Autocar big homie Steve Sutcliffe drives the new M3

[12,000 RPM]

What the fuck are you crying about now

[hotrodalex]

So if I add aluminum heads, hotter cam, and better intake + carb, I'll have the same engine?

Sure, the block might be the same. But the build is different. And costs more.

The two BMW engines have some stuff in common, but they are different. I'm sure there are a few cost savings compared to the V8, but the emissions thing sounds like a much larger influence.

[12,000 RPM]

I guess it's what you want to believe. I don't buy the emissions thing in the context of companies like Chevy and Ford bringing bigger, lower tech V8s to the same markets as the M3 on a long term basis. I have made peace with BMW going all turbo and I get why they went this route. But I'm not buying that NCAP forced their hand.

[MrH]

Big v8s like in the Mustang... Which isn't being sold with a v8 in Europe.

[GoCougs]

So if I add aluminum heads, hotter cam, and better intake + carb, I'll have the same engine?

Sure, the block might be the same. But the build is different. And costs more.

The two BMW engines have some stuff in common, but they are different. I'm sure there are a few cost savings compared to the V8, but the emissions thing sounds like a much larger influence.

Actually, yes, it's the same engine as the long block is unchanged. Now swap out the 350 block for a small-journal 327 block (and hence crank, pistons and rods), and it's not the same engine, even though the 350 and small-journal 327 share some architecture and misc. and immaterial components (distributor, oil pan, etc.). The 350 is not a hotter version of the 327 - they're completely different engines, as are the N55 and S55.

[GoCougs]

I guess it's what you want to believe. I don't buy the emissions thing in the context of companies like Chevy and Ford bringing bigger, lower tech V8s to the same markets as the M3 on a long term basis. I have made peace with BMW going all turbo and I get why they went this route. But I'm not buying that NCAP forced their hand.

Beyond the technical aspect of little discernible cost savings between the S65 and S55 the MSRP on the F30 M3 is $62,925 which is $5,350 more than the E90 M3 (last sold in 2011, which means it's ~$6,000 more in real dollars).

Detroit sells very very few V6/V8-powered vehicles in Europe, and same with Japan, ergo, both have largely skipped F/I save for Ford (and that hasn't gone well in the US). BMW sells a lot of M3s and 3ers in Europe.

[12,000 RPM]

Big v8s like in the Mustang... Which isn't being sold with a v8 in Europe.

http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/FutureVehicles/Ford-Mustang

There's a 5.0-litre V8 and we have also brought Ford Mustang performance to the acclaimed EcoBoost engine.

http://www.ford.de/Pkw-Modelle/Produktneuheiten/Mustang

Der Ford Mustang ist mit dem unzähmbaren 5-Liter V8-Motor verfügbar und die volle Leistung des Ford Mustang ist ebenfalls mit dem renommierten Ford EcoBoost-Motor erhältlich.

(The Ford Mustang is available with the irrepressible 5-liter V8 engine and full performance of the Ford Mustang is also available with the renowned Ford EcoBoost engine.)

[12,000 RPM]

Beyond the technical aspect of little discernible cost savings between the S65 and S55 the MSRP on the F30 M3 is $62,925 which is $5,350 more than the E90 M3 (last sold in 2011, which means it's ~$6,000 more in real dollars).

How are you so certain there are "little discernable cost savings" between the S65 and S55.... and what relevance does the MSRP have to this discussion

[GoCougs]

How are you so certain there are "little discernable cost savings" between the S65 and S55.... and what relevance does the MSRP have to this discussion

Because I do not see a logical path that states that the S55 is materially less expensive to produce. The S55 is a unique engine, and though it has two less cylinders it does have a bunch of costly stuff to support F/I that the S65 does not have.

I mention MSRP because if BMW were interested in cost savings why does the M3 cost ~$6k/10% more than its predecessor?

[CALL_911]

Because, like, they're trying to fuck the consumer, man

[MexicoCityM3]

http://www.ford.co.uk/Cars/FutureVehicles/Ford-Mustang

http://www.ford.de/Pkw-Modelle/Produktneuheiten/Mustang

The point is that the impact of the M3 on BMWs overall fleet emissions (for Europe) is not negligible. These cars are tuned for the ECE fuel economy & CO2 emissions test because that has a huge impact on taxes (just ask Colin).

OTOH the 5 Mustangs Ford sells in all of Europe on any given month don't have that impact.

[MrH]

What the fuck are you crying about now

I've never seen someone preach such uneducated speculation as fact before.  It's totally facepalm worthy.

[Catman]

F.Y.A.

[GoCougs]

C'mon, guys, we can all get along even if we disagree.

[Lebowski]

What facts did I make up?

I'm sure is also a huge cost savings for BMW as well which is enabling them to keep the price low profitably.

I just don't buy the angle that this was cost driven, and don't see how you have the information to be so sure there's significant cost savings.  Your posts here haven't supported the claim and your Mustang example is just plain goofy.

[12,000 RPM]

I've never seen someone preach such uneducated speculation as fact before.  It's totally facepalm worthy.

Mmmmm just as you did in the Caddy In Europe thread. And as you did in your assertion that the Mustang would not be sold with a V8 in Europe. And as you did in mistaking MCM3 for me to claim that I had put hard costs on the motors. But hey, only counts when sporty does it, right?

[12,000 RPM]

The point is that the impact of the M3 on BMWs overall fleet emissions (for Europe) is not negligible. These cars are tuned for the ECE fuel economy & CO2 emissions test because that has a huge impact on taxes (just ask Colin).

OTOH the 5 Mustangs Ford sells in all of Europe on any given month don't have that impact.

I'm pretty sure this is the first time fleet emissions were mentioned here. If that's the case then this makes sense.

[r0tor]

Blah blah blah... At the end of the day if any of us had the money and was looking at a performance sedan - the M3 still better be at or near the top of the shopping list or that persons head needs to be examined.

[12,000 RPM]

If I had 60k to spend on cars I would get 2 or 3 used ones

E90 wagon and a 997 C2S

[SJ_GTI]

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

I actually start off in 2nd gear quite a bit. It is usually a bit smoother than 1st gear if you are looking to take off "leisurely" instead of in a hurry. I would guess most automatics don't spend more than a second or so in first gear with engines like this (300+ HP).

[MrH]

Mmmmm just as you did in the Caddy In Europe thread. And as you did in your assertion that the Mustang would not be sold with a V8 in Europe. And as you did in mistaking MCM3 for me to claim that I had put hard costs on the motors. But hey, only counts when sporty does it, right?

  Same stance in the Caddy thread that I have here.  We don't have anywhere near enough information to make such statements like this is a cost savings move, or trying Cadillac in Europe is a huge loss,

Mustang wasn't originally going to have the V8 in Europe.  Must have recently changed.  Regardless, it's fleet emissions as pointed out above.

You didn't put hard costs to it, but you're insisting it's a big cost savings.  We have no idea what the costs are.  Why you're pretending to have a firm grasp on all of this internal BMW information, I'll never understand.

[GoCougs]

I actually start off in 2nd gear quite a bit. It is usually a bit smoother than 1st gear if you are looking to take off "leisurely" instead of in a hurry. I would guess most automatics don't spend more than a second or so in first gear with engines like this (300+ HP).

Sounds a bit harsh(er) on the clutch though...

If that BMW could do 0-60 in 3.6 sec by starting in 2nd you're talking HUGE power, more that just chipping it (which is what I was getting at).

[SJ_GTI]

Sounds a bit harsh(er) on the clutch though...

If that BMW could do 0-60 in 3.6 sec by starting in 2nd you're talking HUGE power, more that just chipping it (which is what I was getting at).

I probably misunderstood what you meant then.

I only start out in 2nd when I am not trying to go fast. If I am trying to go fast of course it is better to start in first and use the full range of RPMS before shifting to second. For me starting in first gear isn't as smooth because I would shift almost immediately, so it seems smoother to just start out in 2nd (since the engine is large enough to do so, even off boost) when I am not trying to drive fast (which is probably 90% of the time).

[12,000 RPM]

Sounds a bit harsh(er) on the clutch though...

If that BMW could do 0-60 in 3.6 sec by starting in 2nd you're talking HUGE power, more that just chipping it (which is what I was getting at).

Not really. Between the lost traction and lost forward thrust of the shift, it's not unreasonable that 2nd gear would be better for lower times. And that 335i was an auto. That "chip" is good for almost 100HP on chassis dynos (which I know you don't accept as admissible evidence). Longevity/reliability over the long term probably takes a hit but it is what it is.

[hotrodalex]

100 hp from a chip? WTF?

[12,000 RPM]

100 hp from a chip? WTF?

Sorry, 80WHP on a bone stock auto 135i

[img]http://www.burgertuning.com/images/jb4_dyno/dyno1.jpg[/img

http://www.burgertuning.com/jb4_pnp_BMW_performance_tuner.html

[r0tor]

If I had 60k to spend on cars I would get 2 or 3 used ones

E90 wagon and a 997 C2S

And neither is a sedan which is what I said...

[GoCougs]

Not really. Between the lost traction and lost forward thrust of the shift, it's not unreasonable that 2nd gear would be better for lower times. And that 335i was an auto. That "chip" is good for almost 100HP on chassis dynos (which I know you don't accept as admissible evidence). Longevity/reliability over the long term probably takes a hit but it is what it is.

Actually, it is pretty unreasonable. No one ever starts in 2nd if they have 1st - you'd get far better times simply taking it easy in 1st. The scant few cars that can pull off sub 4-sec 0-60 times in 1st gear have a lot more than ~380 hp and have at least a M/T, DSG or high stall converter slushy A/T.

[GoCougs]

100 hp from a chip? WTF?

On a turbo car it's not too out of the ordinary - "chipping" just cranks up the boost which cranks up the power. Of course, the engine won't last long at all, and there will be driveability issues (esp. big turbo lag), which many fail to mention/realize.

[12,000 RPM]

And neither is a sedan which is what I said...

I'm pretty sure they made E90 non ///M sedans...................................................