BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read




 

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-25-2011, 01:22 PM   #111
Robert
Major General
414
Rep
6,968
Posts

Drives: 135i -> is350 -> Tesla M3 perf
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Socal

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tyorll View Post
Part of the design principles for the 1M was to entice younger buyers into the market for an M range BMW sports car which for many is beyond their budget. It was about making a vehicle with M characteristics/performance available to a younger (read poorer) generation of drivers.

The fact that an 1M can be purchased for less than the starting price of other BMW models means that it will likely be a more popular car than other M models.
That was the intent or at least what marketing wants us to believe. The facts are it's going to be a

1) 50k+ dollar car at a min with tax, more than double this price in other countries

2) Limited supply (by product life cycle), more mark-up at dealership

If it's popular it's from M3 owners trading down and not by market expansion. I know kids coming out college making 90-120k but those aren't all going to buy a 1M.
__________________
- There's nothing in my pocket other than knives and lint
Appreciate 0
      01-25-2011, 01:58 PM   #112
Redadair
Major
Redadair's Avatar
United_States
103
Rep
1,417
Posts

Drives: 2011 1M #293 - 88 E30 M3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Murray

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sugarphreak View Post
Isn't that kind of like the 135i and the 1M?

Ba-da-dum-pashhhhiii

haha, sorry... that is some bad humor
Or the 335i and the M3, except that the M3 is heavier.
__________________
2011 1M, Valencia Orange, All options.
August 8th ED (#293 of 739 or 740)
88 E30 M3 100% OEM 73K Miles
02 E39 M5 Le Mans Blue 50K Miles
06 E46 M3 ZCP 58K Miles
Appreciate 0
      01-28-2011, 08:54 PM   #113
suffeks
New Member
0
Rep
8
Posts

Drives: golf tdi
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: yyc

iTrader: (0)

i love the 1m vs tt-rs debate

i just registered to say when the 2012 tt-rs arrives in the US, it will have 360hp, something nobody mentioned. audi says due to engine improvements. i contacted them to make sure it's not a misprint or something. the only car in the world that beats the tt-rs horsepower/L ratio is the veyron SS btw.

http://jalopnik.com/5637726/

some tech reading
This engine is based on the naturally-aspirated 2.5-litre inline five that powers Volkswagen Jetta sedans in North America. The port-injected 2,480cc unit develops 125kW (168hp) and 240Nm of torque at 4,250rpm.

Since Audi wanted to double its power output, it had to uprate or replace many components. Packaging was also a headache.
The basic engine architecture has been carried over, including the 82.5mm bore, 92.8mm stroke and 88mm bore pitch.

But the block had to be shortened to make it fit. Running the ancillaries from two belt drives and offsetting the second helped, but more radical measures were needed. Reducing the conrod and main bearing widths allowed the two outer main bearings to be moved inboard. This enabled the timing chain to move to the transmission side of the engine and the sealing flange and torsional vibration damper to go under the block’s cooling jacket, reducing the engine’s length.

But the main bearing’s diameter remained unchanged at 58mm. The resulting increase in stresses was beyond the grey cast-iron block’s limits.

“So we chose compacted graphite iron (CGI) with a tensile strength of 450N/mm,” says Böhme. “We’ve used this for V6 and V8 diesel engine blocks since 1999 but this is the world’s first mass-produced CGI gasoline engine block.”

Audi’s experience with CGI was invaluable in redesigning the R5’s block – manufacturing methods are demanding. Eisenwerk Brühl casts the blocks in Germany. Machining is handled by VW Mexico.

The cylinder head uses a better grade of aluminium alloy than before. A phaser has been added to the exhaust cam. The timing drive now uses two types of chain and is stronger and quieter.

The forged-steel crankshaft has induction-hardened crank pins and rolled fillet radii. The forged conrods are stiffer. The cast aluminium Mahle pistons are 10% lighter.

The Conti 120bar direct-injection system uses side-mounted six-hole injectors. This is similar to the set-up used on Audi’s four-cylinder engines but the flow rates are 25% greater.

Direct injection and fully variable valve timing improve scavenging. Low residual gas content means greater knock resistance. In fact, the boosted engine’s 10:1 compression ratio is higher than the naturally-aspirated version’s.

Close attention went into maximising the charge air cooler’s efficiency, says Quattro’s head of engine development Michael Ganz, because this is responsible for most losses on the intake side.

In a first for Audi in a transverse-engine application, the matrix is mounted right at the front of the engine compartment. The entire surface is cooled directly by the incoming airflow.

“Maximum air throughput of 1,000kg/h is high but the pressure loss from the charge air cooling system is only 135mbar, and full-load cooling efficiency is 80%,” says Ganz.

Just as much effort went on getting gases out of the engine. The way in which exhaust pulses react with each other before reaching the turbine wheel is critical to achieving good turbo response at low revs.

A water-cooled BorgWarner K16 turbo was the basis for development. The turbine housing is integral with the cast steel exhaust manifold. Given that it has five branches, it’s a complex component. “The big challenge was developing the manifold design to separate the gas flows in order to get the turbine running at low engine speeds,” says Audi gasoline engine development engineer Heiner Müller.

Twin-scroll turbos are ideal for inline fours but the odd number of cylinders precludes it here. Instead, the engineers designed the manifold so that the feed from cylinder number three is kept apart from the others until it enters the turbine housing volute.

A ceramic pre-catalyst is located immediately downstream of the turbo, minimising light-off time. But at low loads much of the exhaust gas is bypassed through the wastegate, which could give uneven temperatures over the catalyst surface. Rapid heating had to be ensured under these conditions too. Extra material was cast around the wastegate duct to direct exhaust gas towards the cat’s centre.

Audi says the R5 TFSI, at 494mm, is the most compact engine of its type in the world, and also the most powerful.
The TT RS hits 100km/h in 4.6 seconds before reaching its maximum speed of 280km/h. Fuel consumption is 9.2 litres/
100km with CO2 emissions of 214g/km.

Having a turbocharged five-cylinder all-wheel drive coupe in the range again must please the engineers as much as it will the people who drive it.

Last edited by suffeks; 01-28-2011 at 09:05 PM..
Appreciate 0
      01-28-2011, 10:06 PM   #114
Kurt_OH
Captain
Kurt_OH's Avatar
United_States
12
Rep
734
Posts

Drives: E90 M3 ZCP
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Columbus, OH

iTrader: (0)

Man, I wish this thread would go away. Every time I see the insanely idiotic title ( two 2-seat sports cars, vs. a 4 seat coupe) as if there is ANY chance that these are actually competitors, makes me want to alternatively laugh and vomit.

What fool who could legit afford either, would choose a 1M over a Cayman, irrespective of objective measures, if they didn't need a back seat?

Do you want a shot of moonshine, or a glass of 1982 Bordeaux?

Do keep in mind, the moonshine might contain more alcohol!

Good grief.
__________________
... a glorious V8 that screamed and hollered as the revs rose and then howled in an orgy of what sounded like BDSM ecstasy as it neared the red line.
Well, you can forget all that. The new car is fitted with a turbocharged straight six. Turbocharging? In an M car? That’s like putting gravy on an ice cream.
- Jeremy Clarkson, discussing the S65 and then S55 M3 engines.
Appreciate 0
      01-28-2011, 11:19 PM   #115
superchargedman
Captain
68
Rep
939
Posts

Drives: The ///Mbulance: 1M AW
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by manuelf View Post
1. Sorry - the Porsche Cayman costs twice as much as the 128i and is marketed as a true sports car - the 128i definitely not.

2. Yep: Porsche Cayman S had a 8:17 LapTime in the famous SportAuto Supertest on the Nordschleife. This test is the benchmark for all sports cars since the testing process of SportAuto is the most "worked out". And this test is also accepted as the benchmark - at least from the german manufacteurers. ///M published, that the 1M will be 10s faster on the Nordschleife than the E46 M3, which had an 8:22 under his belt in the Sport Auto Supertest. So - I am confident that the 1M is a bit faster here...
Regarding the Hockenheimring: The Cayman S is quite fast there: SportAuto Test 1:14,2 with HighPerformance Tyres (NO Semius!). This is on par with the M3 (1:14,3 with CompetitionPack + DCT also without Semis). But I estimate the M3 being somewhat quicker here than the 1 M.... so I think Cayman S will have a slight advantage here...
Go take a look at the nurburgring thread. The new cayman s (2009-on) has a better time (even if the rumoured 8:08 1m time is taken), and so it should. 320hp, approx 30000lb curb weight, and arguably better handling can do that. http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showt...ht=nurburgring
Appreciate 0
      01-28-2011, 11:24 PM   #116
superchargedman
Captain
68
Rep
939
Posts

Drives: The ///Mbulance: 1M AW
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster View Post
straight line speed and power.
drive it before you knock it. the 5.0 alone is no longer just a straight-liner. the boss has significant suspension upgrades. that said, even though the boss is my second in line for buying a new sports car, i'd still go for the 1m for refinement and likely superior handling/tranny/curbweight...well, depending on what the official canadian price is.
Appreciate 0
      01-28-2011, 11:34 PM   #117
superchargedman
Captain
68
Rep
939
Posts

Drives: The ///Mbulance: 1M AW
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErvGotti View Post
I'd have to say for most driver's they would have a harder time driving the Cayman S compared to the M3 or 1M. The dynamics of driving a rear heavy car is drastically different than say a car with 50/50 or even a front heavy car 54/46. The Cayman S is 45/55.

The reason M3 get such high praises is because model after model it makes novice driver's look "exceptional" because it's easier to push the car to it's limits due to it's "exceptional" balance.

Though that's what performance driving schools are for. Most people that purchase these cars would just go out and think "Oh it's the best handeling car according to...." and end up looking like a fool or wrecking.
My god, people need to drive these cars or read about them before they judge them. The cayman s is one of the most beautiful handling cars and one of the easiest cars to drive in the world. 45/55 is not a rear-heavy car. This thing's a mid-engine, so don' t try even selling me on that "911 rear-engine oversteer makes it difficult to drive" argument. Try starting here and see why it's one of C&D's top 10 cars: http://www.caranddriver.com/features...cayman_page_10

Last edited by superchargedman; 01-28-2011 at 11:42 PM..
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 PM.




1addicts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST