[adc]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Neither was turbocharging in the 1980s. What that era needed was computerized management, the computing power for which simply wasn't available. Turbos were pretty much on or off propositions, as your response partially describes in terms of the power gains it supplied to engines already limited in size. Thanks to engine management software now, it's viable again -- and battery/regen technology will progress in a somewhat similar way.



"Nothing else" is absolutely false. It was also a solution for engine fuel efficiency as related to power, both on race circuits (less pit stops = better chance to win) and in the commercial world. In that regard, turbos were also a social response: to make smaller, fuel-efficient cars that dominated the mass market (and some exotic markets: Think Lotus Espirit and Renault Alpine) faster. Isn't that what hybridization also doing now for some (and, by all accounts, more to come -- including Bugatti, which is why I mentioned it )?

(Don't forget that forced induction existed in most formula racing, including Formula 1, from its inception. For the first couple of decades there were two engine 'formulas' allowed: one NA, the other supercharged. Forced induction was nothing new to formula racing in the 1980s)

In the 80's, many countries had high taxes for engines beyond a certain capacity. So the only things available for companies to increase power output were revs, and turbos. By far, turbos offered much more bang for the buck, even taking huge lag into consideration. Turbos were added to engine for performance, like in Audi Quattros, Porsche 911 and 959, Ferrari F40 etc. The entire Group B rally cars, 500-600 BHP from 1.6-2.5L engines. Fuel consumption was far worse for these cars, as it was for turbocharged F1 cars. They didn't have turbo 4 cyl engines outputting 1200-1500 BHP for fuel efficiency for crying out loud, you got it all wrong.

In the 20's and 30's, as well as the initial turbo days of the early 80's, they had an equivalency formula: lower capacity allowed for FI cars, and higher capacity allowed for NA cars. That's simply because FI cars made lots more power, not because they were sipping less fuel. If you tell this to an automotive engineer of the times they'll die of laughter.

Anyway I don't want to spend more time arguing with you about these topics. Anybody with a modicum of interest can read about it and make their own opinion. Happy motoring.

[adc]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Not this time. M5 is only engineered with DCT. Manual sales did not warrant a budget for it.

Yes, exactly and identically the way it was for the E60. BMW had no intention whatsoever to make a manual car, yet they did anyway when the US grumbled.

And they only sold them in the US.


So yeah, solemn promises aside, if they deem it necessary they can always throw a 6sp at it. The technical merit of the implementation is besides the point.

[SCOTT26]

Originally Posted by adc

Yes, exactly and identically the way it was for the E60. BMW had no intention whatsoever to make a manual car, yet they did anyway when the US grumbled.

And they only sold them in the US.


So yeah, solemn promises aside, if they deem it necessary they can always throw a 6sp at it. The technical merit of the implementation is besides the point.

Yes the E60 Manual. Even Gerhard Richter said it was shit!
But no manual for the F90 they have been transparently clear on that.

[adc]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Yes the E60 Manual. Even Gerhard Richter said it was shit!
But no manual for the F90 they have been transparently clear on that.

All due respect to Mr. Richter, but the manual cars are the most prized examples here in the US, and in the following years will become a cult classic, like the 1M. I predict the prices will go up very substantially soon.

Whereas the SMG will be the unwanted stepchild.


Never say never - remember when M said no turbos? or AWD? Etc. Anything can change if the company deems it worth it, is my point.

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by adc

In the 80's, many countries had high taxes for engines beyond a certain capacity. So the only things available for companies to increase power output were revs, and turbos. By far, turbos offered much more bang for the buck, even taking huge lag into consideration. Turbos were added to engine for performance, like in Audi Quattros, Porsche 911 and 959, Ferrari F40 etc. The entire Group B rally cars, 500-600 BHP from 1.6-2.5L engines. Fuel consumption was far worse for these cars, as it was for turbocharged F1 cars. They didn't have turbo 4 cyl engines outputting 1200-1500 BHP for fuel efficiency for crying out loud, you got it all wrong.

In the 20's and 30's, as well as the initial turbo days of the early 80's, they had an equivalency formula: lower capacity allowed for FI cars, and higher capacity allowed for NA cars. That's simply because FI cars made lots more power, not because they were sipping less fuel. If you tell this to an automotive engineer of the times they'll die of laughter.

Anyway I don't want to spend more time arguing with you about these topics. Anybody with a modicum of interest can read about it and make their own opinion. Happy motoring.

Just FYI, check this timeline. Engine fuel consumption limits were started in 1983 in Formula 1 for the reasons I stated earlier -- as well as a method for limiting power by requiring engines to run races on a set amount of fuel.

Also FYI: I was a huge F1 fan during the era. For example, I attended the Monte Carlo GP for three years running from 1982-84.

So have those engineers IM me, kay?

[c63er]

Originally Posted by adc

All due respect to Mr. Richter, but the manual cars are the most prized examples here in the US, and in the following years will become a cult classic, like the 1M. I predict the prices will go up very substantially soon.

Whereas the SMG will be the unwanted stepchild.


Never say never - remember when M said no turbos? or AWD? Etc. Anything can change if the company deems it worth it, is my point.

Ignore him. Scott's current marketing strategy is to say everything BMW has done in the past was wrong in a twisted way to say what they are doing now must be right. According to him the 5gt is the greatest car ever and sells way more then we will ever know and the e60m5 is a pile of poop. Makes sense

[SCOTT26]

Do we have to keep repeating the reasons for changing philosophy involves adapting to legislation,market trends and customer requirements?

M went Turbo because of incoming legislation in both Europe and The USA in order to have a fleet average across the range.
The only reason to accommodate these targets was by resorting to Turbo charging.

M went with X model SAVs because the market was changing, the customers wanted them and today with second generation X5M and X6M they make up the volume of BMW M sales. And not just for BMW but high performance SUVs are a big market impossible to ignore. There will be further expansion at BMW with the arrival of the first X3M and X4M. More crucially is that BMW identified an opening especially in Europe were tax penalty bear heavy on high performance SUVs with the arrival of the M Performance X5 and X6M50d models.

[c63er]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Do we have to keep repeating the reasons for changing philosophy involves adapting to legislation,market trends and customer requirements?

M went Turbo because of incoming legislation in both Europe and The USA in order to have a fleet average across the range.
The only reason to accommodate these targets was by resorting to Turbo charging.

M went with X model SAVs because the market was changing, the customers wanted them and today with second generation X5M and X6M they make up the volume of BMW M sales. And not just for BMW but high performance SUVs are a big market impossible to ignore. There will be further expansion at BMW with the arrival of the first X3M and X4M. More crucially is that BMW identified an opening especially in Europe were tax penalty bear heavy on high performance SUVs with the arrival of the M Performance X5 and X6M50d models.

It has nothing to do with adapting to the market. Many of us get that and totally agree with what Bmw has done, otherwise it would end up like Mazda.

But to imply your companies past products are bad in order to somehow highlight the new ones, especially when most of us know they weren't bad, makes you look foolish at best. A liar at worst.

I really wouldn't be surprised at this point for you or someone to fish out an engineer to tell us that all the old n/a bmw engines were crap.

Again. All for change. The world is always changing and bmw has handled it masterfully. But coming on here and saying things that don't jive with many of our real life experiences doesn't help your case.

[tetsuo111]

Originally Posted by SCOTT26

Do we have to keep repeating the reasons for changing philosophy involves adapting to legislation,market trends and customer requirements?

M went Turbo because of incoming legislation in both Europe and The USA in order to have a fleet average across the range.
The only reason to accommodate these targets was by resorting to Turbo charging.

M went with X model SAVs because the market was changing, the customers wanted them and today with second generation X5M and X6M they make up the volume of BMW M sales. And not just for BMW but high performance SUVs are a big market impossible to ignore. There will be further expansion at BMW with the arrival of the first X3M and X4M. More crucially is that BMW identified an opening especially in Europe were tax penalty bear heavy on high performance SUVs with the arrival of the M Performance X5 and X6M50d models.

Contemporary Detroit builds the performance cars BMW used to. Look to the Vette, Camaro LE1, ATS, GT350R, and Viper for proof that exciting, high-performance, naturally aspirated motors remain viable even in today's regulatory, legislative, and efficiency climate.

M Division under the current "Efficient Dynamics" management is emasculated, and stands for little more than tri-color decals and matching iPhone cases. Sure, the current M-cars make impressive numbers (they're almost as fast as a Camaro for 3x the price), but they lack the visceral driving experience that put BMW on the map for driving enthusiasts.

Current M-cars strike me as BMW's answer to the old Pontiac Trans Am, with enough flamboyant aero and decals to make an adolescent giddy with excitement. As for those new M-SUVs. Really? Does the world need more SUVs from a so-called premium performance marque? Please. Enough already. It's pitiful.

Scott, the market hasn't changed. BMW did. The Board aspires to be as large as GM/Toyota/VW. Executive management changed strategy for growth. Sadly, they left their old customers to seek alternatives. There's a glimmer of hope. The M2 is the first sane attempt at an M car in years. Even BMW finally recognized how bloated and gimmicky the new cars are. The 2 series is a small step in the right direction, being smaller and lighter.

Last week I drove an E38 7-series. What a wonderful reminder of the type of car BMW used to engineer and market. Being a 7-series, the car is large, yet doesn't feel heavy. It isn't blindingly fast, but the visceral experience is wonderful. The car feels tight, the suspension is precise and supple, and it handles like an athletic drivers car, given its class/size. This isn't the experience I take away after driving current "Efficient Dynamics" cars.

Want further evidence? Just glance at the magazine copy below. Is this for travel enthusiasts? Fashionistas? Foodies? Who knows?! It certainly doesn't trigger interest in automotive passion.

Buying my first car in the 80s (used 911), it was an era when I and my peers swore we would only ever own German cars. That was then. With the exception of Porsche, I see little to differentiate Germany's Big 3 from a modern Japanese car, except the Jp cars are more reliable and less expensive to own and operate. I do miss the Bob Lutz "pre-ED" BMW era.

[m4282]

Hi all FYI please see below if this isn't confirmation that by 2030 BMW will have an all electric m4 I don't know what is..... the internal combustion engine will go away from BMW , Mercedes, Porsche , etc...... I see the hybrid m4s coming out as next iteration now even more of a reality as they would need time to test out the full e version before going full e in 2030. The f80-83 may be the last full combustion engine m3/4?cars and the e92 now for sure will be the last NA m car....
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...gines-by-2030/