz4 m c (7:50) or the M3 E92 (8:05), but both of these models use naturally aspirated engines, built by M engineers."