AUTOMOBILE preview of the M4

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

It 's pulling to redline(7000)

IRL the E9x M3 is faster beyond 230kmh/140mph.

Below that speeds its exactly the opposite. And sometimes by quite a margin...

Power/weight.

Cheers
Robin

How about new m3/4 with instant throttle response and overboost (by a kers like button) not only on full throttle! Hah. That would be awesome.

[G80indy]

I trust Road & Track saying tri-turbo S55, this month's issue, more than Automobile

[Randy M]

I'll take 3 turbos to go...thank you.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

I'm not confused at all mate

No worries, I just know a lot of torque(at the wheels) can come in very handy and makes the experience even better than without...

Having had a E90 M3 6MT and currently my turbocharged >550Nm @ 2500rpm silly pocketrocket, I know (without scientific approaches at all) the new M3/4 with whatever twin/triturbo engine layout will be so much more powerful fun @ 'any' revs than the outgoing M3...

That's all.

I'm looking at it from a driver's point of view of a guy who isn't @ any trackday every weekend...
...well come to think of it: this weekend @ Papenburg Germany, Mercedes Benz testtrack we have a trackday again

And if you say people cannot feel 'any' torque whatsoever, I'm glad to take you for a ride in my pocketrocket, then we'll'talk again
Cheers
Robin

You really are deluding yourself here, like it or not. You almost seem to get that with your recognition above of the importance of torque AT THE WHEELS. Gearing choices both in the transmissions and final drives can vary quite dramatically from one car to another and without knowing those and somehow integrating them into the picture you get NOTHING about performance from engine crank torque. Once you bother with the math you will find that peak hp basically captures the combination of crank torque + gearing.

What anyone truly feels is acceleration, plain and simple. The acceleration at any given speed is uniquely determined by the power (produced at that speed). The CRANK torque is not at all relevant, period.

To really understand this you need to accept and understand both of these seemingly contradictory principles:

1. Peak acceleration in any gear occurs at the rpm/speed where the engine makes peak torque (not accounting for some relatively minor effects of drivetrain intertia).

2. Given two vehicles of the same weight, at the same speed (any speed) and same aerodynamics; the car that produces more power at that speed will out accelerate the one producing less power.

These are non-debatable points. Sorry.

[Randy M]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

RS5 is a pig at 4,009 lb., only 317 lb. ft., and not balanced. Don't see that the horsepower needs to match to put it in the weeds.

Understood but many do not pay attention to anything other than HP numbers.

[TTSam]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

I don't know if all of this corresponds to the info that has been available through this site. But here are some pics.

Twin turbo only (not three for better throttle response) and 0-62 in 4.4 seconds for you straight line folks (compared to the power to acceleration thread on here). 420/400 at 3300 lbs equals 4.4 seconds?

4.3/4.4 0-60 sounds correct - but I thought it would have been lower if the car has that much less weight.

I did a quick comparison of the old M5 and the new one. Old was 0-62 in 4.7 seconds - new 4.4 seconds or 0.3 seconds less. I am using official times not actual times achieved by individuals or car magazines.

M5 and M3 generational speed gains are usually about the same. So the E9x M3 was 0-62 in 4.6 minus 0.3 = 4.3.

Just seems disappointing that it wouldn't be closer to 4 seconds. I know with tunes it will easily get there - but with the supposed weight loss I would have expected better times.

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by TTSam

4.3/4.4 0-60 sounds correct - but I thought it would have been lower if the car has that much less weight.

I did a quick comparison of the old M5 and the new one. Old was 0-62 in 4.7 seconds - new 4.4 seconds or 0.3 seconds less. I am using official times not actual times achieved by individuals or car magazines.

M5 and M3 generational speed gains are usually about the same. So the E9x M3 was 0-62 in 4.6 minus 0.3 = 4.3.

Just seems disappointing that it wouldn't be closer to 4 seconds. I know with tunes it will easily get there - but with the supposed weight loss I would have expected better times.

I think real world, people have gotten M5/6 to 60 in less than 4 secs no? Or does the hp/tq start screaming in triple digits....their stated to be 600hp easy....so maybe the m3 will really be closer to 450 or more.

[TTSam]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

I think real world, people have gotten M5/6 to 60 in less than 4 secs no? Or does the hp/tq start screaming in triple digits....their stated to be 600hp easy....so maybe the m3 will really be closer to 450 or more.

I suspect your are correct and the 'official' times should be able to be reduced closer to 4 secs.

[pkimM3r]

Full exhaust system including downpipes and a tune. Thats all youll need.

I wonder if anyone would be able to fit some bigger turbos in there.

Bigger injectors and fuel pump with increased boost and a toggle switch for e85 map and 91 octane map a la evo ix style will be absolutely ridiculously fast.

[Randy M]

I remember when the B6 S4 came out. All the B5 S4 guys were pissed that the new car wasn't as simple to mod for performance increases. The reverse is true now for the M3/4. The E92 guys just don't realize it yet.

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by Rated R

I remember when the B6 S4 came out. All the B5 S4 guys were pissed that the new car wasn't as simple to mod for performance increases. The reverse is true now for the M3/4. The E92 guys just don't realize it yet.

?? Im an e90 guy and look at my post above??

[kardboard]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

How about new m3/4 with instant throttle response and overboost (by a kers like button) not only on full throttle! Hah. That would be awesome.

Yes the overboost! Listen to me! The M3 and M4 will have overboost just like the 1 M Coupe did! This will push the Hp # passed the 420. It will be advertised as 420hp/469 hp w overboost. I'm almost certain.

I was correct with a lot of the design elements when the first camo'd prototypes came out. Check my history. I predicted the hood bump, the 1 m coupe like front bumper and side rear views, the cf roof on the m3 and the csl trunk.

I still believe it will have 3 turbos and not in the dual scroll/single school theory. I'm thinking more of the electric turbo currently on F1 cars. Or something very similar. With the two twin scroll turbos.

All this is confirmed to me because of my interpretations of M philosophy and also because Scott made an off hand comment that the M4 will eliminate the need for a super car (from the i8; M will not touch the i8. A shame too)

[wisesoul]

Who gives magazines the liberty to publish specs as if they were official specs?! I'm sick of all the varying info

[Robin_NL]

Originally Posted by swamp2

You really are deluding yourself here, like it or not. You almost seem to get that with your recognition above of the importance of torque AT THE WHEELS. Gearing choices both in the transmissions and final drives can vary quite dramatically from one car to another and without knowing those and somehow integrating them into the picture you get NOTHING about performance from engine crank torque. Once you bother with the math you will find that peak hp basically captures the combination of crank torque + gearing.

What anyone truly feels is acceleration, plain and simple. The acceleration at any given speed is uniquely determined by the power (produced at that speed). The CRANK torque is not at all relevant, period.

To really understand this you need to accept and understand both of these seemingly contradictory principles:

1. Peak acceleration in any gear occurs at the rpm/speed where the engine makes peak torque (not accounting for some relatively minor effects of drivetrain intertia).

2. Given two vehicles of the same weight, at the same speed (any speed) and same aerodynamics; the car that produces more power at that speed will out accelerate the one producing less power.


These are non-debatable points. Sorry.

You tell me those are non debatable points.

We are debating them right now.

All the stuff you're saying I believe you, in theory! Off course. In theory.


But:

Theory vs practise. Practise wins. Sorry.

Anyway: The F80 M3 will be faster than the current one because of less weight, same hp(?) and more torque.

You drive a current M3. It's very logical you're going to defend that one. That's called Cognitive Dissonance.

Think about it next time.

And just google up Chris Harris F40 F50 and hear what he has to say.

Less weight, more torque...

Cheers
Robin

[Robin_NL]

One more thing...

Mathematics and numbers are important and interesting enough, but NEVER forget that what makes a really good car is the whole package of parts that make the feel/emotion/driving pleasure of that car.

No car is perfect. And many times that imperfection is not due to lack of high numbers of output but due to lack of feel/emotion/driving pleasure...

Not talking about E9x M3/F80 M3. I'm talking in general.

Just a human insight, that's all.


Cheers
Robin

[ChrisK]

I will definitely wait for ZCP to become available for the M3/M4 - you just know that BMW will boost the HP/TQ

[G80indy]

Originally Posted by wisesoul

Who gives magazines the liberty to publish specs as if they were official specs?! I'm sick of all the varying info

Someone does! I doubt they throw rumors out there. Look closely at the R&T statement - they have the correct pic of the sedan in blue. Where do you think they got that?
B
M
W

[JTO24]

Originally Posted by 330indy

Someone does! I doubt they throw rumors out there. Look closely at the R&T statement - they have the correct pic of the sedan in blue. Where do you think they got that?
B
M
W

That pic has actually been floating around for a while now. Another mag posted it but in yellow (the thread with this pic is on this forum) but it's the exact same render; just looking at the exhaust gives it away that it isn't a real picture (spy photos show more centered exhaust tips).

The speculation is killing me!

[G80indy]

Originally Posted by JTO24

That pic has actually been floating around for a while now. Another mag posted it but in yellow (the thread with this pic is on this forum) but it's the exact same render; just looking at the exhaust gives it away that it isn't a real picture (spy photos show more centered exhaust tips).

The speculation is killing me!

yeah, I noticed that exhaust valance too; but the sides looks pretty darn accurate/ the flares in particular.
I would bet good money on the tri turbos, because M would want to set this one apart (I would think)