Autocar big homie Steve Sutcliffe drives the new M3

[Lebowski]

So what's the cost difference between this and the v8?

I wish I was as good at making up facts as sporty is.

[MrH]

For the sake of keeping the forum interesting, I hope he drives it.

+1. The one percenters need to contribute more to this forum!

[cawimmer430]

Why does every test video have to be dominated by foolish drifting?

Because 99.9% of people who buy RWD cars, any RWD car, do that in their spare time. Duh!

[Rupert]

+1. The one percenters need to contribute more to this forum!

I'm with you on this crusade. Us Plebes do more than our share!

[hotrodalex]

So where's that Mercedes?

[Rupert]

+1

[MexicoCityM3]

I wish I was as good at making up facts as sporty is.

lol it was me that made up the 10K guesstimate above. Poor sporty can't catch a break.

I don't know by how much but with the much lower production numbers and all that's needed to make 420hp@8300 RPM NA its very likely that it's a lot note expensive than the 1Ms N54.

[12,000 RPM]

I wish I was as good at making up facts as sporty is.

What facts did I make up?

[MexicoCityM3]

+1. The one percenters need to contribute more to this forum!

I don't know about the one percenter membership but it's fair to say regarding spending on cars you can basically count on me to do something between stupid and extremely stupid (financially).

So: M3, i3, Stingray, Cayman GTS or pray to Dios an i8 in the next 24 months at some point, yeah.

[GoCougs]

Plenty of companies are building engines like their old V8 well into the future in all the same markets. Ford has a similar engine in a Mustang that costs nearly half the M3's price.

I think the V8 was a break from tradition fueled by the horsepower wars and the semi-bubble of the early 00s. As "much" flack as this engine is getting it is a 100% return to tradition, and I'm sure is also a huge cost savings for BMW as well which is enabling them to keep the price low profitably. However, BMW then runs the risk of the normal 3s and the M3 being very close in character. Chassis wise they have definitely stepped it up, and the DCT is a nice differentiator for the transmissions... but the powerband sounds dangerously similar to the 335i's, which can be brought up to these levels for a couple hundred dollars

BMW 335i Does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds

My hunch is that the V8 no more expensive to build - more cylinders and valves but also no turbos, no intercooler, etc., etc. Thing is F/I motors can more easily game the BS eco testing, so that's why they're doing it.

If all it took was a few bolts ons and a tune that's what BMW would've done from the factory. Turns out this new M3 motor is all new and significantly more beefed up, as one would expect when going from 300 to 425 hp.

Also, something's not right with that video - he starts in second. Probably just going down hill...

[GoCougs]

So it's getting good write-ups everywhere. I'd so choose this over the M4 - looks better even.

[12,000 RPM]

My hunch is that the V8 no more expensive to build - more cylinders and valves but also no turbos, no intercooler, etc., etc. Thing is F/I motors can more easily game the BS eco testing, so that's why they're doing it.

If all it took was a few bolts ons and a tune that's what BMW would've done from the factory. Turns out this new M3 motor is all new and significantly more beefed up, as one would expect when going from 300 to 425 hp.

Also, something's not right with that video - he starts in second. Probably just going down hill...

V8 had ITBs which I don't know for a fact but am pretty sure the new I6T doesn't, as well as a very expensive ionic current knock control system rendered unnecessary by DI. Most importantly though, the engine shares its architecture with the mass produced x35 I6T, down to the bore and stroke. Beefing up an existing high volume motor can't be as involved as making a high tech bespoke low volume engine. And it's possible they didn't have to beef it up that much... there have been plenty of overbuilt engines and given how many folks have turned up the power with the regular x35 motor without incident I wouldn't doubt it to be one of them. I'm not knocking it- objectively it gets the job done- but this is more like the E36 M3's US engine than what people typically think of for an ///M powerplant. I would not be surprised if a large % of parts were interchangeable.

[GoCougs]

As you stated there's really not much more hi tech in the M3 V8 than the 5.0L found in the ~$31k Mustang.

The new M3 (S55) motor is all new vs. the N55: different bore/stroke, two turbos vs. one, dry sump oiling, forged internals, and 7,600 RPM red line (which is ginormous for a turbo motor - so it's sure to have an anti-knock system); so no economies of scale in design or manufacture are realized.

[12,000 RPM]

Same bore and stroke. And the original N54 had twin turbos. I'm sure it has anti-knock, but not the high tech ionic knock from the V8. N54/N55 have forged internals too. Big time economies of scale.

[MexicoCityM3]

Same bore and stroke. And the original N54 had twin turbos. I'm sure it has anti-knock, but not the high tech ionic knock from the V8. N54/N55 have forged internals too. Big time economies of scale.

C&D has said all it shares with the N55 is the head. Different block, pistons, valvetrain, etc.
Frankly, I haven't been able to find an authoritative source about this.

BMW has said that it is built on the same assembly line as the rest of the sixes though. But the M3 itself has been built in the same assembly line as the regular 3 series forever now so who cares.

[GoCougs]

Lots of "info" out there, including the source that said bore x stroke is different than the N55. I'd be very surprised if it used the same head - there is a significant difference in combustion characteristics and VE% when going from ~100 hp/L to ~140 hp/L - flow dynamics, cylinder pressures, etc.

[12,000 RPM]

The bore and stroke info is from BMW's website. All of their 3, 4, and 6 cylinder engines use a 3.3x3.5 inch bore and stroke. Forged internals info on the N54/N55 is from service manuals. Being that folks are able to go from ~100hp/L to ~140hp/L with just a chip, yes, they may do some port work and revise the head design for better cooling etc but I would bet BMW designed this engine from the outset for this duty as they knew long ago they were going all turbo in their lineup. Plus with the base engine in everything from a little 1 series up to a big ass LWB 7, it had to already be engineered to handle heavy loads and heat removal.

I don't think it's a bad thing that BMW is utilizing economies of scale... the last M3 was the first one that didn't share engine architecture with regular 3s. But they are definitely using them now.

[68_427]

N55 didn't have forged internals.  The 54 did however.

[12,000 RPM]

the N54/55 and S55 are completely different engines

Lol, no.

[GoCougs]

The bore and stroke info is from BMW's website. All of their 3, 4, and 6 cylinder engines use a 3.3x3.5 inch bore and stroke. Forged internals info on the N54/N55 is from service manuals. Being that folks are able to go from ~100hp/L to ~140hp/L with just a chip, yes, they may do some port work and revise the head design for better cooling etc but I would bet BMW designed this engine from the outset for this duty as they knew long ago they were going all turbo in their lineup. Plus with the base engine in everything from a little 1 series up to a big ass LWB 7, it had to already be engineered to handle heavy loads and heat removal.

I don't think it's a bad thing that BMW is utilizing economies of scale... the last M3 was the first one that didn't share engine architecture with regular 3s. But they are definitely using them now.

"Folks" are hacks but automakers are not - it takes far more than just a chip to reliably and rationally (driveability) make such big jumps in power; ergo the N54/55 and S55 are completely different engines so I can't see any economies of scale/scope save for maybe not having to engineer the F30 chassis to accept such a disparate engine range as the E9x. If there were scale/scope advantages in the S55 the E9x M3 would've also had a hotter version of the N54/55 and not the V8. Thing is turns out the eco hegemony during the E9x design cycle wasn't near what it is today so there wasn't near the impetus (ergo, the S55 and not the V8).

[MexicoCityM3]

The bore and stroke info is from BMW's website. All of their 3, 4, and 6 cylinder engines use a 3.3x3.5 inch bore and stroke. Forged internals info on the N54/N55 is from service manuals. Being that folks are able to go from ~100hp/L to ~140hp/L with just a chip, yes, they may do some port work and revise the head design for better cooling etc but I would bet BMW designed this engine from the outset for this duty as they knew long ago they were going all turbo in their lineup. Plus with the base engine in everything from a little 1 series up to a big ass LWB 7, it had to already be engineered to handle heavy loads and heat removal.

I don't think it's a bad thing that BMW is utilizing economies of scale... the last M3 was the first one that didn't share engine architecture with regular 3s. But they are definitely using them now.

Well, this is from a BMW press release about the S55:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892746

Bore, stroke and displacement are different from an N55.

Also:

Here is what UK magazine CAR writes after the workshop:

Rumours of a V6 triple-turbo circulated early in the M3/M4's development but the production unit is a 3.0-litre straight six with two turbochargers, and an over-square bore of 89.6mm and 80mm stroke. It shares nothing other than peripheral ancillaries with BMW's other straight-six petrol engine, but the familiar design has allowed BMW to retain the production infrastructure to build it, saving money to reinvest back into other weight-saving measures without drastically increasing the price of a relatively cost-sensitive performance car. This means that the M3/M4 range should still retail from around £60k when it goes on sale next year.

[GoCougs]

Lol, no.

Tech info is sparse but we know at a minimum the block, head, pistons, turbos + related stuff, and dry sump oiling system is completely different than the N54/55. How does this not make the S55 a completely different engine? Owing to far higher power and different RPM operating range it is also highly likely the crank, rods, and cams are different too (making the S55 even more "completely different").

[MexicoCityM3]

"Folks" are hacks but automakers are not - it takes far more than just a chip to reliably and rationally (driveability) make such big jumps in power; ergo the N54/55 and S55 are completely different engines so I can't see any economies of scale/scope save for maybe not having to engineer the F30 chassis to accept such a disparate engine range as the E9x. If there were scale/scope advantages in the S55 the E9x M3 would've also had a hotter version of the N54/55 and not the V8. Thing is turns out the eco hegemony during the E9x design cycle wasn't near what it is today so there wasn't near the impetus (ergo, the S55 and not the V8).

I have seen lots of such "folks" with modded/chipped engines at the track. They end up spending 90% of their track time parked trying to figure out WTF is wrong with their engines and fixing things. Meanwhile my stock cars can go all day. Impressive for a 1/4 mile run sure. A SINGLE run in many cases.

[MexicoCityM3]

Also this is interesting - very much so for me at high altitude:

The turbos run at a maximum of 1.25 bar boost but often less, the electronic brain only cranking up to that level of pressure under high operating temperatures or at high altitude. It means the power and torque figures will remain consistent in the vast majority of conditions. As Vice President of engineering, Albert Biermann, explains, that means a standard M3/M4 will often be as fast on track as a tuned car with a claimed additional 50bhp but no extra leeway to continue to develop that power as operating temperatures soar.

[GoCougs]

I have seen lots of such "folks" with modded/chipped engines at the track. They end up spending 90% of their track time parked trying to figure out WTF is wrong with their engines and fixing things. Meanwhile my stock cars can go all day. Impressive for a 1/4 mile run sure. A SINGLE run in many cases.

Yep. If it were that easy that's what automakers would do - they wouldn't spend big $$$ making different engines for each application. It pretty much comes down to design vs. engineering.

[GoCougs]

I have to SMH head a bit at BMW boasting that the S55 is 20 lbs lighter than the S65. Does that include the intercooling and add'l exhaust piping? Even if it did the S65 V8 was developed ~10 years ago - I'm pretty sure if designed today they'd find an additional ~20 lbs weight savings and definitely an additional ~10 hp.

[12,000 RPM]

Well, this is from a BMW press release about the S55:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/showthread.php?t=892746
http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2014/3/335iSedan/Features_and_Specs/335iSedanSpecifications.aspx

Bore, stroke and displacement are different from an N55.

Also:

Here is what UK magazine CAR writes after the workshop:

Rumours of a V6 triple-turbo circulated early in the M3/M4's development but the production unit is a 3.0-litre straight six with two turbochargers, and an over-square bore of 89.6mm and 80mm stroke. It shares nothing other than peripheral ancillaries with BMW's other straight-six petrol engine, but the familiar design has allowed BMW to retain the production infrastructure to build it, saving money to reinvest back into other weight-saving measures without drastically increasing the price of a relatively cost-sensitive performance car. This means that the M3/M4 range should still retail from around £60k when it goes on sale next year.

Bore n displacement are the same.

http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2015/M/M3Sedan/Features_and_Specs/M3SedanSpecifications.aspx

I'm sure the part numbers are different, but the underlying architecture is still the same. It's like Honda's engines. The F22A and H22A look totally different spec wise... different bore/stroke, one is SOHC the other is DOHC VTEC, H22A has piston oil squirters etc... but underneath it all they have the same bore spacing and have interchangeable accessories and peripherals (intake/exhaust manifolds etc.). You could take a bare F22 block and build an H22. People often combine parts from the two to make an ideal combo (i.e. F22's 95mm crank to take the H22 to 2.3L). I don't doubt it's a similar situation with the N54/55 and S55. Maybe it's pedantic but to me calling them "completely different" is inaccurate. Same layout, same bore and stroke, same accessories. By that logic the 335HP N55 is "completely different" from the 306HP one, or the N55 is "completely different" from the N54.

I don't see what the big deal is- M3s have generally always had hopped up versions of mainstream engines. That doesn't take away from them at all, but it is what it is.

[GoCougs]

It's not pedantic, it's just not correct . Completely different means exactly that - not sure what the resistance is all about. The F22A and H22A are also completely different engines just as the N54/44 and S55 are - different block, heads, pistons, etc. As to the N55 vs. N55HP and N54 vs. N55, you'll have to research the differences.

[12,000 RPM]

If major parts are interchangeable it's the same engine to me.

[MrH]