Rumormill: Next BMW M3 to get triple-turbo six

[sportyaccordy]

Still doesn't beat N/A. And we all know it. Only advantage is emissions.

[MX793]

I don't know about that.  The supercharger should preserve low-end throttle response while the turbos spool up for mid-range and top-end power.

[S204STi]

How heavy is this engine going to be with all that plumbing hanging off the side of it? 

[MrH]

Yup, only benefit is emissions. Oh, and those little unimportant things like power, torque at low engine speeds. But yeah, besides those worthless advantages, there's no reason to use them.

[sportyaccordy]

I don't know about that.  The supercharger should preserve low-end throttle response while the turbos spool up for mid-range and top-end power.

This could all be achieved with displacement. Plus there's the question of the value of more power in the M3. Much of it is already unusable on the street.

How heavy is this engine going to be with all that plumbing hanging off the side of it? 

That was pretty much my initial question.

Yup, only benefit is emissions. Oh, and those little unimportant things like power, torque at low engine speeds. But yeah, besides those worthless advantages, there's no reason to use them.

How powerful does the next M3 have to be? Is more power even necessary?

[Soup DeVille]

Yup, only benefit is emissions. Oh, and those little unimportant things like power, torque at low engine speeds. But yeah, besides those worthless advantages, there's no reason to use them.

Oh, I won't deny that there's plenty of good technical reasons for turbos: anymore than I'll deny that HP sells cars and wins stop light drag races. I won't even try to claim that I'm above such shenanigans (because I'm not).

What I will say is that raw power has never been what draws people to BMWs in the first place; well, maybe it does: but its not why cars like the classic M3s, the 2002, and the 528is have become legends in their own time. None of them ever had bragging rights to the quickest 0-60 time. What they had was a sense of balance, and responsive handling.

The cars were always to some extent faster than their engines alone would seem to make them.

Getting hung up in the horsepower wars (which are tons of fun BTW) will only get them dusted by some mullet headed punk in the latest Challenger/Camaro/Stang.

[sportyaccordy]

Getting hung up in the horsepower wars (which are tons of fun BTW) will only get them dusted by some mullet headed punk in the latest Challenger/Camaro/Stang.

For considerably more money too.

Who knows, maybe this new powerplant will be brilliant. But to me a driver's car is something more like a Lotus Evora than a GT-R. An E39 M5 over a W211 E55. RX-7 vs a 3000GT. And BMW is (IMO needlessly) swinging the pendulum towards the latter.

[MrH]

For considerably more money too.

Who knows, maybe this new powerplant will be brilliant. But to me a driver's car is something more like a Lotus Evora than a GT-R. An E39 M5 over a W211 E55. RX-7 vs a 3000GT. And BMW is (IMO needlessly) swinging the pendulum towards the latter.

From motor trend: "I can?t think of another automobile that does so many things so well?and in such a right-sized package. If you put an F1 car and a premium sedan in a blender, the M3 would be the cocktail that pours out. Mmmm, nothing else like it. A toast then: To the BMW M3, the greatest all-around car in the world."

Yep, the sky sure is falling at BMW.  They make terrible cars, and it's only going to get worse!

This could all be achieved with displacement. Plus there's the question of the value of more power in the M3. Much of it is already unusable on the street.


That was pretty much my initial question.


How powerful does the next M3 have to be? Is more power even necessary?

I think a giant displacement V8 would be more out of character than the switch to a turbo inline 6.

No, that wasn't your initial question.  You said "so much weight, good bye balance".  That's not even a question.  You just chicken-littled the shit out of a company that has yet to fuck up the M3.  The company that built its brand on 50:50 distribution isn't going to let that all come crashing down.

You're asking if more power is even necessary?  Who are you, Wimmer?  Are you sure you're a car enthusiast?

[sportyaccordy]

From motor trend: "I can?t think of another automobile that does so many things so well?and in such a right-sized package. If you put an F1 car and a premium sedan in a blender, the M3 would be the cocktail that pours out. Mmmm, nothing else like it. A toast then: To the BMW M3, the greatest all-around car in the world."

Yep, the sky sure is falling at BMW.  They make terrible cars, and it's only going to get worse!

Never said BMW was making bad cars. Stop being so defensive, this is not a personal attack.

I think a giant displacement V8 would be more out of character than the switch to a turbo inline 6.

No, that wasn't your initial question.  You said "so much weight, good bye balance".  That's not even a question.  You just chicken-littled the shit out of a company that has yet to fuck up the M3.  The company that built its brand on 50:50 distribution isn't going to let that all come crashing down.

You're asking if more power is even necessary?  Who are you, Wimmer?  Are you sure you're a car enthusiast?

Yes, I think the weight of 3 turbochargers and all the associated plumbing will throw off the balance.

And yes, I am asking if more power is necessary. There are a lot of cars making a lot of power that aren't automatically great. Is a Mustang Cobra better than a Boss 302? GT2 better than a GT3 RS? RS6 better than an M5? I don't see what is so blasphemous about the idea of the M3 being something lighter + simpler.... you know, like the M3 that legitimized the ///M brand. But whatever man it is just an opinion, don't have a fcuking titty attack. If power was everything you'd have a Koenigsegg in your sig instead of a GT3 RS...

[MrH]

Never said BMW was making bad cars. Stop being so defensive, this is not a personal attack.
Yes, I think the weight of 3 turbochargers and all the associated plumbing will throw off the balance.

And yes, I am asking if more power is necessary. There are a lot of cars making a lot of power that aren't automatically great. Is a Mustang Cobra better than a Boss 302? GT2 better than a GT3 RS? RS6 better than an M5? I don't see what is so blasphemous about the idea of the M3 being something lighter + simpler.... you know, like the M3 that legitimized the ///M brand. But whatever man it is just an opinion, don't have a fcuking titty attack. If power was everything you'd have a Koenigsegg in your sig instead of a GT3 RS...

How much do you think some turbos and additional plumbing actually weigh?  And what about the added weight of moving to a big displacement V8 like you're suggesting?

You aren't comparing apples to apples in any of those examples.  I do like the GT3 RS 4.0 better than the GT3 RS though.  Power's not everything, but I won't ever turn it down.

[Tave]

The new M3's V8 weighs less than the previous M3's I6 and is within 7 kg of the N54.

[sportyaccordy]

How much do you think some turbos and additional plumbing actually weigh?  And what about the added weight of moving to a big displacement V8 like you're suggesting?

You aren't comparing apples to apples in any of those examples.  I do like the GT3 RS 4.0 better than the GT3 RS though.  Power's not everything, but I won't ever turn it down.

Turbos and plumbing weigh quite a bit. That I know from first hand experience. Not to mention the weight of reenforcing the block to structurally support all that extra hardware and the added stress on the engine.

And a "big displacement" V8 wouldn't have to weigh much more, if more at all, than the current one. The current one has room to grow in both bore & stroke... which is all they did for the GTS & lightweight versions (displacing 4.4L). But that's not even the point. If given the choice, would you rather have more power or less weight? And do you honestly think that a triple turbo 6 will be able to provide both? Even if the system turns out to be brilliant, will it ever have all the response of an NA motor? I just don't think so.

[sportyaccordy]

The new M3's V8 weighs less than the previous M3's I6 and is within 7 kg of the N54.

To be fair though the old I6 had an iron block. But that is good to know.

[Raza]

From motor trend: "I can?t think of another automobile that does so many things so well?and in such a right-sized package. If you put an F1 car and a premium sedan in a blender, the M3 would be the cocktail that pours out. Mmmm, nothing else like it. A toast then: To the BMW M3, the greatest all-around car in the world."

You're asking if more power is even necessary?  Who are you, Wimmer?  Are you sure you're a car enthusiast?

Well, we all know I'm not a power guy, since I can't really use anything much over 250 without getting arrested.  My Boxster S did 0-60 in under 5 seconds and had a top speed of over 170.  All with under 300 horsepower.  But then again, I'm not the target market for the current M3. 

Besides, we all know that Motor Trend sucks, has always sucked, and will always suck, and that everyone who works there believes the ideal car is a Toyota Camry and the ideal truck is the Honda Ridgeline.  What they meant to say is that M3 is the greatest all-around car in the world, after the Camry, Prius, PT Cruiser, Civic, Thunderbird, 300, and 97 Malibu.  Prestigious list, I know.   

[sportyaccordy]

Well again to be fair it's not like the rest of the world has anything but good things to say about the current M3.

But I don't know that more power or a triple turbo 6 would improve upon it. If not for the stricter emissions reqs, I would bet big $$$ this is not the direction BMW would be taking its ///M powerplants.

[r0tor]

I would bet big $$$ this is not the direction BMW would be taking its ///M powerplants.

Actually, it fits perfectly with the germanic addiction to overcomplication

[Vinsanity]

Actually, it fits perfectly with the germanic addiction to overcomplication

I was about to say, my main turn-off here is the needless complexity of a triple-turbo setup. But I guess anyone looking at a BMW nowadays isn't put off by that.

[FlatBlackCaddy]

I was about to say, my main turn-off here is the needless complexity of a triple-turbo setup. But I guess anyone looking at a BMW nowadays isn't put off by that.

Can't be much more complex than a sequential setup from cars like the supra.

Depending on how they use them, it may be sequential across all three(three sizes) or a with two same sized turbos for half the motor and a smaller one to have instant low end and no lag.

Either way, the smaller one(I assume) being the electrically driven one will provide immediate boost in the lower RPM range. It should eliminate lag and provide more of a large displacement feel to it.

[sportyaccordy]

Why was the single turbo setup so popular with the Supra, if the sequential setup was so good? Even a lot of road racing cars ditched the twin turbo setup, despite the theoretical loss in response.

[ChrisV]

Why was the single turbo setup so popular with the Supra, if the sequential setup was so good? Even a lot of road racing cars ditched the twin turbo setup, despite the theoretical loss in response.

street applications are usually better with multi-turbo and sequential setups, for better response and for more flexibility in response. Racing apps want the power numbers, and don't really care about the response or flexibility, even road racing setups. Low rpm flexibility and tractability ins't important if you are primarily always in the powerband.

[Tave]

It's not just racers though, as I pointed out earlier in this very thread, BMW itself recently ditched the twin turbos on the 335 in favor of a single turbo setup.

[Cookie Monster]

It's not just racers though, as I pointed out earlier in this very thread, BMW itself recently ditched the twin turbos on the 335 in favor of a single turbo setup.

Huh, I never knew that, especially because BMW keeps calling the twin-scroll turbo "TwinPower" so I kept thinking it was still a twin turbo.

[MrH]

The new M3's V8 weighs less than the previous M3's I6 and is within 7 kg of the N54.

That's exactly my point.  It's 14 lbs lighter to have a twin turbo I6, over the current V8.  You can't just bore out the current one, like they did for the GTS.  I imagine stronger pistons and con rods were needed for the GTS, and there's probably a lower factor of safety with such an exclusive car as that than there is for something as mass produced as the normal M3.  Even if they were able to create a larger V8, without adding any weight at all, how much is one extra turbo going to weigh?  Especially if it's a small one in some sort of sequential setup.  40 lbs?  50?  Even so, that's only an extra 36 lbs over the current V8.

And to that, we say "So much weight, goodbye balance"?  Again, this is such a chicken little over reaction.

Turbos and plumbing weigh quite a bit. That I know from first hand experience. Not to mention the weight of reenforcing the block to structurally support all that extra hardware and the added stress on the engine.

And a "big displacement" V8 wouldn't have to weigh much more, if more at all, than the current one. The current one has room to grow in both bore & stroke... which is all they did for the GTS & lightweight versions (displacing 4.4L). But that's not even the point. If given the choice, would you rather have more power or less weight? And do you honestly think that a triple turbo 6 will be able to provide both? Even if the system turns out to be brilliant, will it ever have all the response of an NA motor? I just don't think so.

So it'd require reinforcing the block if you added a small turbo charger, but nothing if you were to make a larger V8?

Why was the single turbo setup so popular with the Supra, if the sequential setup was so good? Even a lot of road racing cars ditched the twin turbo setup, despite the theoretical loss in response.

  So, the same guy talking about throttle response for pages, is now bringing up the benefits of a single turbo, on a supra of all things?  Look at the torque curve on a single turbo supra.  It's idiotic.  People swap out the sequential turbos because they love their dyno queens, and don't give a shit or understand the very basics of how to put power to the road, and what makes a car easy to drive.

[sportyaccordy]

So it'd require reinforcing the block if you added a small turbo charger, but nothing if you were to make a larger V8?

Yep and its very simple why. Cmon man.

We already have proof of this. There are plenty of normal & high performance engines in which displacements were increased without the need to reinvent the wheel. Hell the S65 in the M3 GTS is proof of this, I said this before.

But there's a margin of safety for all engines. If you really think they can just slap another turbo onto the N54 and crank the boost up to make 450+ HP I don't think you're being realistic. That's 50% more stress on all the components, and probably even more heat to safely get out of the engine. And of course the plumbing. That shit is gonna be heavy- way heavier than a bore and stroke job on an S65 will be. You don't think 100, 120lb extra on the nose will affect the balance? Unless of course the rest of the car gets heavier too. Then you will get that 50/50 balance... and a 2 ton M3.

  So, the same guy talking about throttle response for pages, is now bringing up the benefits of a single turbo, on a supra of all things?  Look at the torque curve on a single turbo supra.  It's idiotic.  People swap out the sequential turbos because they love their dyno queens, and don't give a shit or understand the very basics of how to put power to the road, and what makes a car easy to drive.

There are benefits to a single turbo setup though... weight, simplicity, reliability, to name a few. How else do you explain the change from the N54 to N55? Not to say a 450HP single turbo 3.0L would make for a good street motor... ESPECIALLY in an ///M car... but the pipe dream that this triple turbo motor is gonna be some lightweight super responsive wonder engine is ridiculous. BMW already invested heavily into the S65/85; it makes no sense that they're dumping those investments. I am sure there are ways for them to make emissions w/o having to resort to turbocharging. And on limited production ///M cars I don't see what the big deal is anyway. I don't see how anyone can be excited about the death of the N/A motor.

[Tave]

That's exactly my point.  It's 14 lbs lighter to have a twin turbo I6, over the current V8.

But that's nothing. They essentially weigh the same. So you're stuck with a complicated 6-cyliner that's just as heavy as the naturally aspirated V8. What's the benefit in going that route?


Also, let me remind you what I was responding to:

How much do you think some turbos and additional plumbing actually weigh?  And what about the added weight of moving to a big displacement V8 like you're suggesting?

My point was, it's not causing ANY additional weight to move up "to a big displacement V8" over the I6's. The new V8 is actually significantly lighter than the last M3's I6 and almost identical to the new turbo I6s.

[sportyaccordy]

They could bump the S65 to 5.0L no problem. It has like a 75mm stroke for Christ's sake. Even if it got all the extra displacement from stroke it would still be overbore. And there have been engines that rev just as high with similar or even longer strokes (i.e. the 87x91 S54). It wouldn't have to rev as high, it would have the low end response that's supposedly "lacking" in the current one, and it would be a simpler + cheaper way to make that extra 35HP.

In 3 pages Mr H has used a lot of smilies and thrown out a lot of names but the fact of the matter is outside of emissions there's no reason to ditch the V8, and the reality is, if all things are kept equal otherwise, the triple turbo 6 will affect the balance of the car in a negative way. It will be longer and it will most likely be a good bit heavier too. Not sure how that is considered "progress"

[ChrisV]

Maybe the triple turbo 6 has better CO emissions and better fuel efficiency numbers at the same power output. The inline 6 already has great balance, and so long as you're putting the turbos behind the axle centerline, the balance should be retained. So it could be that BMW is trying to make good on it's promise to deliver power, handling, and more "green" performance in it's M series cars.

[GoCougs]

They could bump the S65 to 5.0L no problem. It has like a 75mm stroke for Christ's sake. Even if it got all the extra displacement from stroke it would still be overbore. And there have been engines that rev just as high with similar or even longer strokes (i.e. the 87x91 S54). It wouldn't have to rev as high, it would have the low end response that's supposedly "lacking" in the current one, and it would be a simpler + cheaper way to make that extra 35HP.

In 3 pages Mr H has used a lot of smilies and thrown out a lot of names but the fact of the matter is outside of emissions there's no reason to ditch the V8, and the reality is, if all things are kept equal otherwise, the triple turbo 6 will affect the balance of the car in a negative way. It will be longer and it will most likely be a good bit heavier too. Not sure how that is considered "progress"

It's "progess" as a hedge against present and future Draconian displacement/engine cylinder # taxes...

[r0tor]

Huh, I never knew that, especially because BMW keeps calling the twin-scroll turbo "TwinPower" so I kept thinking it was still a twin turbo.

A twin scroll turbo has two exhaust side turbine wheels... So effectively its not much different then two turbos but its significantly smaller of a package

[sportyaccordy]

A twin scroll turbo has two exhaust side turbine wheels... So effectively its not much different then two turbos but its significantly smaller of a package

I don't think so; from what I'm reading it just sounds like piping to the exhaust turbine gets split into two to minimize interference. I feel like two turbine wheels getting hit with different pulses on the same shaft would make for some needlessly high shaft shearing forces. Still a very cool concept though. Very long way from the shit log manifolds of the past.