N54 engine confirmed for M1 according to this article?

[///Mangler]

Originally Posted by RPM90

I agree that judgment should wait until the car is out and we get a chance to drive them, no argument there at all.

My comment is not a judgment. I am voicing my opinion on what I think the 1M SHOULD be, and what I would like to see and not see.

Obviously, like everyone else, I don't know what the actual 1M will be.
But, as I said, these are just my opinions, not judgments.

I didn't say an "IS" is a better value.
I'm saying that if the 1M doesn't come with enough "special" things, then it won't amount to much more than an "IS" type enhancement.
Wider fender flares are simply to allow wider tires. It's not what an "M" is.
A better suspension is a given, and they need to spend more time on it than they did in the 135i, and get it RIGHT this time.

But, wider tires and a better suspension are things that even an "IS" can have. A M needs more, and the engine is a prominent part of the recipe.
Using the N54 would not be a good idea imo. It is not the "old" turbo engine. It's output characteristics are not inline with what an M engine should be.

I'm simply saying that boosting an N54 to get more power amounts to nothing really special. Now, with they use the N54? That's just speculation. But, if they did, how much more special and modern could they make it?
I'm all for, at least, using the N55 with the valvtronics breathing capability to improve flow at high rpm. If a dual twin scroll can't be made to work, though I think they can do it, then go for a larger unit and tune it for mid to high rpm power. They can use the natural 3.0 liter displacement, along with the relative high compression to give a smooth linear low rpm torque that smoothly ramps up the torque as revs climb.

IOW, it doesn't have to have a tug boat load of low rpm torque. It needs a smooth linear throttle in, power out. Once the exhaust pressure it up, smoothly bring in the "low" side of the twin scroll, which will transition to the high side as revs climb. The added size/flow capacity of a larger TS would allow better breathing at high rpm.

This type of engine would be special and worthy of an "M" logo, and the subsequent price tag.

As a customer, I don't want to have to spend more money to get a better sorted suspension that should have been there in the first place.
So, the 1M really needs to go beyond wider fenders and a better suspension. It needs to have an adjustable and adaptable suspension like the Audi TT offers, along with a "WOW' engine design.

You do understand that they are not just "adding wider tires"? They are installing the front and rear sub assemblies from the M3. Actually widening the front and rear track of the car. All new suspension subframes, steering angles, COG.......etc

totally different car even if they left the engine the same. Add 60hp/60tq and a substantially wider track...........what do they call it "Joy".......

T

[BMW269]

M1 is a new engine, a 3.0l I6 TT called S55, based on the new 3.0l I6 TST called N55. S55 has redline over 7.000 rpm.

[PrimoM3]

Originally Posted by Levi

M1 is a new engine, a 3.0l I6 TT called S55, based on the new 3.0l I6 TST called N55. S55 has redline over 7.000 rpm.

I have mixed emotions when I read your posts, whereas I feel like you're full of $hit, but I hope you are right.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Primo135

I have mixed emotions when I read your posts, whereas I feel like you're full of $hit, but I hope you are right.

M5 F10 with S63 has redline at 7.100 rpm.

[Mprofiler]

Originally Posted by Levi

M1 is a new engine, a 3.0l I6 TT called S55, based on the new 3.0l I6 TST called N55. S55 has redline over 7.000 rpm.

If it's twin turbo's shouldn't the engine be called the S54 instead? Since n54 refers to the regular twin turbo engine?

[southlight]

Originally Posted by Levi

M1 is a new engine, a 3.0l I6 TT called S55, based on the new 3.0l I6 TST called N55. S55 has redline over 7.000 rpm.

Originally Posted by Levi

M5 F10 with S63 has redline at 7.100 rpm.

I don't say your conclusion is wrong, but the reasoning that the 1M engine would inevitably have a higher redliner than the M5 doesn't convince me. As a matter of fact, the 1M prototype has its visual redline at 7,000 rpm (see here) and the M5 prototype has its visual redline at 7,100 rpm (see here). Sure, both engines might allow to be revved beyond that point (if the M3 is anything to go by with its visual redline at 8,250 and the cut-off at 8,400), but -- from what we can see so far -- the M5's engine appears to revv higher than the 1M's.


Best regards,
south

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Mprofiler

If it's twin turbo's shouldn't the engine be called the S54 instead? Since n54 refers to the regular twin turbo engine?

S54 is the engine in the E46 M3/late model Z3 Ms

[dmboone25]

I honestly don't understand all of the talk about the engine--Scott mentioned a long time ago that it would be a modified version of the N55, which would eventually be the basis for the F30 M3.

I think there is 0% chance that some version of the N54 will appear in the 1M.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by Primo135

I have mixed emotions when I read your posts, whereas I feel like you're full of $hit, but I hope you are right.

+1

Nothing against him, but he seems to "hope" for more than I think the 1M will be able to deliver....

[amdmaxx]

Just heard bimmercast podcast - they are claiming N54 engine as well, they mentioned that N55 engine development didn't make it on time to this car or something in that order..

[mtla4]

Originally Posted by amdmaxx

Just heard bimmercast podcast - they are claiming N54 engine as well, they mentioned that N55 engine development didn't make it on time to this car or something in that order..

N54 HP(high output)......

[crzy4135i]

Originally Posted by IS3andME

You are aware that all non M cars don't have a LSD? And do you think that, for the almost a yr M Division's engineers have just been driving around the 'Ring for nothing. What you just listed, hell, why would I want a M3 over a base 335i then? Or a X5/X6 M vs. the the normal V8 version?

I guess for you, the 1M GTS version will be no biggie as well

Haha.. you have a very good point. They need to protect the more expensive models. I'm just disgruntled after realizing I paid $46k and didn't have the option to get something that comes standard on a $30k mustang gt. I'll get over it.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by southlight

I don't say your conclusion is wrong, but the reasoning that the 1M engine would inevitably have a higher redliner than the M5 doesn't convince me. As a matter of fact, the 1M prototype has its visual redline at 7,000 rpm (see here) and the M5 prototype has its visual redline at 7,100 rpm (see here). Sure, both engines might allow to be revved beyond that point (if the M3 is anything to go by with its visual redline at 8,250 and the cut-off at 8,400), but -- from what we can see so far -- the M5's engine appears to revv higher than the 1M's.


Best regards,
south

I agree. Redline @ 7.000 rpm. I then hope power and torque are around 6.500 rpm. Now back to redline. I thought about this, and yes redline cut-off at 7.000 rpm, not because BMW M cannot do better, but because the actual M3 and the next M3 should be better than the M1. Also the next M1 must be better than the coming one yet with 1 liter less displacement and 2 cylinders les, and the M1 has to stay an entry level M model. In this way the next M1 may really get a new High Reving Forced Induction 2.0l I4 with redline @ 7.500 rpm, it will also be easier to make the 4 cylinder rev higher. The High Reving Forced Induction 3.0l I6 may then come on the new M3.

When the M1 specs will be revealed I will not be here. I am going away for 4 month, and will not have internet. (No, I am not going to prison. )

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by amdmaxx

Just heard bimmercast podcast - they are claiming N54 engine as well, they mentioned that N55 engine development didn't make it on time to this car or something in that order..

Scott, can you tell something about that?

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by ///Mangler

You do understand that they are not just "adding wider tires"? They are installing the front and rear sub assemblies from the M3. Actually widening the front and rear track of the car. All new suspension subframes, steering angles, COG.......etc

totally different car even if they left the engine the same. Add 60hp/60tq and a substantially wider track...........what do they call it "Joy".......

T

Yes, I do.

In fact, after rereading my post, I'm positive I didn't represent the M as just being wider tires.

[cstavaru]

The podcast mentions that Valvetronic has not yet been mastered.

I think that the 1M engine may be called S55 not because it is a development of the N55, but because the S54 name was already in use. This could explain some comments from some BMW insiders which are members of this forum: When they heard "S55" from someone at BMW, they made the assumption that this is an N55 upgrade, when in fact the S55 could very well be a development of the N54.

I believe that BMW couldn't afford the development costs for a 3.0 liter N55-derived twin-turbo UNLESS it would be used in the next M3 too, which is impossible, because they cannot generate more than 420+ hp with no lag from a 3 liter engine. I think the next M3 will have a unique 3.4-3.6 liter twin-turbo engine still without Valvetronic. It would be overkill to use this engine in a 350hp 1M.

Also, the 1M should be CHEAP for an M-car. That's why they used M3 bits on the suspension, to avoid development costs. Would it make sense to spend money developing a brand-new twin-turbo engine based on the single turbo N55 when the N54 is already available in the Z4 sDrive 35is with 340hp ?

I think they did the 1M because it was easy. Everything was already available and tested, so they said "why not" ?

But I'm no expert...just my opinion.

[bryce]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

I honestly don't understand all of the talk about the engine--Scott mentioned a long time ago that it would be a modified version of the N55, which would eventually be the basis for the F30 M3.

I think there is 0% chance that some version of the N54 will appear in the 1M.

i think it's higher than 0% now

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by cstavaru

I believe that BMW couldn't afford the development costs for a 3.0 liter N55-derived twin-turbo UNLESS it would be used in the next M3 too, which is impossible, because they cannot generate more than 420+ hp with no lag from a 3 liter engine. I think the next M3 will have a unique 3.4-3.6 liter twin-turbo engine still without Valvetronic. It would be overkill to use this engine in a 350hp 1M.

Just curious why you think it would need a bump in displacement, especially to something so close to the S62 4.0l already in existence? I'd venture to guess that a 3.6l tt engine would weigh more than the current V8, and gobble more gas, sort of defeating the purpose.

***Note*** I don't think the 1M Coupe will get any where near 400 hp, just wanted to discuss why the next M3 shouldn't be able to do so from a 3.0l. ***end note***

There are a number of cars getting 140hp+ out of a liter of displacement, the relatively unstressed X5M motor is already getting 126hp/l and if rumor of the M5 making 600hp from the same mill prove true, than that's 136hp/l, right in the ballpark, at 409hp for a 3.0l, which could certainly be rounded up to equal the 414hp of the S62.

There are dynos of the Audi 3.0 supercharged motor that point at it actually making closer to 400hp in stock form, so clearly shooting for a slightly higher number shouldn't be out of the question for the M GmbH team, unless they really have become a marketing arm only.

As for no lag, that part really is marketing, all turboed motors have lag, including the N54 and N55 and while I haven't driven it, the X5M appears to have plenty too. They can certainly minimize it with small turbos that don't contribute at the upper revs, but I doubt that's what the M team is up to, at least I certainly hope not.

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Just curious why you think it would need a bump in displacement, especially to something so close to the S62 4.0l already in existence? I'd venture to guess that a 3.6l tt engine would weigh more than the current V8, and gobble more gas, sort of defeating the purpose.

***Note*** I don't think the 1M Coupe will get any where near 400 hp, just wanted to discuss why the next M3 shouldn't be able to do so from a 3.0l. ***end note***

There are a number of cars getting 140hp+ out of a liter of displacement, the relatively unstressed X5M motor is already getting 126hp/l and if rumor of the M5 making 600hp from the same mill prove true, than that's 136hp/l, right in the ballpark, at 409hp for a 3.0l, which could certainly be rounded up to equal the 414hp of the S62.

There are dynos of the Audi 3.0 supercharged motor that point at it actually making closer to 400hp in stock form, so clearly shooting for a slightly higher number shouldn't be out of the question for the M GmbH team, unless they really have become a marketing arm only.

As for no lag, that part really is marketing, all turboed motors have lag, including the N54 and N55 and while I haven't driven it, the X5M appears to have plenty too. They can certainly minimize it with small turbos that don't contribute at the upper revs, but I doubt that's what the M team is up to, at least I certainly hope not.

A 3.4 liter engine would theoretically provide at least 15% better mileage than the current V8 in city driving. I am not sure their goal is set much lower than this, because the M3 is after all a performance car and mileage is not the primary concern.

Also, while they can cut corners with the M1, they certainly must be very careful with how the M3's engine will turn out. Audi's new RS5 is naturally aspirated and is coming to the US, BMW cannot afford to have a laggy engine on its iconic performance car.

[Future M1 owner]

Originally Posted by cstavaru

I believe that BMW couldn't afford the development costs for a 3.0 liter N55-derived twin-turbo UNLESS it would be used in the next M3 too, which is impossible, because they cannot generate more than 420+ hp with no lag from a 3 liter engine.

I'd think this is a bold and perhaps slightly premature statement.

Mitsubishi's 2l I4 FQ400 is not exactly known for its sluggishness. Is Mclaren also setting itself up for circuit-going failure with a 3.8l TT 600hp engine?

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by Future M1 owner

Mitsubishi's 2l I4 FQ400 is not exactly known for its sluggishness.

In fact, it IS known for it's sluggishness

Look how it gets beaten by a regular Fiat Stilo on Top Gear, because of the turbo lag:

I suppose BMW wouldn't want it's M3 to behave like this

[Jaguar66]

Originally Posted by Levi

When the M1 specs will be revealed I will not be here. I am going away for 4 month, and will not have internet.

It is hard for me to imagine any place on earth where there is no internet. Unless you are in the military, going on deployment somewhere.