BMW 1 Series M Coupe... Now , I believe... Future of 1M (M2) and M Cars

[Kurt_OH]

The only things they definitely should have done with this car, but didn't, was up the boost at the top end, and use the M3 manual differential.

Make it pull to 6500 instead of HP peak at 5900. Even if the HP peak was never allowed to exceed the same 340hp, just push it out that little bit - if it has 340hp from 5900-6500, it would be significantly faster.

The diff is a gimme for WAY harder acceleration. That's probably why they didn't do it (along with the 0-60 issue) - it would likely crush an M3 up to 1/4 mile with just changing the diff or at most the diff plus my tune above.

The third thing, if I can go that far, is they should have included DCT. If they did, and put IT with the M3 manual diff, the shift points wouldn't even matter for 0-60 and it would be a ROCKET.

The diff is the biggest disappoint because it's FREE.

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by Kurt_OH

The only things they definitely should have done with this car, but didn't, was up the boost at the top end, and use the M3 manual differential.

Make it pull to 6500 instead of HP peak at 5900. Even if the HP peak was never allowed to exceed the same 340hp, just push it out that little bit - if it has 340hp from 5900-6500, it would be significantly faster.

The diff is a gimme for WAY harder acceleration. That's probably why they didn't do it (along with the 0-60 issue) - it would likely crush an M3 up to 1/4 mile with just changing the diff or at most the diff plus my tune above.

The third thing, if I can go that far, is they should have included DCT. If they did, and put IT with the M3 manual diff, the shift points wouldn't even matter for 0-60 and it would be a ROCKET.

The diff is the biggest disappoint because it's FREE.

Uh, do you mean M3 diff? Or ring and pinion? Either way I think you're off...

[M3roar]

Could BMW mark this "1M" an M2 and call it a day? The 1 series remains a lower level BMW while the M2 remains an M2 forever. Getting rid of the ugly transition from 1M to M2. Just my .02 cents.

[mb1]

I hope the M division gets the message that some of us want to spend our money on an enthusiast car that peaks HP much higher than 5900. Until then, my E46 M3 and my money will stay with me. It's frustrating that I WANT to give them my money but the dissapointments keep coming.

My old N54 was too dull to drive and there was a genuine lack of driver connection.

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Summary:

• Next generation 1M (based on F20 1-series) potentially renamed M2 because BMW considering renaming sporty 1-series variants (coupe/cabrio) to 2-series
• Next 1M (or M2) and next M3 to possibly receive more focused special editions (i.e. track/lightweight special models)
  • Many feel that the M Division has become too focused with luxury and these additional 1M and M3's will set the bar for more focused compact and premium entry sports cars as well as their standard luxury siblings.
• Next 1M (or M2) to be powered by 4-cylinder
• Next M3 to be powered by 6-cylinder
• Next 1M (or M2) could come in more variants - coupe and cabrio
• M3 production ends in mid-late 2012 meaning no M3's until 2014
  • Possible Z4M or X3M to fill the temporary gap, using upgraded engine from 1M coupe

BMW 1 Series M Coupe...... Now,I believe....

When you look at the 1M Coupe you see actually a very outstanding car initially from the original proposal. Whilst it is true that the budget given to develop this car is actually a tiny fraction of M's Super Sedan the M5's massive budget.
For the amount of money and time they had for the 1M Coupe they have pulled off a masterstroke.

Going into initial proposals you have blank sheet of paper and split into two colulms , one for what you expect for an M car , The other in what to do to make it a great M car.
At the very beginning the proposal involved everything that makes a typical BMW M Coupe. Unfortunately everything that makes a great BMW M Coupe was not attainable due to the low budget. When you take into consideration of crash testing etc. Had the 1M be equipped with a standard carbon fibre roof it would not be heading to the USA as BMW would not have funded extra crash testing.

BMW did not want to fully commit seeing as the car has a relatively short production window. At first not everyone was convinced but now everybody is a believer.

Look at this car now and look at it closely. Because it is what is attainable ,when you have limited resources to work with.
It is also the appetizer , given the response to the car when it was undergoing development. The next generation 1er M Coupe or M2? has been given a much larger development budget so next time round , there is more freedom to progress ideas that could not be attained this time around, because of cost within the next car.

The next 1M (M2 - because BMW are looking at seperating the 1er family especially with the sporty variants such as Roadster , Coupe and Cabrio apart from the 1er expansion with 1er concepts such as GT , F.A.S.T. , CST.)

Will see a more direct response from M Division for more sporting concepts especially for the 1M successor and the next M3. BMW believe that the GTS has proved that there is a market for such concepts in a similar progression as the Porsche 911. Although BMW's would be more straightforward with familiar signatures with the standard car followed by a more track co-ordinated and lightweight special.

Many feel that the M Division has become too focused with luxury and these additional 1M and M3's will set the bar for more focused compact and premium entry sports cars as well as their standard luxury siblings.
The M5 will remain as the perfect synthesis between luxury and performance.

The new engines that will feature for the next 1M and M3 are already in development with the 1er resorting to a four cylinder and the M3 returning to six cylinders. What next for the 1M coupe leaves a few open possibilites.

BMW reckon a Cabrio edition would end E88 production although officially denied , unofficially they have built prototypes which if BMW sell every single unit of the Coupe and Cabrio they get back their return and then some.

The current issue of course is with the M3 which will end production in mid-late 2012 leaving BMW without a competitor in the Premium Entry sports car class , which will feature the Audi RS5 and Mercedes-Benz C-Coupe AMG. Discussion has resorted to considering a fixed roof Z4M or a X3M using the engine featured from the 1M Coupe in an upgraded capacity , to fill in for the M3 , until the next generation car arrives in early 2014. but not the M3's V8 - The V8 will die with the M3.

[pyrat]

Originally Posted by mb1

I hope the M division gets the message that some of us want to spend our money on an enthusiast car that peaks HP much higher than 5900. Until then, my E46 M3 and my money will stay with me. It's frustrating that I WANT to give them my money but the dissapointments keep coming.

My old N54 was too dull to drive and there was a genuine lack of driver connection.

BMW will "get the message" if sales of the 1M are poor... but I don't see that happening, because 340 HP at 5900 is fantastic, even for an M car. For those that require 8300 redline, they can fork the extra 11K$ for the M3 or find another manufacturer that can produce this kind of performance in a daily driver... oh right there isn't one.

[CrazyIvan]

I'll be getting an M3 then. First and last V8-powered M3. I like new 1M but lack of DCT is a deal breaker for me (I can drive manual but lack of an arm makes it awkward). So, does this mean that the last chance to get a current M3 is late next year?

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by CrazyIvan

I'll be getting an M3 then. First and last V8-powered M3. I like new 1M but lack of DCT is a deal breaker for me (I can drive manual but lack of an arm makes it awkward). So, does this mean that the last chance to get a current M3 is late next year?

Ooooooh... the first valid DCT complaint that doesn't start with " my wife" .... LOL..

[mtla4]

X3M to fill the gap left by the M3?......it makes no sense.

[GeeRam]

Originally Posted by mtla4

X3M to fill the gap left by the M3?......it makes no sense.

I agree..... it's frankly laughable tbh

M marketing must believe people will buy any old crap as long as it has a ///M badge on it

[aajami]

Originally Posted by BMWinNorthdakota

May I innocently ask why?

By all means. There are many reasons why I would never choose a forced induction engine over a naturally engine. Some of those reasons make for a stronger argument than others, but they're valid all the same. They are:

1. Power delivery: I love the very linear and progressive torque curve of an NA engine. I've driven several turbo cars, and they all lag in the low end, give you a shot of power in the middle, and then sputter up high. Some cars are better at flattening out this curve than others, but all of them have this (horrible) characteristic.
2. Engine speed: Turbos typically suffer from lower redlines than NA engines, and having a wide power band to play with is important to me. Nothing beats the feel of a high-revving, free-breathing NA engine that instantly responds to your throttle input.
3. Reliability: Turbos have more moving parts, which means more opportunity for things to fail. Turbos put a lot of stress on an engine, and some require that you idle the car before turning it off so that the turbo can be properly cooled. No thank you.
4. Sound: Turbo engines typically don't sound as aggressive as NA engines, and that's an important factor for me. Turbos tend to suppress the sound of their exhaust gasses, and all you get is a muffled and whiney mess.

I appreciate the work that BMW is doing to make turbo engines like the modified N54 in the 1M behave more like naturally aspirated motors, but ultimately it's still a forced induction engine that will suffer from all of the characteristics I list above. After spending 8 years behind an F20C, and 2 years (and going) behind an S65, I don't intend to change my driving (or purchasing) habits.

No NA, no sale.

[TunedM2C]

Originally Posted by pyrat

BMW will "get the message" if sales of the 1M are poor... but I don't see that happening, because 340 HP at 5900 is fantastic, even for an M car. For those that require 8300 redline, they can fork the extra 11K$ for the M3 or find another manufacturer that can produce this kind of performance in a daily driver... oh right there isn't one.

If they can't sell 1000 of 'em, then yes, they'll get the message.

[330CIZHP]

Biggest factor that people who worship numbers on the paper ignore are "torque multiplication from gearing and axle ratio" and "low mass inertia" as well as "horsepower and torque cross over point at 5252 rpm".

I am sick of ignorant people parading torque numbers on paper "oh the paper says 370 ft-lbs of torque". Get this in your head. All on their own, they don't mean squat since wheel torque is far more dependent on torque multiplication through gears than it is on crank torque figures.

Both torque multiplication and low mass inertia are factors associated with high-revving engines and telepathic throttle response and eager, hyper-alert senses from the car.

Due to low-revving turbo engines having only 7000 rpm redlines, short final drive and short gears are impossible since their acceleration and top speed suffers so they MUST get tall gearing making the car have a "lazy" character.

Due to the high low end torque numbers, the car's internal inertia including flywheel must be made heavy and willing to withstand the thick midrange crank torque making the car slow revving to redline while high revving cars are essentially the opposite where they must have low mass inertia to rev quickly to redline.

Originally Posted by aajami

By all means. There are many reasons why I would never choose a forced induction engine over a naturally engine. Some of those reasons make for a stronger argument than others, but they're valid all the same. They are:

1. Power delivery: I love the very linear and progressive torque curve of an NA engine. I've driven several turbo cars, and they all lag in the low end, give you a shot of power in the middle, and then sputter up high. Some cars are better at flattening out this curve than others, but all of them have this (horrible) characteristic.
2. Engine speed: Turbos typically suffer from lower redlines than NA engines, and having a wide power band to play with is important to me. Nothing beats the feel of a high-revving, free-breathing NA engine that instantly responds to your throttle input.
3. Reliability: Turbos have more moving parts, which means more opportunity for things to fail. Turbos put a lot of stress on an engine, and some require that you idle the car before turning it off so that the turbo can be properly cooled. No thank you.
4. Sound: Turbo engines typically don't sound as aggressive as NA engines, and that's an important factor for me. Turbos tend to suppress the sound of their exhaust gasses, and all you get is a muffled and whiney mess.

I appreciate the work that BMW is doing to make turbo engines like the modified N54 in the 1M behave more like naturally aspirated motors, but ultimately it's still a forced induction engine that will suffer from all of the characteristics I list above. After spending 8 years behind an F20C, and 2 years (and going) behind an S65, I don't intend to change my driving (or purchasing) habits.

No NA, no sale.

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by aajami

By all means. There are many reasons why I would never choose a forced induction engine over a naturally engine. Some of those reasons make for a stronger argument than others, but they're valid all the same. They are:

1. Power delivery: I love the very linear and progressive torque curve of an NA engine. I've driven several turbo cars, and they all lag in the low end, give you a shot of power in the middle, and then sputter up high. Some cars are better at flattening out this curve than others, but all of them have this (horrible) characteristic.
2. Engine speed: Turbos typically suffer from lower redlines than NA engines, and having a wide power band to play with is important to me. Nothing beats the feel of a high-revving, free-breathing NA engine that instantly responds to your throttle input.
3. Reliability: Turbos have more moving parts, which means more opportunity for things to fail. Turbos put a lot of stress on an engine, and some require that you idle the car before turning it off so that the turbo can be properly cooled. No thank you.
4. Sound: Turbo engines typically don't sound as aggressive as NA engines, and that's an important factor for me. Turbos tend to suppress the sound of their exhaust gasses, and all you get is a muffled and whiney mess.

I appreciate the work that BMW is doing to make turbo engines like the modified N54 in the 1M behave more like naturally aspirated motors, but ultimately it's still a forced induction engine that will suffer from all of the characteristics I list above. After spending 8 years behind an F20C, and 2 years (and going) behind an S65, I don't intend to change my driving (or purchasing) habits.

No NA, no sale.

All excellent points and very well explained, I feel the same.

I will never buy a performance vehicle with a turbo engine.

[grant]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Biggest factor that people who worship numbers on the paper ignore are "torque multiplication from gearing and axle ratio" and "low mass inertia" as well as "horsepower and torque cross over point at 5252 rpm".

I am sick of ignorant people parading torque numbers on paper "oh the paper says 370 ft-lbs of torque". Get this in your head. All on their own, they don't mean squat since wheel torque is far more dependent on torque multiplication through gears than it is on crank torque figures.

Both torque multiplication and low mass inertia are factors associated with high-revving engines and telepathic throttle response and eager, hyper-alert senses from the car.

Due to low-revving turbo engines having only 7000 rpm redlines, short final drive and short gears are impossible since their acceleration and top speed suffers so they MUST get tall gearing making the car have a "lazy" character.

Due to the high low end torque numbers, the car's internal inertia including flywheel must be made heavy and willing to withstand the thick midrange crank torque making the car slow revving to redline while high revving cars are essentially the opposite where they must have low mass inertia to rev quickly to redline.

Well said.

[chief]

First there is some great info on this site…thank you to the ‘knowledge base’.

I've had the pleasure of driving an e46 M3 since '04 and have enjoyed nearly every trip down the road. I have tested e90 v8 M3s multiple times and they have not matched the seat of the pants fun factor of my current ride.

The e90 cars are fine machines...true to the 'ultimate driving machine' motto. However, in my opinion, they suffer the same fate many other new cars face...they have grown in size, and more significantly, are overweight. (And no, a Lotus Elise will not work for me…when sitting in it I end up look out OVER the top of the windshield rather than through it).

The next BMW I want is a high revving, race inspiring, lighter weight (around 3000 lbs) 2+2 coupe. As I write this I hear a Ducati roar by, calling me to go out and drive a twisty road somewhere.

I’ll give the new 1M a test to see how I like it. The decision I’ll have to make is, is it better than my e46 or just different. If it’s just different, then I’ll keep my money, and keep looking for other possibilities.

Thanks,
Chief

[HBspeed]

Originally Posted by chief

First there is some great info on this site…thank you to the ‘knowledge base’.

I've had the pleasure of driving an e46 M3 since '04 and have enjoyed nearly every trip down the road. I have tested e90 v8 M3s multiple times and they have not matched the seat of the pants fun factor of my current ride.

The e90 cars are fine machines...true to the 'ultimate driving machine' motto. However, in my opinion, they suffer the same fate many other new cars face...they have grown in size, and more significantly, are overweight. (And no, a Lotus Elise will not work for me…when sitting in it I end up look out OVER the top of the windshield rather than through it).

The next BMW I want is a high revving, race inspiring, lighter weight (around 3000 lbs) 2+2 coupe. As I write this I hear a Ducati roar by, calling me to go out and drive a twisty road somewhere.

I’ll give the new 1M a test to see how I like it. The decision I’ll have to make is, is it better than my e46 or just different. If it’s just different, then I’ll keep my money, and keep looking for other possibilities.

Thanks,
Chief

My sentiments exactly. Looks like there aren't going to be any M products for those like us in the near future. We can only hope the late next gen CSL versions of the 1M/M2 and M3 are something special as SCOTT26 has alluded to. However that won't be for what another what 6-8 years? And thats assuming they are offered in the US and in stick shift, two things BMW's history shows are not worth holding your breath for. My faith in BMW M is in free fall, and I will probably just keep my E46 M3 long term. Time to look elsewhere for the next addition to my garage.

[Mr. ///M3 RD]

Hahaha ........ Next will be a Electric 2 M ..... during a race on the track there be a 1/2 hour intermission half way round the track (time keeper will hand out time stamped markers of arrival so to keep the race meaningful).

Yes the future it will be fun.

[Pete_vB]

Originally Posted by aajami

1. Power delivery: I love the very linear and progressive torque curve of an NA engine. I've driven several turbo cars, and they all lag in the low end, give you a shot of power in the middle, and then sputter up high. Some cars are better at flattening out this curve than others, but all of them have this (horrible) characteristic.

No not all, especially lower boost turbos. Look at a GT2 dyno and you'll see hp still climbing at redline, for instance. There are good reasons turbos usually have a fat midrange, but it's certainly not required...

Originally Posted by aajami

2. Engine speed: Turbos typically suffer from lower redlines than NA engines, and having a wide power band to play with is important to me. Nothing beats the feel of a high-revving, free-breathing NA engine that instantly responds to your throttle input.

I would argue turbo motors typically have a wider usable powerband than NA due to mid range torque. The top number on the dial means very little. The percentage of the RPM range that the car is making hp is what's important. So for example an M3 is within 10% of it's peak power from about 6600 rpm up, or 19% of it's rev range. A 1M is likely within 10% of peak from 4600-6600, or 29% of it's power band. More area under the curve, wider power band.

I strongly agree with you about throttle response, though I suspect BMW will use ITBs on the next M3 and it will be better than the current 1M, though still not as good as NA.

Originally Posted by aajami

3. Reliability: Turbos have more moving parts, which means more opportunity for things to fail. Turbos put a lot of stress on an engine, and some require that you idle the car before turning it off so that the turbo can be properly cooled. No thank you.

Again, reliability depends on the motor. High revving NA engines have had their share of problems too, of course (E46 M3, etc).

Originally Posted by aajami

Sound: Turbo engines typically don't sound as aggressive as NA engines, and that's an important factor for me. Turbos tend to suppress the sound of their exhaust gasses, and all you get is a muffled and whiney mess.

I'll give you that too, though again it depends on the motor.

Which is really the point. Writing off all turbos is as bad as writing off all normally aspirated motors. In the same way that you can build a stump pulling viper motor or a 14000 rpm superbike engine, you can build turbos of all flavors. BMW M knows it's customers, and I suspect they will tune their next turbos to be much more to your taste- bet on high rpm and power to redline. Motors will continue to get better, and I suspect you'll be surprised at some point.

All that said, with the currently available choices I prefer NA engines myself for track cars. Turbos are nice on the street, though the good ones (GT2) are pretty damn good everywhere.

[Future M1 owner]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Due to low-revving turbo engines having only 7000 rpm redlines, short final drive and short gears are impossible since their acceleration and top speed suffers so they MUST get tall gearing making the car have a "lazy" character.

I respectfully disagree. Have you seen what a 700HP@4400rpm Peugeot 908 HDi does to every other 700HP LM type car, out of every corner on any racetrack?

[aajami]

Originally Posted by Pete_vB

Which is really the point. Writing off all turbos is as bad as writing off all normally aspirated motors. In the same way that you can build a stump pulling viper motor or a 14000 rpm superbike engine, you can build turbos of all flavors. BMW M knows it's customers, and I suspect they will tune their next turbos to be much more to your taste- bet on high rpm and power to redline. Motors will continue to get better, and I suspect you'll be surprised at some point.

All that said, with the currently available choices I prefer NA engines myself for track cars. Turbos are nice on the street, though the good ones (GT2) are pretty damn good everywhere.

Fair points all around. Though the GT2RS motor is the best in class, and it commands an appropriate price tag. If we're comparing engines of that caliber, then I'd still take a naturally aspirated equivalent like a GT3RS, 458, or 599 GTO over the GT2.

At any rate, I hope to be surprised, but I won't hold my breath.

[JB135MDCT]

Originally Posted by aajami

[*]Reliability: Turbos have more moving parts, which means more opportunity for things to fail. Turbos put a lot of stress on an engine, and some require that you idle the car before turning it off so that the turbo can be properly cooled. No thank you.

A higher revving engine is less reliable than lower reving turbo engine. Also, a turbo is much easier to fix than an internal engine failure.

[JB135MDCT]

Originally Posted by formula M

.... Understand?

Yes I understand and could not articulate the facts as well as you can.