E90 M3/4 engine....

[Bruce]

My guess....the E90 M3/4 engine will be a 4L V8.....DUH huh?

My other guess is it will be an E60 M5 minus 2 cylinders. E60 M5 5L V10 - 2 cylinders = 4L V8. 80% of 500hp V10 = 400 hp.

There is a precedent for BMW doing this....E24/28 M5/6 => E30 M3 (same engine minus 2 cylinders.

Or have I stated the obvious?

[Alex Baumann]

That's what I think too. V8 and 400 hp.

I'm not sure whether it'll be an E60M5 engine minus 2 cylinders though, since the engine is completely a different breed than the engines we have seen so far.

I'm guessing that the new V8 will be completely new.

[JST]

My guess....the E90 M3/4 engine will be a 4L V8.....DUH huh?

My other guess is it will be an E60 M5 minus 2 cylinders. E60 M5 5L V10 - 2 cylinders = 4L V8. 80% of 500hp V10 = 400 hp.

There is a precedent for BMW doing this....E24/28 M5/6 => E30 M3 (same engine minus 2 cylinders.

Or have I stated the obvious?


What's the Vee angle on the V10?

[Bruce]

What's the Vee angle on the V10?

*shrug*...from the pics I have seen it looks like 90. Can't recall that I have actually read what the angle will be.

[Bruce]

90 degrees per this page: http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/bmw-m5-v10-engine.htm

'The twin five-cylinder banks of the V10 are arranged at an angle of 90° to achieve a mass balance of the crankshaft drive, optimised for low vibration and increased comfort. "

[JST]

90 degrees per this page: http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/bmw-m5-v10-engine.htm

'The twin five-cylinder banks of the V10 are arranged at an angle of 90° to achieve a mass balance of the crankshaft drive, optimised for low vibration and increased comfort. "


That would make a natural V-8, then. I think your theory about the M3 having 4/5ths of an M5 engine is likely dead-on.

[Bruce]

That would make a natural V-8, then. I think your theory about the M3 having 4/5ths of an M5 engine is likely dead-on.

well everything fits from what we have heard...4L v8 with 400hp. Would seem to me it should also be at least as high rev-ing as the V10 no? I am no engineer but I would think I would rev to what the V10 would, maybe more unless there are some bad harmonics.

The V8 they put in the M3 GTR is a 4L unit...dunno if they are working on trying to make that unit to where it can be a production unit. I seem to recall reading that that wasn't possible at the time....now maybe? *shrug*

[ChrisB]

With the upcoming proposal for changes in F1 next year and the V8 engine included in that. BMW could do a lot of PR like F1 derive components with the upcoming M3 as they are doing with the V10 M5.

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/index.html

[vegasm3]

That sounds great! Sound like BMW is comming out with CLK 55 spanker! :banana: :supdude: When is that engine going to be available for the M3?

[Bruce]

That sounds great! Sound like BMW is comming out with CLK 55 spanker! :banana: :supdude: When is that engine going to be available for the M3?

Next generation...E90. Likely late 2006/early 2007.

[TGray5]

Sounds logical...but why not just use the e39 M5 motor....that has 400 hp and is proven. :dunno:

[SONET]

Sounds logical...but why not just use the e39 M5 motor....that has 400 hp and is proven. :dunno:
I agree, but at the same time I'd be surprised if they didn't include valvetronic. Putting a motor without Valvetronic in a new design meant to last 6-7 years just seems backwards to me. :dunno:

Then again, I would guess that the marketing department woudn't want the M3/4 to have so much power as to be significantly quicker than the M5. Otherwise how could they price the M5 higher than the M3 and possibly be able to sell it? :rolleyes:

--SONET

[andy_thomas]

Sounds logical...but why not just use the e39 M5 motor....that has 400 hp and is proven. :dunno:
Emissions.

[andy_thomas]

I agree, but at the same time I'd be surprised if they didn't include valvetronic. Putting a motor without Valvetronic in a new design meant to last 6-7 years just seems backwards to me. :dunno:

Valvetronic now works up to around 7,000 rpm. I would expect the M cars to rev higher than that, and making Valvetronic work at very high revs is extremely difficult. Also Valvetronic means there is no throttle cable, because there is no throttle. I wonder - does the current M3 still have a trad throttle cable, or did BMW manage to adequately mimic the action and feel of a traditional cable using DBW?

Then again, I would guess that the marketing department woudn't want the M3/4 to have so much power as to be significantly quicker than the M5. Otherwise how could they price the M5 higher than the M3 and possibly be able to sell it? :rolleyes:

Valvetronic has little do do with huge power, and almost everything to do with greater economy and lower emissions at sane speeds. Besides, to get the M3 to be quicker than a 507 bhp M5 - given how heavy the next M3 is going to be - it would need turbochargers and NOS to keep up, not Valvetronic!

[Chris90]

Is the M3 sedan confirmed? I thought that was just rumor.

[JPinTO]

Wasn't the 4L hp number at 380 instead of 400?

[JST]

Valvetronic now works up to around 7,000 rpm. I would expect the M cars to rev higher than that, and making Valvetronic work at very high revs is extremely difficult. Also Valvetronic means there is no throttle cable, because there is no throttle. I wonder - does the current M3 still have a trad throttle cable, or did BMW manage to adequately mimic the action and feel of a traditional cable using DBW?

Valvetronic has little do do with huge power, and almost everything to do with greater economy and lower emissions at sane speeds. Besides, to get the M3 to be quicker than a 507 bhp M5 - given how heavy the next M3 is going to be - it would need turbochargers and NOS to keep up, not Valvetronic!

I've read that Valvetronic will not be a feature on M cars, probably because of the rev issue.

The M3 has DBW, which is how they do the "Sport" mode on the throttle. It doesn't mimic a throttle cable exactly, but it's not terrible.

[Chris90]

I've read that Valvetronic will not be a feature on M cars, probably because of the rev issue.

The M3 has DBW, which is how they do the "Sport" mode on the throttle. It doesn't mimic a throttle cable exactly, but it's not terrible.

I noticed the new 3.0L Valvetronic has a 500 rpm higher redline though, that's a good sign.

[Kaz]

Valvetronic needs one more iteration before it goes in a S motor (BTW, do we have a S designation for the V10 yet?). With Valvetronic I (N42, N62, N73) and Valvetronic II (R6) focusing on getting the key workings of the concept down with its modest power and efficiency gains, it might be time for Valvetronic III to take those concepts and concentrate on the performance aspects. In terms of what Valvetronic could theoretically do, it seems easily feasible to tune it to optimize for power, in much the same way that Honda has developed different versions of VTEC to do everyting from help with stratified-charge (lean burn) to 9000RPM specific output monsters.

We know the V10 isn't getting valvetronic, but I think it's entirely possible for the E90M3 to get it, along with a new long block along the lines of the R6. Considering that the N62 V8 valvetronic's block is essentially carryover from the M62, there's plenty of reason to be developing a new long block based on design and materials of the R6, and upgrading its valvetronic sytem to V.II. So if you've speculated this far, it's not that hard to imagine that it's possible that by the time the E90M3 debuts (MY07?) that a 'R8' block with Sport-Valvetronic III will be sitting under the hood, then the V10 can be fitted with the same valvetronic after that.

[armaq]

Whatever the new V8 will be it better revs all the way to 8500. Like the Ferrari's do. A low revving V8 is just so not BMW M

[Mpire]

Hmmm.... I bet they take the current 3.5l V8 and punch it out to 3.8l or so. Then you will have about 380hp... Its gotta stay small to save weight...

Bring on the M2!

[Kaz]

Hmmm.... I bet they take the current 3.5l V8 and punch it out to 3.8l or so. Then you will have about 380hp... Its gotta stay small to save weight...

Bring on the M2!

This won't save weight, considering the N62 3.5 V8 is the 4.4 block. I don't know if the difference is a bore, stroke, or both, but I would assume it would have more metal than the 4.4

[Mpire]

Maybe so...

[needanevo]

The new M3 engine will be the same V8 that is contained in the E39 M5 (394 bhp) . Hate to burst your bubbles. On the regular E90 the Block will be Magneisium and will use Aluminum bolts to hold prefrials on the engine. Any Engine work that is needed will require the use of new bolts. (cost effictive?) The claim of BMW is that it saves 5 pounds. I can't wait to have to work on these and get used to snapping every bolt on the engine.

[blueguydotcom]

The new M3 engine will be the same V8 that is contained in the E39 M5 (394 bhp) . Hate to burst your bubbles. On the regular E90 the Block will be Magneisium and will use Aluminum bolts to hold prefrials on the engine. Any Engine work that is needed will require the use of new bolts. (cost effictive?) The claim of BMW is that it saves 5 pounds. I can't wait to have to work on these and get used to snapping every bolt on the engine.

That flies in the face of what everyone is reporting. I consistently have read the v8 will be a 4.0 that will be little more than the M5's v10 with two fewer cylinders. :dunno:

[Cowboy Bebop]

BMW AG recently said that it catagorically will not be the current E39 V8, but likely the V10 less 2 cylinders.

[eluder]

BMW AG recently said that it catagorically will not be the current E39 V8, but likely the V10 less 2 cylinders.


The top rags confirm that the engine will be an 8-cyl version of the M5's V10.

[Mpire]

Keep in mind the original M3 was just two cylinders lopped off the M5/M6 engine.

[Mpire]

Or was it the M1?

[Roan]

(BTW, do we have a S designation for the V10 yet?)

Yup, S65

[Bruce]

Or was it the M1?

Same basic engine.

[Pinecone]

Keep in mind the original M3 was just two cylinders lopped off the M5/M6 engine.

Not quite.

The prototype was the M10 block of the 2002/320i with a head from a S58 with two cylinders lopped off.

Of course production engines were head manufactured with only 4 cylinders. But still the M10 block.

The M10 block was pretty impressive as it was also the basis of the turbo F1 engine at over 1000HP.

[vrafM3]

Wasn't the 4L hp number at 380 instead of 400?

this is a page of a german car magazine... even if i am not german, PS stands for HP, so if the info is correct, the M3 will have 401HP..

[bol]

this is a page of a german car magazine... even if i am not german, PS stands for HP, so if the info is correct, the M3 will have 401HP..


Well, no, PS does not directly equal HP. PS is a German unit of measurement and is also used in France(called CV). It's the same as metric hp(mhp). It's fairly close to SAE hp but not equal.

Power
1 hp ~= 0.745 699 9 kW
1 hp ~= 1.013 869 metric hp / Pferdestarke (PS) / cavalli / chevaux (CV)
1 PS ~= 0.735 498 8 kW
Torque

1 lb-ft ~= 1.355 818 Nm ~= 0.138 255 0 kg.m
1 kg-m = 9.806 65 Nm


So we're looking at 395.5hp if that figure is correct, but we all know how reliable auto rags are...

[Bruce]

I was spot on on the engine....let's see how close I get to MSRP.