M1 engine speculation

[x838nwy]

I really don't get this obsession with N/A over FI. It's the sign of the times that to get the numbers, N/A tends to be reaching their limits in terms of mpg and weight so FI is a logical route.

An Elise is an Elise. It's a very niche car and as such doesn't do well as an example. What I mean is, there are people who would buy an Elise over an E9x M3. Does that mean they're buying an I4 over a V8? No. If they buy an Elise rather than an Evo, does that mean they buy an N/A I4 over an FI I4? They're just buying a different car. If Lotus offers an S/C Elise at the same price as an N/A one, I'm pretty sure the S/C would sell quite a few more.

I think most people (myself included) choose cars based on the cars as a whole package, rather than its cylinder configuration or induction method.

As for the M1, the most logical route would be a turboed I6. It fits, they already have it and it won't be much more expensive than the engine already in the 135i.

[amdmaxx]

well said. Time to move in with times/new regulations

[Evan135]

Originally Posted by sparoz

Scott never confirmed the engine apart from a twinturbo setup. He did say it would be special, and when he answered South's question, I feel that he implied it's going to be twinturbo, twinscroll.

I would say it would have to be the twinscroll with two different size path.

I hope you are right it is going to be both twin turbo and twin scroll. First it would be a large step forward just as the reconfigured M X5/X6, and possibly new M5, are. They use twin turbos that are twin scroll and a very clever cylinder head and exhaust manifold arrangement. BMW patented it.

If the M1 uses a twin turbo/twin scroll spool up would be very fast and if they use two different size inlets you do not suffer at high rpm either. Also these turbos could also be relatively small since you are using two, which again helps spool up. This set up effectively gives you two different A/R ratios.

With the work and creativity M put into the N63 I cannot wait to see what they come up with and I hope it is even better than what we have been guessing at.

[BMW269]

OK, again, I want a NA HR engine, a car without any comfort features and so. Unfortunately I am one of the very few who wants this. What do you propose me? Lotus, Porsche Boxter Spyder or 911 GT3. Would I like any of these? No, because I am the only one who wants to sit back and have the engine in front. So what can I have? Wiesmann Roadster MF3 (BMW S54 engine, 1180 kg). The problem is that it is a roadster and I want a coupé. So Z4 M Coupé? It is already a bit outdated. Well, you see there is just no car for me. Sorry, I am off-topic whith my two seater sports car.

What I want to say is that I am open to progress, FI be it so. I still have faith in BMW and BMW M, and will keep my judgement till I see what will be the M1.
I'll be very happy if the M1 weighs 1480 kg (EU), has 350 PS @ 7.000 rpm, 450 Nm @ 1.000-7.000 rpm and redline at 7.500 rpm. But I dought that it will be so.

[sparoz]

Scott was mentioning a GTS spec 1 in one of the other threads for Europe May be you are in luck Levi.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by mtla4

See I just sold my 1er and I have 3 other cars right now I'm making space and starting over....I just don't know what to buy....I sold the 1er in order to have a more focused car. Look we're all car guys chating over here stating our opinion. We're not on edmunds.com where you read news for the industry. I mean it's a forum here all were all stating our opinions.

I realize that, but at the same time, it's obvious at this point that BMW isn't building the kind of cars you want, and hasn't been for a long time. Even the E46 M3 isn't all that track focused.

For the $55k an M1 is going to cost, you could be driving a used C6 Z06 that will absolutely destroy anything in this price range on a track. If what you're looking for is a track focused car, BMW is no longer the company to look to.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Levi

I'll be very happy if the M1 weighs 1500 kg (EU), has 350 PS @ 7.000 rpm, 450 Nm @ 2.000-6.500 rpm and redline at 7.500 rpm. But I dought that it will be so.

Fixed.

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by footie

Fixed.

Just hope they can keep the power going in the upper RPMs--it drops off so bad in the N54.....

[sparoz]

With all this Turbo vs NA debate - the MP4-12C is going to have a turbo redline at 8500 and peak power at 7000. Would that change anyone's mine about the turbo on a ///M if it has similar rev range?

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by sparoz

With all this Turbo vs NA debate - the MP4-12C is going to have a turbo redline at 8500 and peak power at 7000. Would that change anyone's mine about the turbo on a ///M if it has similar rev range?

I am prefere NA over FI, but since I heard of the MP4-12C, I do have hope. I have to say I like the MP4-12C even more than the 458 Italia.

[LeoHammer]

Originally Posted by sparoz

With all this Turbo vs NA debate - the MP4-12C is going to have a turbo redline at 8500 and peak power at 7000. Would that change anyone's mine about the turbo on a ///M if it has similar rev range?

It won't, not for under 50K.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by sparoz

With all this Turbo vs NA debate - the MP4-12C is going to have a turbo redline at 8500 and peak power at 7000. Would that change anyone's mine about the turbo on a ///M if it has similar rev range?

Yes. I hope that the M division will do something like this for the M1. Even then i'd be curious to see impressions from reviewers.

If it doesn't happen or isn't close enough to an N/A (might need to personally drive it) then there is no choice but to step up to an M3.

[adc]

Originally Posted by 1love

If it doesn't happen or isn't close enough to an N/A (might need to personally drive it) then there is no choice but to step up to an M3.

You won't have much time to decide - I think the M3 will end production in 2012. I'm doing it the other way around - driving the M3 now and waiting to see if the M1 will be better.

[Sephiroth]

Agreed, timing will be tight.

But the 2012 M3 will be available for order in early 2013 right? That should be enough time to get one. My plan is to order the last of the 2011 or early 2012 MY if not the M1.

[Advevo]

I like bmw a lot. But FI engines are not for me at this time maybe when i am older and do not wanna drive motorsport cars any more. I want to enjoy driving i want to feel 8000 plus rpm. I want an engine which has motorsport written all over it. I really hoped the M1 would be the one. But after hearing the engine on all the youtube movies and with scott telling us it will be FI i was dissapointed. Thought it over. My bmw hart bleedes but i went to the porsche dealer and bought a 997 GT3 MK2 clubsport. The green agenda at bmw is to much for me. I really like an M1 turbo but as a daily drive. Car fitted with an tuned up AG engine does not give me the feeling i drive something special. It s the same if you buy a seiko or a audemars piquet.

E46 CSL engine is a piece of art. 360hp from a 3.2. Then porsche 435/450 hp from 3.8 flat six is just pure automotive porn. I rather spend more and get a proper engine then get a car which spits out motorsports but has a hairblower under it s hood. The M1 could be the drivers car to have but the turbo engine kills it completely. And with this change the letter ///M gets further and further away were ///M once stood for.

But the M1 will be a great succes because there are more people who are into turbo tuning and get on the rollers and do sprints then people who are more into driving dynamics and cornering.

[///Mangler]

Originally Posted by Advevo

But the M1 will be a great succes because there are more people who are into turbo tuning and get on the rollers and do sprints then people who are more into driving dynamics and cornering.

^^THIS^^

I'll just wait for a totaled M1 and throw an S65 into it. That will be a proper ///M car.

T

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by Advevo

I like bmw a lot. But FI engines are not for me at this time maybe when i am older and do not wanna drive motorsport cars any more. I want to enjoy driving i want to feel 8000 plus rpm. I want an engine which has motorsport written all over it. I really hoped the M1 would be the one. But after hearing the engine on all the youtube movies and with scott telling us it will be FI i was dissapointed. Thought it over. My bmw hart bleedes but i went to the porsche dealer and bought a 997 GT3 MK2 clubsport. The green agenda at bmw is to much for me. I really like an M1 turbo but as a daily drive. Car fitted with an tuned up AG engine does not give me the feeling i drive something special. It s the same if you buy a seiko or a audemars piquet.

E46 CSL engine is a piece of art. 360hp from a 3.2. Then porsche 435/450 hp from 3.8 flat six is just pure automotive porn. I rather spend more and get a proper engine then get a car which spits out motorsports but has a hairblower under it s hood. The M1 could be the drivers car to have but the turbo engine kills it completely. And with this change the letter ///M gets further and further away were ///M once stood for.

But the M1 will be a great succes because there are more people who are into turbo tuning and get on the rollers and do sprints then people who are more into driving dynamics and cornering.

I am with you, but I will still wait and make my personal judgment. I do have faith in BMW, and think that M turbos will be much better than AMG or RS turbos. If the "M1" is not good, what I would like to do, though costly, is to put the 275 HP NA 2.0l I4 engine with redline at 8.500 rpm from the 320si WTCC.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Advevo

I like bmw a lot. But FI engines are not for me at this time maybe when i am older and do not wanna drive motorsport cars any more. I want to enjoy driving i want to feel 8000 plus rpm. I want an engine which has motorsport written all over it. I really hoped the M1 would be the one. But after hearing the engine on all the youtube movies and with scott telling us it will be FI i was dissapointed. Thought it over. My bmw hart bleedes but i went to the porsche dealer and bought a 997 GT3 MK2 clubsport. The green agenda at bmw is to much for me. I really like an M1 turbo but as a daily drive. Car fitted with an tuned up AG engine does not give me the feeling i drive something special. It s the same if you buy a seiko or a audemars piquet.

E46 CSL engine is a piece of art. 360hp from a 3.2. Then porsche 435/450 hp from 3.8 flat six is just pure automotive porn. I rather spend more and get a proper engine then get a car which spits out motorsports but has a hairblower under it s hood. The M1 could be the drivers car to have but the turbo engine kills it completely. And with this change the letter ///M gets further and further away were ///M once stood for.

But the M1 will be a great succes because there are more people who are into turbo tuning and get on the rollers and do sprints then people who are more into driving dynamics and cornering.

Sounds too doomsday.

I want a high revving engine for the sound and the excitement. There is nothing like taking some corners and hearing the motor sing.

What does it matter what M stood for or what they did in the past? People are getting too caught up in what is or is not a 'true M'. Just look at the car at face value and decide if thats what you want.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Advevo

I like bmw a lot. But FI engines are not for me at this time maybe when i am older and do not wanna drive motorsport cars any more. I want to enjoy driving i want to feel 8000 plus rpm. I want an engine which has motorsport written all over it. I really hoped the M1 would be the one. But after hearing the engine on all the youtube movies and with scott telling us it will be FI i was dissapointed. Thought it over. My bmw hart bleedes but i went to the porsche dealer and bought a 997 GT3 MK2 clubsport. The green agenda at bmw is to much for me. I really like an M1 turbo but as a daily drive. Car fitted with an tuned up AG engine does not give me the feeling i drive something special. It s the same if you buy a seiko or a audemars piquet.

E46 CSL engine is a piece of art. 360hp from a 3.2. Then porsche 435/450 hp from 3.8 flat six is just pure automotive porn. I rather spend more and get a proper engine then get a car which spits out motorsports but has a hairblower under it s hood. The M1 could be the drivers car to have but the turbo engine kills it completely. And with this change the letter ///M gets further and further away were ///M once stood for.

But the M1 will be a great succes because there are more people who are into turbo tuning and get on the rollers and do sprints then people who are more into driving dynamics and cornering.

I certainly can respect your desire for a high revving, high output NA engine, combined with a chassis to deliver a worthy track car, and experience.

However, I do think your opinion that FI is somehow "lesser" quality, because it uses a "hair blower" under the hood, sounds a insulting and misinformed.
FI is currently used in racing and motor sport. F1 used FI for a while and it was stopped not because it was a lesser technology, but because it produced TOO MUCH power, and F1 wanted to bring more manufacturers to the race. In the early years of turbo and F1 the technology was still
in it's "infancy", and many of those cars had serious lag and lack of throttle control with huge boost, as well as engines grenading.
I think some people to this day still think turbo engines don't have the throttle response needed for racing, due to the F1 days of using turbo's with systems not fully sorted.

This is not the 80's. Modern turbo tech has made tremendous leaps in technology and control, so that you can have huge power with lighter engines, and plenty of throttle control.

I do, however, wish that modern application of turbo technology didn't have to succumb to the wishes of daily drivers who prefer gobs of low rpm torque, while not caring about high rpm torque. It does make sense for daily driven cars to have better low and mid rpm power, because that's how most drivers use their cars. Most people don't have much use for power bands that put the torque peak at, let's say, 5000rpm all the way to a 7000 or 8000rpm red line.
The N54 and N55, along with Audi's turbo's, are designed to give the market what it asked for, which is big off the line and low rpm torque.
It's even a huge marketing claim by both Audi, BMW, and Volvo, etc... about how much torque their engines can produce at low rpm.
So, the "1500rpm to 5000rpm max torque" range appeals to the majority of daily drivers.

However, it's not exactly what "enthusiasts" really crave. I for one would like to see low lag, low rpm power for daily driving, but I'd like to see a progressive torque build that develops peak power at something like 3000rpm all the way to a 7 or 8k red line.
Just take a look at members on this forum who add a tune to their cars only to discover that they can't keep the tires gripping the road all the way through 1st and nearly all of 2nd. All of a sudden, the low rpm torque is useless. But, if the engine were tuned to provide low lag with less low rpm torque that then builds to it's max at around 3-4k while still pulling strong all the way to red line, most of us would truly love that. I know I would.

I too was, and still am, hopeful that BMW can tune the N55 to provide low to zero lag off idle, but then allow high rpm torque production.
By using a larger turbo along with twin scroll tech and manifold, it could be tuned to provide near 0 lag, which would then smoothly transition to higher rpm power. The N54 lacks in high rpm because the turbo's a too small to provide the pressurized air flow needed. Their small size allow quick spool for big low and mid rpm, but they run out of breathe, as all of us have experienced.

I think that a sequential turbo setup would give a driving enthusiast the daily driving power he needs with the high rpm torque build he craves.
Use a single twin scroll setup to deliver low rpm and mid rpm power with near 0 lag, then transition the exhaust flow to a larger clipped turbo that would carry and build greater torque from mid to high rpm.
That was the intent with sequential turbo's, where a smaller one would build pressure quicker to give low rpm, off the line power, then a larger turbo to give the big hit and flow for higher rpm power delivery.

If BMW used twin scroll turbo tech along with a single larger turbo, along with variable valve timing, and throttle-less intake, a sequential turbo setup would truly make an M engine quite special and quite worthy of enthusiast desire and need.

Turbo's are not just about being "green". They are also about maximizing combustion efficiency, which is lost mostly to heat generation. Turbo's increase efficiency by using the SAME size engine, but also using some of that lost heat (exhaust) to compress the air into the combustion chamber, effectively increasing the engine size while using the same amount of fuel, but generating MORE power from all that. It's a very worthy technology that improves the IC engines output. A normally aspirated engine can only achieve so much without then having to go to more and more chamber volume.

The V8 in the M3 is a excellent piece of engineering. But, BMW needs to stay competitive with the M3 power. They can either stay with NA and increase size to increase power, increase rpm to generate more power, both, or they can generate that power with a smaller engine with forced induction, and still apply more rpm.
The idea that larger multivalve NA engines are somehow more "premium" or "better" is a perception from yesteryear in m view. Modern turbo tech along with modern engine building in general have combined to not just challenge the old thinking, but exceed it.
There's noting inherently more premium or better about generating 500hp form 6.2 liters, compared to generating 500hp from 3.2 FI liters.

The concern shouldn't be one of size, but one of control. That's where historically NA has the edge to FI. BIg displacement by it's very nature generates big low rpm torque, and with the right engine building, that engine can make big HP with ultra high rpm, as seen in Porsche, Ferrari, Corvette, etc... engines.
It's good to see so many manufacturers applying their engineering know how to FI in smaller engines. Many of us enthusiasts always complain about wanting "less weight, less weight!" Well, FI allows weight to be kept down while still producing more power. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Levi

I am with you, but I will still wait and make my personal judgment. I do have faith in BMW, and think that M turbos will be much better than AMG or RS turbos. If the "M1" is not good, what I would like to do, though costly, is to put the 275 HP NA 2.0l I4 engine with redline at 8.500 rpm from the 320si WTCC.

Just for a thought excercise:
From my recollection, though it may be faulty, I believe that the3.0 NA magnesium engine was tuned to produce 280hp with something like 270lb ft.
I don't remember if they used vavletronic to achieve that.
It seems that BMW could tune the NA engine to produce 300/290 in NA form, and add a turbo that could be "brought online" somewhere in the 3500-4000rpm range to add high rpm boost, easily achieving 50 more hp and 50 or more lb ft, all the way to red line. Even boost the red line to 8k.

Use the turbo path that would smoothly engage via valving that would bring the turbo pressure into the intake path. The turbo would be closed, no exhaust to it, and no flow from it, until around 3k. Via valving, open the exhaust port to the turbo and simultaneously open the compressor side into the intake path. You would basically have a NA engine for normal driving at low to part throttle openings, and then a FI engine once the rpm's build. At that engine engine speed, throttle control is instant and very controllable. Use the turbo to give the engine the air it needs at higher engine rpm.

In the past, if you used a turbo you had to have it "on" all the time, because you had to use low compression pistons to control detonation under boost. With direct injection, you can run high/er compression pistons that would allow NA operation at low to mid rpm engine speeds.
Could be interesting to drive an engine like this.
3.0 liters of displacement at normal driving, and effectively 4-5 liters once the turbo force feeds the air.

[Sephiroth]

^ Im not convinced turbo technology has come far enough to negate turbo lag completely. Especially with single turbos, even a twin scroll isn't good enough.

If they had to do forced induction, why not superchargers? In my limited experience i found them to be more linear in their delivery. And i enjoy the whine on the GT500.

[HBspeed]

General Information
Vehicle Type: 2-door coupe, production car
Price: $40,000
Miles Per Gallon: 17/24 mpg
Drivetrain
Configuration Front Engine/RWD
Engine: Twin-Turbo Inline-6
Displacement: 2997 cc
Horsepower: 320 bhp @ 5800 rpm
Torque: 315 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
Max RPM: 6800 rpm
Transmission: 6-Speed Manual
Dimensions
Weight: 3450 lbs
Height: --.- in
Length: ---.- in
Width: --.- in
Wheelbase: --.- in
Track: f: --.- / r: --.- in
Performance
0-60 mph: 4.9 sec
0-100 mph: --.- sec
Quarter Mile: --.- sec @ --- mph
Top Speed: 155 mph
Lateral Acceleration: .94g
Braking, 60-0 mph: 125 ft
Slalom Speed: --.- mph
Nürburgring Lap Time: --.- minutes


These stats look pretty spot on...











1993 Toyota Supra Turbo
http://www.fast-autos.net/vehicles/T...3/Supra_Turbo/

Horray! Bmw has finally caught up to Toyota in 1993!

Originally Posted by Advevo

But the M1 will be a great succes because there are more people who are into turbo tuning and get on the rollers and do sprints then people who are more into driving dynamics and cornering.

You have hit the nail on the head. Sounds alot like why people prize toyota supras. Only difference in regards to engine is the 2JZ can be tuned to the moon, but the bmw version won't be good for more than 400-450.