M1 engine speculation

[adc]

Originally Posted by madfast

it'll never end. and its all based on opinion... even when given hard facts about what's faster around a track or whatever measure you want to use, there will be the argument of "feel"... and how important that "feel" is purely individual... yet its oftentimes spouted as gospel....

Not just "feel", but also, very important for regular people, confidence. I cannot tell you how many times I've passed "faster" cars on track, or how many times I've been passed by "slower" cars. Cars don't drive themselves. (yet).

As to hard data about what's faster around the track, you have to look at it with a great pinch of salt. For example, the M3 posts very good track times, but it could never sustain those speeds for more than 2-4 laps, after which the brakes would melt (I've tracked mine). There are very few production-stock cars which can be tracked without care right out of the box.

Ultimately in pure racing terms it's a matter of grip vs. power - and for certain types of racing, fuel economy. How you arrive at the magic formula is not that relevant, and racers will pick whatever allowable technology they think will win them races. A race car doesn't have to feel right or be friendly or balanced, just to be fast and win races.

For street cars it's a whole different perspective - and things like feel and confidence certainly play a big part, all else being equal. Nothing wrong with discussing these, IMO...

[Amalfitano]

Originally Posted by adc

Not just "feel", but also, very important for regular people, confidence. I cannot tell you how many times I've passed "faster" cars on track, or how many times I've been passed by "slower" cars. Cars don't drive themselves. (yet).

As to hard data about what's faster around the track, you have to look at it with a great pinch of salt. For example, the M3 posts very good track times, but it could never sustain those speeds for more than 2-4 laps, after which the brakes would melt (I've tracked mine). There are very few production-stock cars which can be tracked without care right out of the box.

Ultimately in pure racing terms it's a matter of grip vs. power - and for certain types of racing, fuel economy. How you arrive at the magic formula is not that relevant, and racers will pick whatever allowable technology they think will win them races. A race car doesn't have to feel right or be friendly or balanced, just to be fast and win races.

For street cars it's a whole different perspective - and things like feel and confidence certainly play a big part, all else being equal. Nothing wrong with discussing these, IMO...

If all the posts for discussing these things were as even-keeled as yours, providing a perspective instead of a stubborn position, it could be fun and fruitful. Too much of the DCT v Manual and FI v NA comes down to yelling and not even trying to understand where the other person is coming from...

[madfast]

Originally Posted by Amalfitano

If all the posts for discussing these things were as even-keeled as yours, providing a perspective instead of a stubborn position, it could be fun and fruitful. Too much of the DCT v Manual and FI v NA comes down to yelling and not even trying to understand where the other person is coming from...

it comes down to value system. people are arguing over what THEY think is more valuable. 'feel' vs outright speed... its an individual opinion and nobody is right or wrong...

[pDz]

Originally Posted by adc

Not just "feel", but also, very important for regular people, confidence. I cannot tell you how many times I've passed "faster" cars on track, or how many times I've been passed by "slower" cars. Cars don't drive themselves. (yet).

As to hard data about what's faster around the track, you have to look at it with a great pinch of salt. For example, the M3 posts very good track times, but it could never sustain those speeds for more than 2-4 laps, after which the brakes would melt (I've tracked mine). There are very few production-stock cars which can be tracked without care right out of the box.

Ultimately in pure racing terms it's a matter of grip vs. power - and for certain types of racing, fuel economy. How you arrive at the magic formula is not that relevant, and racers will pick whatever allowable technology they think will win them races. A race car doesn't have to feel right or be friendly or balanced, just to be fast and win races.

For street cars it's a whole different perspective - and things like feel and confidence certainly play a big part, all else being equal. Nothing wrong with discussing these, IMO...

great post.

[Amalfitano]

Originally Posted by madfast

it comes down to value system. people are arguing over what THEY think is more valuable. 'feel' vs outright speed... its an individual opinion and nobody is right or wrong...

I completely agree. I personally like a more complete discourse which basically would require people to present their values a little more clearly and with less emotion. Forums do tend to be a little over-emotional (like most internet based anythings). We should be passionate, but i think we should all be fully capable of both being passionate AND able to relate to a differing point of view.

[treehacker]

The red mule has still the V8 of the M3 inside. This was confirmed from a source of BMW.
But the final will be a Twin-Scroll Turbo S55 based on the N55 with about 360 - 380PS.
The car will finally weight even more than the 135i.

[pDz]

Originally Posted by treehacker

The red mule has still the V8 of the M3 inside. This was confirmed from a source of BMW.
But the final will be a Twin-Scroll Turbo S55 based on the N55 with about 360 - 380PS.
The car will finally weight even more than the 135i.

that'd be a dense little car then.

[///Mangler]

Originally Posted by treehacker

The red mule has still the V8 of the M3 inside. This was confirmed from a source of BMW.
But the final will be a Twin-Scroll Turbo S55 based on the N55 with about 360 - 380PS.
The car will finally weight even more than the 135i.

Where are the other exhausts outlets? Are you saying that that V8 is breathing through one set of duals? I had an S14 that needed more than that.

T

[Alumac]

Originally Posted by treehacker

The red mule has still the V8 of the M3 inside. This was confirmed from a source of BMW.
But the final will be a Twin-Scroll Turbo S55 based on the N55 with about 360 - 380PS.
The car will finally weight even more than the 135i.

Who was the source? Let me guess, your local client advisor!

[treehacker]

It must be like this. As reported from the BMW source, it was just sticked in with some patches. No idea what for...

[treehacker]

The source was some technician from BMW (Development department)

[treehacker]

But I think during the last month they already changed it to another motor.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Advevo

I have just visit my bmw dealership was walking thru the workshop. I saw a 135i standing there. They were working on the engine. I asked what s wrong. Turbo problems. Mostly i see turbo s in the workshop when worked on engines.

And that is for me an other point. High rev atmo has less plumbing less add ons on the engine less things which can break down. Less heat. etc.

An engine which will be used a lot on trackdays/driftdays/racing etc i think the better choice is NA. Turbo s just need more maintance and cost you more to run in the long run.

With that in mind there is only one engine for me and thats NA.

I really seeing forward to the first guys who drive hard all day on a hot trackday with their M1 turbo s. See if the cars can handle the heat. My 135i did not. Oil temps went thru roof.

Also my Evo 6 on track broke down. Turbo to pieces. Our 130i cup cars drove 3 years in a row never one blown engine. With all that in mind i know that turbo s can t handle extremes without lots of maintance and new turbo s. This is of course used in extremes.

That s what i said all along if you use youre car daily you drive sporty there is nothing wrong with turbo s. Diesel turbo is the best solution ever.

I am not all negative about turbo. Depends on what you are in search for.
As daily drive a turbo is perfect. For extreme almost maintance free track use i would never go turbo route.

Go into a Porsche shop and you'll see mostly NA Porsche engines worked on. Is that a problem too?
If a manufacturer builds and sells a lot of a certain engine, it simply stands to reason that if you go into one of their shops you'll see those types of engines worked on.

Oh, and don't your comment about not being negative towards turbo engines...really? Are you trying to convince us, or yourself?
From reading your posts and opinions, it sounds as if your opinions on turbo's was formed back in the 80's.

Hey, let's go back to carburetors too. They were much more linear in power delivery in comparison to early fuel injection. But, they sorted that out too.

[x838nwy]

Originally Posted by RPM90

Go into a Porsche shop and you'll see mostly NA Porsche engines worked on. Is that a problem too?
.........

......... They were much more linear in power delivery in comparison to early fuel injection. But, they sorted that out too.

Easy there, mate. From the reliability side of things, it makes logical sense that the more bits you have the more things there are to go wrong.

However, diesel turbos are some of the most reliable internal combustion engines around and even when we are talking about petrol (gasoline) engines, turbo-charging has come a long, long way. Materials have improved, control strategies for both engines and turbos have greatly improved, costs have dropped and as such reliability is much higher (specially if we're talking about today vs. Evo6 days).

The main thing, IMO, that causes people to feel that turbos are the cause of poor reliability is that usually the turbos are the first things to go (or show signs of things preparing to go tits-up in the engine bay). This is mainly because regardless of any improvement in reliability, the turbo itself works in a very very very extreme environment. Probably the most critically loaded part in the entire engine. So we have to look at this as the reliability of the entire 'power system' rather than just the turbo itself. Looking at it as simply a 'turbo' problem is like saying that N/A engines are made unreliable by cylinder heads or radiators.

Another reason is that it is actually relatively easy to get more out of a turbo engine than N/A engines. This means that people like us will bugger around with tunes, boost and what not to get that little bit more, which doesn't help things.

Lastly it all depends on how much of a margin manufacturers have left and how they balance reliability against output. This is the same no matter how the engine exchange gases. Had BMW tuned the 135i to make 200bhp, I'm pretty sure it would run forever. Track an N/A race car (say wtcc) for a few thousand miles without rebuilding/servicing and it would probably begin to melt somewhere.

I think we have to accept that in this day and age, the place for N/A engines is dwindling. Fuel efficiency, power demands and weight reduction will make N/A engines something of a rarity, suitable for very few vehicles. Fortunately, the more widely used turbos or s/c become, the better they will become so we have quite a lot to look forward to.

Till the oil runs out, that is.

[sparoz]

Back to the M1 engine - at 360PS (355HP, 265kW), that leaves us many scenarios on what could happen.

a) 450Nm peak torque and peak power arriving at 5500 - redline 7000 @ 360Nm
b) 400Nm peak torque up to 6000 - peak power around 6500 - redline 8000 @ 315Nm
c) 350Nm peak torque with an over boost to 400Nm midrange - peak power @ 7250 - redline 8500 @ 300Nm

Which set up would you prefer? I think I would pick 350Nm, especially you can overboost it to 400Nm when you need it midrange.

[pDz]

Originally Posted by sparoz

Back to the M1 engine - at 360PS (355HP, 265kW), that leaves us many scenarios on what could happen.

a) 450Nm peak torque and peak power arriving at 5500 - redline 7000 @ 360Nm
b) 400Nm peak torque up to 6000 - peak power around 6500 - redline 8000 @ 315Nm
c) 350Nm peak torque with an over boost to 400Nm midrange - peak power @ 7250 - redline 8500 @ 300Nm

Which set up would you prefer? I think I would pick 350Nm, especially you can overboost it to 400Nm when you need it midrange.

whichever configuration where the power does not dropoff --but that is difficult to do with either 2 small "twin" turbos or a single twin scroll, isn't it? if you tune for peak, then you have a huge hole in the bottom end.

i'd extrapolate from how //M tuned the twin turbo v8s from X5M or X6M.

[Kbueno]

I would think they would go twin turbos, no? I can't see them going over 360hp due to their precious M3 line.

[pDz]

Originally Posted by 335lvr

I would think they would go twin turbos, no? I can't see them going over 360hp due to their precious M3 line.

oh, i think they could let another car surpass the M3 because they have, in the past, with the M coupe "allowed" for that.

i could see how, if the 135 //M is "faster" than the M3, that's okay because it would be a somewhat hairier car and they might do something like not allow the 135 //M to have DCT or something along those lines.

i don't think there is a lot of overlap between the 135 //M buyer and the M3 buyer. today's M3 buyer is less concerned with curb weight and will have more fully bought into the high revs to make power. that demographic will be turned off by the forced induction and potentially less curb weight won't matter to 'em.

[adc]

Originally Posted by pDz

oh, i think they could let another car surpass the M3 because they have, in the past, with the M coupe "allowed" for that.

Indeed - the M3 is faster than the E60 M5 everywhere except in a straight line. So they can quote their precious acceleration numbers, but on track the M3 is king.

i don't think there is a lot of overlap between the 135 //M buyer and the M3 buyer. today's M3 buyer is less concerned with curb weight and will have more fully bought into the high revs to make power. that demographic will be turned off by the forced induction and potentially less curb weight won't matter to 'em.

You are both right and wrong. The current M3 demographic is split in 3:

- Those who are in it for the status/glamour aspect. They will most certainly be turned off by the M1, but not because the forced induction (plenty of supercharged M3's running around), but because it's carries less status value (smaller, uglier, cheaper, not proven in motorsports).

- Those who are in it because when all is said and done, it's a significantly better driving car than pretty much anything in the BMW lineup.

- The high revving NA elitists are extremely few. They may in fact be bona-fide members of the other two groups above.


The second group is waiting to be wooed by the M1 - if it's an absolutely cracking car, many will switch (myself included). But I, like many others, will not make allowances/excuses for anything in terms of driving dynamics (don't care about looks and can live with the more compromised practicality). It's either going to drive better than the M3 in which case I might buy & keep it forever, or if not then the M3 will become the keeper.

I could be wrong, but I've seen plenty of interest from M3 owners, or people who have skipped the current M3 due to various considerations (cost, weight, eco).

[Kbueno]

Originally Posted by adc

Not just "feel", but also, very important for regular people, confidence. I cannot tell you how many times I've passed "faster" cars on track, or how many times I've been passed by "slower" cars. Cars don't drive themselves. (yet).

As to hard data about what's faster around the track, you have to look at it with a great pinch of salt. For example, the M3 posts very good track times, but it could never sustain those speeds for more than 2-4 laps, after which the brakes would melt (I've tracked mine). There are very few production-stock cars which can be tracked without care right out of the box.

Ultimately in pure racing terms it's a matter of grip vs. power - and for certain types of racing, fuel economy. How you arrive at the magic formula is not that relevant, and racers will pick whatever allowable technology they think will win them races. A race car doesn't have to feel right or be friendly or balanced, just to be fast and win races.

For street cars it's a whole different perspective - and things like feel and confidence certainly play a big part, all else being equal. Nothing wrong with discussing these, IMO...

OT but curious.. what track are you running that you can fade brakes after 2-4 laps? Must be consistent fast straights into hair pins?

[adc]

Originally Posted by 335lvr

OT but curious.. what track are you running that you can fade brakes after 2-4 laps? Must be consistent fast straights into hair pins?

Summit Point Main - I'm getting to 140-150 mph on the pit straight followed by a 30-40 mph right-hander.

But I also got brake fade during my Euro Delivery when I ran with a sports bike down a steep Alpine pass. That was scary.


Anyways, I'm installing brake cooling ducts shortly, I should be ok after that with both the OEM (street) pads and at the track.

[Robert]

My first experience with brake fade was in my teens. It was chance that kept me alive coming down from a canyon and noticing my brakes aren't working as well as it should. Had no idea why. The smell of burnt pads during fill up.