Quote:
Originally Posted by kmarei
Not really
BMW M cars were known to have fantastic naturally aspirated engines
It was their heart. It was their selling point.
Now the M3/M4 is turning into a souped up 335/435
I can't justify paying close to $20,000 more for the M4 vs a 435
On what is essentially, the same engine with a higher tune
I didn't feel that with the E92 M3.
I knew I had a custom built engine, that had something special (8400rpm redline)
Is the new engine any better than the 335/435 engine with an aggressive tune?
To me the new M4 is a car is have to be convinced to buy
E92 with the V8 didn't need any convincing 
To me, turbos are the dumb mans path to high horsepower.
Making high horsepower WITHOUT turbos is much harder, and in my opinion
Much more rewarding when you drive it
I've driven the new M5, and yes it's a very good engine
But in no way does it compare with the S65 or S85
The best thing about the alfa is the weight
Not many cars that weigh close to 2000 pounds
Heck my 25 year old M3 weighs 2700 with similar power to the alfa |
It's hard to argue with the viewpoint that the heart of an M-car is the engine. With the original M3 being built around the S14, which traces its heritage to the M12, it's an undeniable part of M-history. Unfortunately, if you link your concept of penultimate automotive performance to the naturally aspirated engineering philosophy, you've anchored yourself in the past. Enthusiast's desires have taken a back seat to environmental concerns. I'm not sure what anyone expects BMW M GmbH to do about that?
It's really puzzling to me that you give Alfa a pass on the engine in the 4C, but dismiss the M3/4 as "the same engine with a higher tune"; which isn't factual, btw. The engine in the 4C is an aluminum block turbocharged I4. There's nothing particularly exotic about it. The S55 is based on an ultra-lightweight block design, plus it gets some significant upgrades, including a forged crank and lightweight pistons. It also gets upgrades in the cooling and oil cooling/delivery departments. Tracking the N55 often results in limp mode because the engine sub-systems aren't made for that type of duty. I don't think the S55 is going to suffer from those issues.
To say that turbochargers are the "dumb man's" path to horsepower is just ignorant. I'm sorry, but there's nothing "dumb" about building a turbocharged engine that delivers usable performance. If anything, turbocharging significantly complicates engine design. Turbochargers have a fairly complex set of fluid dynamics that must be matched to the engine displacement and target operating RPM range. Not to mention all the other crazy shit that happens when you pressurize the intake charge and put a turbine in the exit path of the exhaust. Sure, it's easy to throw up huge peak numbers on a dyno, but it's just as easy to end up with a car that triples it's torque in a 1000 RPM range. Driving a car like that is miserable. It requires unrelenting focus.
I'm eager to hear what the automotive press has to say about the S55. The character of a naturally aspirated engine will be missed, to be sure, but there are plenty of things to like about the character of a turbocharged engine. No race car driver ever said, "Gee, I wish this car had less usable torque on corner exit."
With high-revving, naturally aspirated engines made impossible by emissions and fuel economy regulations, my hope is that BMW M's focus returns to chassis development. The M3/M4 is a transitional car. There are CFRP components, but as we've seen in the rumors, weight isn't anywhere near lightweight, but if the 3300-3400 lb curb weight holds true, it will be a step in the right direction (considering that the car got larger and lost weight). I'm holding out hope that the new carbon tub chassis Z3 and rumored CFRP heavy M2 will bring us back to weight ranges that really feel tossable. Automotive engineers have become extremely good at tuning suspensions to hide weight, so I can only imagine what they'll be able to do with a truly lightweight car.