• Next generation 2013 F80 M3 spotted testing - Triple turbo? V6? 450 horsepower? Already outgunned?

      BMW continues to test the 2013 F80 M3 which is no surprise as we should see it next year after all with the F30 3 Series having already made its debut. The real question is about the motor, what will it be? Yes, the V8 will be replaced and the motor will be turbocharged. Will it be a tweaked N55? Or will it be the rumored 3.3 liter tri-turbo V6 with 450 horsepower? No matter what the motor choice we should expect power in the 450 range which unfortunately leaves the M3 outgunned both in displacement, power, and tuning potential versus its rivals namely the C63 AMG the next generation of which should get the 5.5 liter twin turbo M157 V8 from AMG.









      This article was originally published in forum thread: Next generation 2013 F80 M3 spotted testing - Triple turbo? V6? 450 horsepower? Already outgunned? started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 67 Comments
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
        No, the big Mercs are pigs compared to the new M5. M5 beats E-series E63 AMG PP (performance package) clearly.

        Similarly, the new M3 will beat C63AMG.
        The M5 is heavier than the E63 I believe.

        The M5 likely doesn't beat the Performance Package E63.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by KB Click here to enlarge
        Yes, and unless they are going to use that same engine in the next M3, you argument is pointless...
        Nope, you were arguing it would be lighter because it is a 6 cylinder instead of 8 and my point was to show you that isn't necessarily evidence of potential weight.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
        What makes driving BMW enjoyable is the relatively low weight and agility compared to the competitors of the same era.
        Yep and unfortunately that is changing.
      1. 654's Avatar
        654 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The M5 is heavier than the E63 I believe. The M5 likely doesn't beat the Performance Package E63.
        M5 has beaten E63 AMG PP in all tracks so far.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
        M5 has beaten E63 AMG PP in all tracks so far.
        You mean roadcourse?
      1. DBFIU's Avatar
        DBFIU -
        who came up with V6 rumor anyway?
      1. 654's Avatar
        654 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        You mean roadcourse?
        Yes in Sachsenring and two Hockenheim layouts. M5 is faster in straight line as well though.
      1. fast4door's Avatar
        fast4door -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rezin23 Click here to enlarge
        If this indeed does come with a V6 I will leave the brand. This would offer nothing over the GTR.
        true...my next car is either gonna be the new M3 or the GTR..I would love drive another BMW, but the way things are shaping up, it looks like BMW isnt doing enough to keep me as a customer...unless of course I can afford the M5 Click here to enlarge
      1. fast4door's Avatar
        fast4door -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
        Yes in Sachsenring and two Hockenheim layouts. M5 is faster in straight line as well though.
        the M5 is faster in the 1/4 mile..after that the Merc starts catching up quickly...theres a vid somewhere here i think
      1. M3GTtt's Avatar
        M3GTtt -
        Guys, Please don't get too caught up in some peek HP numbers.. Peek HP is not what will give you performance. A good powerband will, and if BMW is thinking of a Tripple turbo its probably a compound system, two smaller and one bigger. Also, the days of the NA engine are over for any "normal" cars. Supercars will still have big NA engines and that is because the people that buy them do not care about consumption or polution taxes... BMW like Mercedes is going full on with smaller displacement and forced inducton because of regulation on consumption and polution (CO2 emissions). Don't knock the product before its here. Everyone has their favorite M, most of us have a favorite that is a NA engined car, because there is only one FI M-car out there to date and almost none of us have driven it yet (the F10M5).Todays Turbocharged BMW will have a better power delivery than any NA powered car, the ONLY downside I can see from a Turbo car is that you will always lilmit the "real" engine noise because of the rugged intake plenium design.The best sounding BMW ever.. the CSL, because of how open the intake plenium is
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by M3GTtt Click here to enlarge
        Guys, Please don't get too caught up in some peek HP numbers.. Peek HP is not what will give you performance. A good powerband will, and if BMW is thinking of a Tripple turbo its probably a compound system, two smaller and one bigger. Also, the days of the NA engine are over for any "normal" cars. Supercars will still have big NA engines and that is because the people that buy them do not care about consumption or polution taxes... BMW like Mercedes is going full on with smaller displacement and forced inducton because of regulation on consumption and polution (CO2 emissions). Don't knock the product before its here. Everyone has their favorite M, most of us have a favorite that is a NA engined car, because there is only one FI M-car out there to date and almost none of us have driven it yet (the F10M5).Todays Turbocharged BMW will have a better power delivery than any NA powered car, the ONLY downside I can see from a Turbo car is that you will always lilmit the "real" engine noise because of the rugged intake plenium design.The best sounding BMW ever.. the CSL, because of how open the intake plenium is
        $#@! compromising.
      1. M3GTtt's Avatar
        M3GTtt -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        $#@! compromising.
        Dirty word.. But unfortunatly we have to compromise.. just look at the weight of these monsters. Because of safety regulations they need to be heavy. Just imagine if Weight reduction had taken the same % steps as power has.. or even just 50%.

        15 years ago the EURO (real M3) E36 M3 had the S50B32 engine making 321hp and some 1550kg of weight.
        Today the E92 M3 has the S65 making 414hp and some 1650kg of weight..
        Just imagine the E92 M3 with 414hp which is about 30% more than the E36 and then with 1085kg Click here to enlarge , well lets settle for 50% of the power increase and compromise at 1300kg Now that would be serious!
        But unfortunatly this is not the relality, and the reality is more weight, more regulations, and this is why the new M3 has less unsprung weight and more power. The new one will have a much better powerband, less consumption, and hopefully less weight because of a 6cyl engine.

        Unfortunatly the 4liter S65 is 25% bigger in capacity than the S50B32, but ok its making a fiew more HP pr liter, but at 8400rpm.. which means consumption .. Anyone owning a S85 will tell you that they are experts on fuel station layouts.

        The S54B32 was generally considered to be 343hp (in europe) which is even better numbers than the S65 is putting out, and at 1000rpm less, the CSL is still the best performing Sxx motor, with 360hp from 3.2 Liters.

        Now porsche have made the RS 4.0 with 500hp .. so we have basically come to an end of what production NA petrol engines can push out.
      1. M3GTtt's Avatar
        M3GTtt -
        Actually.... if you take it a step further

        my favorite.. the CSL vas 3.2 liter and making 360hp, which is 112,5hp pr literS65 is 4.0 Liter making 414hp, which is 103.5hp pr literNormal S54B32 343hp, which is 107.1hp pr liter

        Now lets look at engines vs weight (and forget about the CSL for a moment)Normal equipment E46 weight 1600kg (ish)Normal equipment E92 weight 1650kg (ish) with carbon roof .. Thats a weight increase of only 3%But power pr liter goes down by 3.4% from the normal S54B32 and dowm by a whoping 8% on the S54B32 CSL vs S65

        I dont know if this is correct or where I am going with this.. S65 is a great motor.. not going to knock it,, but I would much rather see BMW come up with ideas to bring the weight back down to below 1500kg..

        What made the CSL so effective on tracks is not the additional 74 hp (or the glorious noise it makes, hope you guys over seas can hear one in your lifetime.. its out of this world)),

        What made the CSL so good is the 1370kg it weight compared to a fat 1600.

        So what we need is not more power, its less weight.

        What makes the E92M3 generally faster around tracks than the more powerfull C63AMG with the 6.2Liter, is definetly not the smaller peek HP number or the lack in torque compared,, it's the lard on the body of the C63AMG which kills it.
      1. Autobahn335i's Avatar
        Autobahn335i -
        Yep, exactly what I was saying in another thread. But you won't get Sticky to admit that the E9x M3 is a failure because it's just too damn heavy. For Sticky, the almighty S65 makes up for everything Click here to enlarge


        He's lucky not having to cope with european fuel prices... I don't even want to imagine how much a s/c S65 consumes...
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
        Yep, exactly what I was saying in another thread. But you won't get Sticky to admit that the E9x M3 is a failure because it's just too damn heavy. For Sticky, the almighty S65 makes up for everything Click here to enlarge

        He's lucky not having to cope with european fuel prices... I don't even want to imagine how much a s/c S65 consumes...
        My M3 is only about 100 pounds heavier than my E46 M3 was, big deal. The S65 is lighter than the S54. So how is it a failure exactly?

        The M3 GTS is also lighter than the E46 M3 was and is right there with the E36. So, I don't see what you guys are complaining about.
      1. inlineS54B32's Avatar
        inlineS54B32 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
        Yep, exactly what I was saying in another thread. But you won't get Sticky to admit that the E9x M3 is a failure because it's just too damn heavy. For Sticky, the almighty S65 makes up for everything Click here to enlarge


        He's lucky not having to cope with european fuel prices... I don't even want to imagine how much a s/c S65 consumes...
        I wouldn't go far enough to say it's a failure... In fact, I have owned the last two generations of M3's (no CSL - live in US) - and although the last generation was a bit more visceral, I would say this one makes up for things that the other lacked in other ways. Yes, the power/liter may not be as good as the S54b32 (haven't confirmed this - just reading posts above) - but the efficiency is higher (BSFC), and of course has a broader and higher power band... The entire car weighs only a few hundred pounds more than the last - so it is more than compensated by the new engine (as the numbers/track shows). Mine isn't supercharged - but at 55 (about 100km/h) - I am right at where the old M3 was. The fact is - I find myself averaging a MUCH higher speed in this car when I drive it - so, yes - overall efficiency isn't as good - but this is my fault for not driving it like it shouldn't be driven. Click here to enlarge

        If we go as far as saying the e9x series is a failure - then stick with an e46 330i instead of an e9x 335i... Same weight difference, but the 335i makes the power to compensate. How the M could be a failure and all other e9x cars not doesn't make a bit of sense.

        Also - where the S54b32 was "maxed out" - you can add about 35 rwhp to the current gen M3 with breathing upgrades and pulley. You could barely squeeze 10 out of the S54b32 without paying some serious cash.
      1. Autobahn335i's Avatar
        Autobahn335i -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
        How the M could be a failure and all other e9x cars not doesn't make a bit of sense.
        Of course all E9x suffer from the added weight. But the M3 is supposed to be the top of the line sports car in the lineup...big difference!
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
        Of course all E9x suffer from the added weight. But the M3 is supposed to be the top of the line sports car in the lineup...big difference!
        Why are you forgetting the M3 GTS or CSL? They are light, they handle, they kick ass.

        The E9X is nowhere near as heavy as you guys are making it. Also, the M3 has never been the top of the line sports car in the lineup. If it was they would have never made a Z8, Z4, M roadster/coupe, etc.
      1. Autobahn335i's Avatar
        Autobahn335i -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Why are you forgetting the M3 GTS or CSL? They are light, they handle, they kick ass.

        The E9X is nowhere near as heavy as you guys are making it. Also, the M3 has never been the top of the line sports car in the lineup. If it was they would have never made a Z8, Z4, M roadster/coupe, etc.
        Line up as within the 3 series...

        Of course I'm not forgetting the CSL, but isn't that an E46 Click here to enlarge

        And the GTS can't seriously be considered if we're talking about regular production models. Or would you compare the M3 to the C63 AMG Black Series?? Same counts for the M3 CRT. It handles even better, but for example the rear subframe is directly bolted on to the chassis. No one would want to drive such a car on a normal street, unless your wife is a chiropractor Click here to enlarge

        Bottom line: an M3 DCT, even with the S65, and weighing 1500kgs would be a winner in my book. Unfortunately it weighs a whopping 150kgs more.

        For comparison: my 335i with very moderate wight reduction (Performance seats, M3 suspension parts front and rear) weighs 1600kg with a half tank and no driver. On small, curvy racetracks I get my ass handed to me by lightweight cars as Honda S2000, stripped E46 M3s... despite 450bhp in my car. Adding power only goes so far. Less weight is what makes you fast on a racetrack.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
        Of course I'm not forgetting the CSL, but isn't that an E46
        Uh, ya, it is and it was the best performing M3 out there until the GTS...

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
        And the GTS can't seriously be considered if we're talking about regular production models.
        Why not? It shows what the M3 can be.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
        Or would you compare the M3 to the C63 AMG Black Series?? Same counts for the M3 CRT. It handles even better, but for example the rear subframe is directly bolted on to the chassis. No one would want to drive such a car on a normal street, unless your wife is a chiropractor
        The C63 Black Series isn't relevant to this discussion. The GTS is brought up to show you that your weight comments regarding the E9X are overblown.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
        Bottom line: an M3 DCT, even with the S65, and weighing 1500kgs would be a winner in my book. Unfortunately it weighs a whopping 150kgs more.
        The GTS weighs under 1500 kg, has a DCT, and a larger displacement S65. So, uh, major winner in your book?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
        For comparison: my 335i with very moderate wight reduction (Performance seats, M3 suspension parts front and rear) weighs 1600kg with a half tank and no driver. On small, curvy racetracks I get my ass handed to me by lightweight cars as Honda S2000, stripped E46 M3s... despite 450bhp in my car. Adding power only goes so far. Less weight is what makes you fast on a racetrack.
        An X5M just beat a 335is around VIR by over 2 seconds. The Nissan GTR is a heavy pig and spanks many lighter cars on the race track. Power is a big part of the equation as is weight but I think you are blowing it out of proportion.