BMW M Division Planning Hi-po Three-Cylinder And More: Report

[AVANTI R5]

• 

The future of BMW's M performance division could include electromechanical steering, a tighter connection with BMW's core engine architecture... and a three-cylinder mill producing as much as 231kW.
Speaking with Car & Driver, BMW M's Friedrich Nitschke revealed a number of key plans for the German carmaker's legendary performance arm.
Mr Nitschke said that future M Division cars will be less likely to get their own unique engine architecture, instead utilising massively worked-over versions of BMW's powertrains.

“At the core of their architecture, our engines will be closer to BMW AG engines,” Mr Nitschke said.
“But they will be optimized for the specific needs of M customers, so we can still essentially speak of standalone engines.”

As for electromechanical power steering systesms, Nitschke believes the technology is now suitably advanced to warrant its use in M models.

“Without confirming any product speculation, it is safe to assume that we will offer electromechanical power steering in the future,” Mr Nitschke said.
“The technology is now fully on par with a good hydraulic power-steering system.”

Mr Nitschke went on to rule out all-wheel-drive in most future M Division cars, for now, saying that feedback from customers would determine if it ever eventuated.

“Our customers are very happy with rear-wheel drive. For those who think otherwise, we offer the X5 M and X6 M and our M Performance models,” Mr Nitschke said.

And, speaking on BMW's new 1.5 litre three-cylinder engine range, Mr Nitschke claims his division can screw as much as 23kW from the new mill.

“It is possible to reach around 185 to 200 horsepower per litre (138 to 149kW) in a forced-induction three-cylinder and we have 1.5 litres of displacement,” Mr Nitschke said.
“Such an engine - which, by the way, sounds very similar to a six-cylinder engine - would have over 310 horsepower (231Kw), and we are not even at the limit there.”
“Generally speaking, I could imagine such an engine.”

Generally speaking, we can hardly wait.

* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.

[arghx7]

a mass production 300 horsepower 3 cylinder engine would require very expensive components. Who would pay that kind of money for a 3 cylinder?

[alphaomega0]

Originally Posted by arghx7

a mass production 300 horsepower 3 cylinder engine would require very expensive components. Who would pay that kind of money for a 3 cylinder?

forget about the money, what kind of weak sauce power band would a 3 cylinder have?

[SoapBox]

Originally Posted by arghx7

a mass production 300 horsepower 3 cylinder engine would require very expensive components. Who would pay that kind of money for a 3 cylinder?

People who don't associate cylinder count with dick size?

If it makes good power, has a decent power band, is light, efficient, etc.

Why wouldn't you?

[SoapBox]

Originally Posted by alphaomega0

forget about the money, what kind of weak sauce power band would a 3 cylinder have?

Why would it necessarily have a 'weak sauce' powerband simply because it's a 3 cylinder? Did you mean to say because it's only a 1.5l? Cylinder count means nothing, size however, does.

With modern turbocharging, DI, etc. I bet it wouldn't feel much different just off idle, than, say, an EJ20 out of an early WRX. People seemed to be OK with that.

Driven a modern 2.0T recently? They've come a long long way. I doubt the loss of a half liter would make it undriveable at low RPMS in a reasonably-sized car.

[Calamity Jesus]

Originally Posted by alphaomega0

forget about the money, what kind of weak sauce power band would a 3 cylinder have?

The 3 cylinder I own is renown for it's electric motor-like grunt from idle to redline.

[bal00]

Originally Posted by alphaomega0

forget about the money, what kind of weak sauce power band would a 3 cylinder have?

The same 'weak sauce' power band as a 6-cylinder with twice the power?

[WRXHillClimb]

You're all thinking wrong. This is the M division. Their priorities should be engine harmonics > packaging. They took the perfect engine config and halved it. Does that mean its only half perfect now? I think so

This animation shows it perfectly. Balance shaft. Instantaneous revocation of proper engine design.

BMW 1.5 Liter 3 Cylinder TwinPower Turbo Engine Animation - YouTube

BMW 1.5 Liter 3 Cylinder TwinPower Turbo Engine Animation - YouTube

[merlot]

Originally Posted by Calamity Jesus

The 3 cylinder I own is renown for it's electric motor-like grunt from idle to redline.

Ditto! This thing pulls like a freight train from as low as 2K RPM all the way up to redline @ 10K. And the music it makes getting there...

[SWP n Gold]

I like the idea of it sounding like a 6-cylinder too. Kind of like how an I5 sounds like a V10.

[DeeezNuuuts83]

Originally Posted by SoapBox

People who don't associate cylinder count with dick size?

If it makes good power, has a decent power band, is light, efficient, etc.

Why wouldn't you?

I think you missed his point. He was saying that for a three-cylinder engine to have that kind of output likely isn't going to be a cheap engine to produce. It's like the discussion about Ford's twin-turbo V-6 vs. their NA V-6. Sure, the twin-turbo is smaller, has a more impressive engine output and better fuel economy, but it's not a cheap engine to produce.

[SCRAPPYDO]

As opposed to all those other cheap M engines.

[SoapBox]

Originally Posted by DeeezNuuuts83

I think you missed his point. He was saying that for a three-cylinder engine to have that kind of output likely isn't going to be a cheap engine to produce. It's like the discussion about Ford's twin-turbo V-6 vs. their NA V-6. Sure, the twin-turbo is smaller, has a more impressive engine output and better fuel economy, but it's not a cheap engine to produce.

No, I got that point. His second sentence, "who would pay all that for a 3 cylinder".

People should pay for performance, efficiency, etc. Expensive motors are expensive, regardless of the cylinder count. If the motor isn't a good value, it isn't a good value regardless of the cylinder count.

The fact that it only has 3 cylinders is irrelevant, unless you have cylinder envy.

If he said "who would pay all that for a motor", I wouldn't have said anything.

[neg_matnik]

Originally Posted by merlot

Ditto! This thing pulls like a freight train from as low as 2K RPM all the way up to redline @ 10K. And the music it makes getting there...

Low end grunt of a V-twin and top end of an I4: the best of both worlds !

[Evil STI]

If this 3 cylinder is part of a total 'adding lightness' formula for the platform it's paired with, then I am all for it.

If it sounds anything like a Triumph Speed Triple, yummy OMG.

[SoapBox]

On the cost front, I'm not even sure it's a valid point.

Of course, higher revving, higher tech (F/I, etc.) engines compared to simpler ones, OF THE SAME CONFIGURATION, are going to be more expensive.

However, with the reduction of parts, material, etc. with the tiny 3, who knows how much more expensive, if any, it would be to produce compared to a larger engine with a different configuration.

[bal00]

Look at the N20 in the *28i models. That's a mass market 2.0T 4-cyl that puts out something like 270 hp and makes peak torque at 1250 rpm. A 1.5T 3-cyl version of this engine (which is what he's talking about) would still make a little over 200 hp, have the same power curve and would not cost megabucks to make.

Suggesting that an M version of this engine could make 37-50% more power doesn't seem like a huge stretch to me.

[Skylab]

I miss my Tiger. Three cylinder hot-knife-thru-butter power band. Point of article: High Performance three cylinder. Sounds f'n good to me.

[arghx7]

Originally Posted by bal00

Look at the N20 in the *28i models. That's a mass market 2.0T 4-cyl that puts out something like 270 hp and makes peak torque at 1250 rpm. A 1.5T 3-cyl version of this engine (which is what he's talking about) would still make a little over 200 hp, have the same power curve and would not cost megabucks to make.

Suggesting that an M version of this engine could make 37-50% more power doesn't seem like a huge stretch to me.

You're off by about 50 horsepower... the newest 4 cylinders don't make 270.

[Evil STI]

Originally Posted by arghx7

You're off by about 50 horsepower... the newest 4 cylinders don't make 270.

In the Z4, it makes 240hp/260tq. Wish that came in a 1er.

[GooseMan]

Originally Posted by merlot

Ditto! This thing pulls like a freight train from as low as 2K RPM all the way up to redline @ 10K. And the music it makes getting there...

<----Ditto both of you! Our "weaksauce" 3-cyl makes approx 135hp in naturally aspirated, 1050cc (1 liter) form.

[bal00]

Originally Posted by arghx7

You're off by about 50 horsepower... the newest 4 cylinders don't make 270.

I should have said 'in the real world'. They're rated at 240 hp at the crank, and they dyno at 240 whp...on 91 octane.



http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...no-tested.html

[SWP n Gold]

Originally Posted by bal00

I should have said 'in the real world'. They're rated at 240 hp at the crank, and they dyno at 240 whp...on 91 octane.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...no-tested.html

Yeah multiple places have shown 230whp stock for the N20 motor. That's like 275bhp if you figure 17% drivetrain loss.