A own a Z3MC with the S54…a charm of an engine.
Currently It seems weird knowing that the most powerful M car is…a SUV (X6M and X5M) and using a Twin-Turbo engine…that is, no NA engine, nor a small, light, agile M car…

I understand the restrains companies have, because of CO2 emissions but I still feel sad that the great M NA engines seem to have come to an end with the M3 V8 engine (this V8 with increased bore and direct injection would be a dream come true form NA M fans).

0  0

Two year recession is what I’ve heard as well. I was getting ready for a big auto upgrade and it’s the worst possible time to risk security.

Right after the two year recession, the whole “baby boomer retirement” problem is speculated to hit the economy even harder and last a decade……… :(

0  0

“It’s exactly what I meant. It’s not really any more complicated than their sequential turbo design (135/335/535), you’re just driving the smaller turbo from a belt rather than the exhaust. It’s actually less complicated than the V8 TT design, because those are variable geometry turbos for the same purpose.”

Ok, if you say so.

I totally agree with you about the sacrifices issue. It’s just… no one knows for sure how the world will look when this fin crysis is over. The guy that was going to buy a Porshe is probably going to buy a fast sedan. They guy that was going to buy an M3 is probably going to buy a 135i etc etc. It’s all hypothetical, but I bet the top brass of these auto makers are at least talking about it. Am I being too pesimistic? I hear economists are talking about a twe year recession. Thats a long time!

0  0

Maybe we should figure out what the sacrifices actually are. Changes, yes… but I can’t see BMW buyers will accepting a sacrifice in the driving characteristics just for the sake of efficiency. Say the next M3 uses a 4-cylinder engine– that’s fine, but it not only has to perform just as good as the V8 or 3.2, but has to sound as good, feel as good, be just as responsive and controllable. That’s where turbocharging is lacking.

Whispering Ferraris!!!! More blasphemy. Actually if they are planning that currently, it’s curious that they objected so furiously against the F1 V12 standardization.

0  0

Lol, don’t kill the messenger! Fact is -it’s a changing world, pretty soon there will be no more V12s… Ferraris wil come wispering by on high speed state-of-the-art electric motors, F1 circuits will have grooves in the tracks to feed the cars with electrical power (skylectric style).
Just kidding ofcoarse. But “what ever it takes” is a risky statement:) It implies “sacrifice”.

About the complexity of the system… I was refering to your concept on combining supercharging with turbo charging in one enjin (if that is what you meant).

0  0

Well isn’t a supercharger much simpler than a turbo anyway? You don’t have to fold exhaust manifolds, there’s no turbine, and best of all- the power is immediate.

I’m not at all arguing against 4-cylinder turbo engines. If anything 4’s need something like this even more because their weaker low-RPM output makes the turbo characteristics even more pronounced.

And enough with your blasphemy about “sacrifice” on a performance-oriented car! :) I mean… as long as the driving experience keeps improving despite challenges… then… whatever it takes.

0  0

Very interesting concpet! But I’m wondering what the weight penalties would be from such a set-up. Remember, we’re talking performance enjins here. At the same time, you don’t want to over complicate the system. There’s so much more that can go wrong. I think the mechanical parts of a performance enjin should be basic, but well enjineerd -clever, but nothing fancy. If you have to go smaller due to economical and public perceptions, you’re gonna have to sacrifice some good things, ie, large capacity high revving motors, for something that is perceived to be smaller and lighter, but with more power and better economy… what other option is there but to go turbo charging.

0  0

0  0

What I was thinking was simply the combination of a separate turbo and supercharger, both blowing to the same intercooler. If you have a throttle in front of the supercharger, you can lower the resistance when compression isn’t needed (or the turbo is providing it). However, maybe the turbo is still more efficient because it’s harnessing unused power in exhaust gasses.

The idea of a hybrid turbo compressor—— that’s interesting. I don’t know how you’d couple it to the engine. Actually, maybe it could be tied to a electric motor/generator– that would be more flexible. So, if exhaust power was present and you didn’t need compression, you could then generate & store power; conversely, when you needed compression but there isn’t enough exhaust, you could run the electric motor. Are there electric motors that can run at 200K rpm without reduction?

0  0

I would consider SC to be a good development for M cars and, as you mentioned, since the SC is 100% synchronized (locked) to the engine rpm then there wont be a 3rd variable and responsiveness /predictability of the engine stays the same as NA.

However, the problem is: SC reduces the fuel efficiency of the engine while Turbo increases it. So for BMW it’s a no a brainer, they need to comply with the new US rules that penalize companies per the average of their models rather than the average of the SUM of each model multiplied by the production/import numbers. With these rules (If I understand them correctly) BMW will be penalized even if it sells 10 M5 with bad MPG and million Mini’s with good MPG.

What you said about Turbo/SC combined sounds very interesting, something like a turbo that has it’s turbine shaft locked to the crank, sounds like it could be the best of both, but there should be a catch somewhere. Do you know of any example?

0  0

The solution is probably supercharging, or combining supercharging (for response & linearity) with turbocharging (efficiency). If you replaced the small turbo in the 3.0TT with a small supercharger behind its own throttle, you’d get much better control over the engine with negligible efficency losses.

Audi is reportedly going with supercharging for the next S4/S5.

0  0

If what you’re saying about weight is true, then where could the other big advantages with turbo charging be? Is there some BMW insider that can back this up? (Non marketing insider please…lol).

0  0

Yes BMW “broke a few ‘traditions’” but for different reasons. The reason for turbos is mainly cost. Weight is not an issue here, the S65 V8 has almost the same weight as the N54 (twin turbo I6). IMO the whole engine weight thing is just marketing, the E92 weighs almost 300lb more than the E46 although the S65 is lighter than the S54, so saving weight should be focuesd somewhere else. And BTW if you look at the engine specs of the S65 you will find that the engine is way more relaxed than the S54 which means there is easily additional 100hp to take from the enigine with the same reliabilty as the old S54. So I would imagine a bigger bore S65 to be the next step instead of turbos.

0  0

“Will they just pop two turbos in everything, slap on an M badge and call it a day? How is that any different than Dinan tweaking the ECU and turbos?”

I think some of you guys are getting a little precious about the subject. BMW has been making breathtaking sports cars for decades all by them selfs. Along the way they broke a few ‘traditions’ to bring us something new. In doing so, they’ve started new traditions that, today, we treasure etc etc.

I think of this move in much the same way… the performance turbo enjine is about to be re-invented! The industry can only benefit from something BMW does -their turbo diesels to name just one. Everybody had to up their game afterwards. Besides, who can argue with a lighter more economical better balanced M car.

0  0

I wonder how M will differentiate itself from, say, Dinan, who have some tweaks to the 335i that allow it to output some 380bhp and a whopping 420lb/ft of torque. What is M going to do now that they’re not developing their own high-revving engines? Will they just pop two turbos in everything, slap on an M badge and call it a day? How is that any different than Dinan tweaking the ECU and turbos?

0  0

Today, the current M-Cars (especially the E60) are farther away from the concept of M cars, but at least they kept the great S engines that people, magazines, even tech focused forums and papers use as bench mark of engineering. Now if we go to Turbo, it will be the last nail in the M cars coffin. M cars will not be much different from any other competitor like Lexus F , Merc AMG, or Audi S and RS.

I would love it if they keep the M-Cars as they are (or bring them back to the E30 spirit), and make a new brand like BMW-Sport, or something like that, where they could combine stupid high-torque turbo engines with comfortable and easily driven cars, but I guess they want to make the most profit from the M brand reputation.

Anyway, I read this news again and again for a while, I also read news in the 90s that BMW will go FWD for the 3er to compete in the market, all unfounded rumors. I haven’t yet read a statement from BMW saying anything like that about M-Cars. At the same time I read many statements from the M-Div lead engineers saying that M cars will always be NA, so for me I’d like to think that the M brand is still good, at least till I hear something that has a good reliable source.

0  0

0  0

I just hope the M’s retain their above average redline

0  0

All I’m saying is that turbo charging is as part of BMWs history as the multi valve technology they invented for the origional M1. Just because they went without a serious turbo performance car for so long doesn’t mean it’s new to them.

0  0

0  0