Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

Current generation BMW M3 to be last naturally aspirated M car

The writing's been on the wall for some time, but the fate of naturally aspirated M cars from BMW is all but sealed: forced induction is the future and the next M3 will come equipped with a turbocharged engine.

With next year's new emissions standards looming on the horizon, every automaker is looking to improve its fleet-wide fuel economy, and that means performance vehicles will be some of the first to undergo an EPA-mandated makeover.

For BMW, that means turbocharging and start-stop systems, two technologies that will boost the fuel economy of the all-new M5 by up to 25 percent when it goes on sale next spring.

Looking over BMW's current crop of M products, one vehicle stands alone in the induction department, and a source within BMW has told us that the E90/E92 M3's V8 will be the last naturally aspirated engine fitted to an M vehicle. While nearly every automaker has made tremendous strides to nearly eliminate turbo lag, the linear, low-end grunt of a turbo can't compare to the high-revving thrills of an NA powerplant. But the future is here and the future is forced induction.

Gallery:
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/bmw-m...ckage/#2704118

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/04/c...y-aspirated-m/

rai

I'm not gonna argue with BMW, but I love my engine in my M3.

I would point out that Ford is able to better the M3 power and TQ and fuel economy all at the same time with a NA engine. So I do not see why it can not be done by BMW. I assume the turbo would be easier and/or cheaper way to do it. However I don't think BMW should do it for being easier or cheaper but only if it's better than a NA engine.

I used to own a S2000 (2L) and Honda 'improved' the engine to 2.2L with more TQ. Some people said the new engine was better some didn't. The newer engine had more TQ but it was not necessarly a better engine.

I believe, people would say the current M3 is low on TQ, it has 295-TQ. However I don't really find it's an issue for me. I think the HP is fine as well. It does not overpower the car, it's a nice balance.

Some of my favorite cars of all time have not been super brute engine cars. Cars like the Porsche GT3, Acura NSX, Honda S2000, and the M3 have made out OK with less than planet turning TQ numbers.

Kira X

iTrader: (24)

This is pretty interesting. It sounds good to me if it means a large increase in power and fuel efficiency.

CDNROCKIES

This 25% increase in fuel economy is less than impressive when you look at what the real world numbers actually look like. If the E60 V10 M5 was rated at 12/18, that means the new F10 TTV8 is only looking at 15/22. Weak when compared to some of the other vehicles available today.

SLegacy99

Yes seeing as how the 5.0L IS-F managed 16/23. Nevertheless, it is an improvement.

MR_F1

The IS F would be short about 100hp on the BMW V10 though.

<VENOM>

impressive, gas mileage is the same as 20 years ago, I so thought there would be a drastic improvement

STIG

I think the engines are improving but at the same time, the cars are getting much heavier.

good thing they are killing this stupid V8 M3. who wants a RWD V8 coupe with proper 6 speed stick anyway?

LexFather

IS F also avoids gas guzzler tax.

What happened is these brands jumped into a HP war without thinking ten years down the line. If they made incremental HP improvements well it wouldn't be an issue. Instead.

200hp became the old 150
300hp became the old 200
400hp became the old 300
500hp became the old 400

I mean in 1995 a 993 Turbo had what 400hp. That is more than enough car and power for 99.9% of the people out there.

I said a long time ago getting more HP isn't really great engineering, its quite simple. Getting more MPG takes more engineering.

Then to top it off the cars all got bigger and heavier so now they NEED the hp. No one would want a de-contented lighter weight car. Not in numbers to be profitable.

I am also not convinced F/I is the answer. It adds complexity, weight and real world MPG seems to be far different then claimed MPG.

LOTUS is going to debut a bunch of heavy complicated cars for volume. Well they can thank the competition for going down this road.

Just think, the M3 went from an I-4 to I-6 to V-8! Now it will be a turbo!

MR_F1

Very unfair and inaccurate assessment.

LexFather

How? We have seen the lineup coming, a bunch of 3000 lbs plus cars including a big sedan and hardtop covert

joshthorsc

As much as I love force induction, I must say I will miss the n/a route in the M3. Maybe someday I will be able to upgrade to a e92 m3.

<VENOM>

forgot the obvious improvements and weight gain, but I like being able to buy an M car which is unique, which is what I thought BMW M was, now it just looks like Factory add on options, considering what some owners do to their cars, I would almost consider them custom M

so currently the new M5 is just suspension, chip/exhaust, body kit & wheels, like the M1 and eventually the next M3

Lets Drive

iTrader: (3)

Though based on numerous comments, I feel the F is underrated. I've never gotten 16/23 in any type of daily driving. It's more like 20/28, for me.

MR_F1

Don't mean to take the this off topic, but a vert and a big sedan are 2 of 6 cars. I don't see anything overly "complicated" about any of the cars in the lineup, but most importantly, three of the cars will be under 3000lbs (24xx, 28xx to be precise, no idea what the city car will weigh) and ALL are set to be lightest in their segment. That is why it's an unfair assessment IN MY OPINION.

That is all. Back to your regularly scheduled M3 thread. I think M3 should go back to being a relatively light weight turbo 4, but that's as likely as Lexus doing a twin turbo V8 GS F