Close

    • More 2014 BMW F82 M4 spyphotos and further details including targeting E46 M3 weight

      More and more F82 M4 (new M3 coupe) testing photos are making their way onto the internet. What we know since we last saw the car testing is that under the hood there is a turbocharged six cylinder featuring a water/air intercooler. Rumors flying around suggest that BMW is targeting E46 M3 weight for the F80 M3 which is at least a step in the right direction considering how heavy new BMW models are getting.

      No new M cars have shown any weight reduction over their previous models and in the case of the new F10 M5 in particular they have shown a severe weight gain. The news of BMW targeting E46 M3 curb weight figures has a lot of enthusiasts rejoicing although the E9X M3 really only weighed in the 35XX range meaning it was only heavier than the E46 M3 by about 150 pounds.

      It is likely that the new F80 M3 and F82 M4 will not undercut the E46 and it is doubtful there will be much if any improvement on the weight of the E92 M3 but judgement is reserved until it is here. Just don't start buying into the hype/rumors as BMW models have gotten very, very fat despite promises of Efficient Dynamics and lightweight materials.













      This article was originally published in forum thread: More 2014 BMW F82 M4 spyphotos and further details including targeting E46 M3 weight started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 52 Comments
      1. singletrack's Avatar
        singletrack -
        Should be a great car. I just hope they tune the exhaust a bit. It sounded like $#@! in the last video I heard...
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        Then why is BMW adding it?
        Because the car is turbocharged and not naturally aspirated?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BlackJetE90OC Click here to enlarge
        The tq kinda just comes with the turbo powerplant they are developing because they are obsessed with efficient dynamics.
        Exactly.
      1. bobS's Avatar
        bobS -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Because the car is turbocharged and not naturally aspirated?
        No, just bc it's NA doesn't mean the engine has to be torque-less. Case in point, the ford 5.0, 420hp, 390tq

        They are going with a turbo motor bc it will give them the same or better hp, gobs of tq, and better fuel economy. The s65 lacks all those features. And until we see the final engine, it's all speculation.

        But every m3 has been bmw's attempt to create a well balanced car that can be used for the track and the street. I remember everyone crying about the v8, "how dare BMW drop a v8 into the m3, it's going away from it's straight 6!" Lol
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        No, just bc it's NA doesn't mean the engine has to be torque-less. Case in point, the ford 5.0, 420hp, 390tq
        That's a bigger motor. You have to have more displacement.

        The M3 has VERY good torque per cc and 90% is available at 1800 rpm. A very wide and flat powerband that allows for far greater torque multiplication. Crank torque doesn't mean quite as much as you think it does that is why we have gears.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        The s65 lacks all those features.
        No, the new motor is lacking features like individual throttle bodies, a high redline, and amazing response.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        I remember everyone crying about the v8, "how dare BMW drop a v8 into the m3, it's going away from it's straight 6!" Lol
        Those people are idiots.
      1. DarkPhantom's Avatar
        DarkPhantom -
        As optimistic as we want to be, we won't know until it is official Click here to enlarge I hope it is closer to the E46 weight, though.
      1. bobS's Avatar
        bobS -
        My point is, people cried when BMW went away from the 4 cylinder, they protested when they went away from the inline 6 and now they are crying for going away from the v8.

        E30 m3 - 197hp/177lbs tq

        E36 m3 - 240hp/225 lbs tq , 236lbs tq on later models

        Just bc it's NA, doesn't mean it should be tq-less, the early m3's weren't. I've driven the e92 m3, it's a great car, but in stock form, compared to other sports cars available, it's slow. The earlier m3's were fast well beyond the years they were first introduced.
      1. Itsbrokeagain's Avatar
        Itsbrokeagain -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        My point is, people cried when BMW went away from the 4 cylinder, they protested when they went away from the inline 6 and now they are crying for going away from the v8.

        E30 m3 - 197hp/177lbs tq

        E36 m3 - 240hp/225 lbs tq , 236lbs tq on later models

        Just bc it's NA, doesn't mean it should be tq-less, the early m3's weren't. I've driven the e92 m3, it's a great car, but in stock form, compared to other sports cars available, it's slow. The earlier m3's were fast well beyond the years they were first introduced.

        This. Im used to a surge of 300ft/lbs by 1500 rpm. If you went and dogged an M3 in 2nd gear, it definitely isnt as fast from down low as a 335 is.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        I've driven the e92 m3, it's a great car, but in stock form, compared to other sports cars available, it's slow. The earlier m3's were fast well beyond the years they were first introduced.
        Uh, what?

        The E36 M3 had 321 horses and definitely was fast and ahead of its time. The E46 M3 just upped the power slightly and was behind the 996 GT3, C5 Z06, Ferrari 355, Gallardo, E55 AMG, 03 Cobra, among others if I had to not just pick off the top of my head. These two M3's also had to be revved out, just like the S65. So not sure what you makes you think the early M3's were torque monsters, they weren't.

        The M3 is slow? Really? The DCT is just as fast as the C63 AMG yet that car isn't considered slow but the M3 is? It runs mid 12's stock, what is slow about it? It was just about as quick as the early GT500's with 5.4 liter supercharged motors and provided the same ET but less MPH through the 1/4 than an E60 M5.

        It's faster than a Jaguar XKR, Porsche Carrera (at the time), LS2 C6, Mustang GT, Audi RS4, Audi R8, Camaro SS, Porsche Cayman, Lotus Evora, Mercedes SL55, Nissan 370Z, etc. So what are you talking about?

        What's so slow about it? This always comes from 335 owners who want to talk about torque when the M3 is faster than they realize to begin with.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Itsbrokeagain Click here to enlarge
        This. Im used to a surge of 300ft/lbs by 1500 rpm. If you went and dogged an M3 in 2nd gear, it definitely isnt as fast from down low as a 335 is.
        It's actually faster but the power delivery is smoother, no lag to make you think it's faster than it is. Your butt dynos aren't as well calibrated as the mathematics behind the torque:

        Attachment 21544

        Attachment 21545
      1. bobS's Avatar
        bobS -
        I'm talking about the us e36 m3, your quoting the e36 euro m3, and your right, they weren't tq monsters but way more balanced. How can adding more tq to the next gen m3 make it worse? You act like everything after the s65 will suck, if anything it make the next gen m3 that much better and return it to a car that will dominate much more expensive sports cars.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        lol at the PG style graphs to prove tq again, and not a dyno that measure the force at the wheels..s in fact directly measures tq at the wheels.. which is exactly whats applied to the road..
      1. whoosh's Avatar
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        they weren't tq monsters but way more balanced.
        Huh? Way more balanced how?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        How can adding more tq to the next gen m3 make it worse? You act like everything after the s65 will suck, if anything it make the next gen m3 that much better and return it to a car that will dominate much more expensive sports cars.
        No you are acting like a car has to have turbos to have torque. I didn't say which was better or worse.

        The M3 never dominated much more expensive sports cars so sorry you are mistaken and the E92 fairs quite well as already illustrated.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        lol at the PG style graphs to prove tq again, and not a dyno that measure the force at the wheels..s in fact directly measures tq at the wheels.. which is exactly whats applied to the road..
        You never have understood gearing and you still don't.

        You don't have the same torque in every gear or at every RPM point. It's multiplied in every gear.

        If crank torque was the be all end all we would all drive diesels. Please try to understand the math and why the M3 is faster than other cars with more crank torque.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by whoosh Click here to enlarge
        People just don't get it.
      1. bobS's Avatar
        bobS -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Huh? Way more balanced how?



        No you are acting like a car has to have turbos to have torque. I didn't say which was better or worse.

        The M3 never dominated much more expensive sports cars so sorry you are mistaken and the E92 fairs quite well as already illustrated.
        No, I have been saying a NA engine can have plenty of tq, I even gave examples, including the US e36 m3, but the s65 doesn't have a lot of tq, thankfully BMW is changing that.

        The e36 m3 used to hang with many cars more expensive in it's day, Porsche was a rival. Now the 911 craps all over the e9x m3. Remember that poster of the best handling car in America?

        I used to drool over the e36 m3, in it's production years it was a very very capable / quick car.

        I think this next gen m3 will put it back with the big boys (z06, gtr, 911 turbo,etc)..... least I'm hoping
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        No, I have been saying a NA engine can have plenty of tq, I even gave examples, including the US e36 m3, but the s65 doesn't have a lot of tq, thankfully BMW is changing that.
        You are not making any sense. Please explain to me how the S50 has plenty of torque but the S65 doesn't?

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        The e36 m3 used to hang with many cars more expensive in it's day, Porsche was a rival. Now the 911 craps all over the e9x m3. Remember that poster of the best handling car in America?
        That was handling not acceleration performance. Are you not aware of the fact the E92 M3 is faster around Laguna Seca than the 997 Carrera? It thread 997 fans in a tizzy when that was revealed in a comparison. The 991 is a new generation so not fair to compare it. The E92 M3 handles very well.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        I think this next gen m3 will put it back with the big boys (z06, gtr, 911 turbo,etc).
        The M3 was never in the league of those big boys you just mentioned performance wise. Maybe the earlier GTR's but those were not like the current car.
      1. bobS's Avatar
        bobS -
        I'm comparing cars of thier time to each other, when you look at fast cars back when the e36 m3 was in production, the e36 m3 was a bargain in price and was as quick, handled the same or better. The gap has widened now days...the e9x m3 needs more power in stock form.

        The s50 (us version) had almost as much tq as hp, the s65 doesn't...get it? My fbo 335 has more tq than hp...the new m3 will have almost as much tq as hp, that's my point.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by bobS Click here to enlarge
        The s50 (us version) had almost as much tq as hp, the s65 doesn't...get it?
        You go by torque to hp? Really?

        73.75 pound-feet per liter for the E36 M3 in the USA. 75 pound-feet per liter for the S65 V8.

        More torque per liter yet the S65 V8 also has more hp per liter at 103.5 hp per liter and a wider powerband with a much higher redline. AND it has more % of its peak torque available at lower RPM.

        So what are you talking about? The only reason the E36 M3 had torque closer to its HP is because it's a smaller motor with less horsepower.