BMW will drop high-revving NA engines for turbocharged units

Will these new wonderful engines be used in the current M3 and M5 lineup, or will they be used on the new generation M3 and M5?

I'm hoping we'll see a turbo charged M3, M5, and M6 in the current line up. The M divison already has a good base line with the turbo charged V8 in the X6.

high precision high rev N/A is still my favorite. hopefully Honda will keep their high Rev N/A in the future.

It's not because NA is too expensive, it's that turbo is too cheap/simple a solution not to use.

I will miss them too. I loved the V10 in my M5..

MDalle, right?

Sailor, I don't think Audi will make the RS4 a monster like the RS6. I think they'll continue the current theme of small turbocharged engines with big power and efficiency. It'll probably be a hopped up V6 or maybe they'll just make the V8 more efficient.

BMW is going turbo and so is ferrari. The new honda NSX is gonna have the whole market for its self.

Not long ago at the introduction of M5, BMW said high-revving NA is the way to go.

Looks like they lost in the power war. What a shame.

You think they cant make a 5.5 NA engine than can produce more than 560hp? Yes they can... but Turbo engines are more fuel efficient.

i don't think fuel economy is in their mind when it comes to M cars.

ghosthunter,

...I believe that is incorrect...fuel economy and emissions are precisely the point for FI engines because of strict governmental guidelines in the future. They simply cannot meet those requirements and provide high hp and high torque with the NA engines

couldn't said better than TheSailor.
a high Rev N/A requires much more engineering. any autoshop can add a forced induction system in any car, but there is no autoshop can increase your engine Rev by 20%.

'TheSailor'

"..what the carbon footprint of the car is, so to say that BMW is doing this for efficiency and fuel economy is just - well - silly!"

How can you say that...this has nothing to do with the consumer an the size of his wallet or ability to pay for gas. There are stricter governmental guideline to which BMW has said they cannot meet while continuing to buil high hp/torque engines that are NA. FI is the only way they can provide the power while meeting the future emission requirements.

the Honda S2000 is pretty much the limit of how a production car can go.
2.2L with 9k RPM is almost the limit. a 3.0L I4 would either have a very long traveling distance (kills REV, remember when s2k engine went up from 2.2 to 2.4?), or a large cross section area (too much mass to go even above 7k rpm). a 3.0I I4 could go no more than 7k RPM period.
now, if you put a 3.0 V8 or V10, then we are talking about high rev (but will be torque less at low RPM).

NA engine from AMG (V8 6.2 liters) Can do 7.2K rpm and still lighter than the V8 4.0 from M3 and can do 525 HP in the CL63, 105 more than the V8 of the M3, of course is a bigger engine but the point is weight, light weight materials are ver expensive. Both engines are great but both are very expensive and is very likely than the AMG is the most expensive. Forced induction is a logical step for any smart engineer if you want more power a reduced price, (BTW, BMW engineers are very smart). Turbos and Compresors are the future folks. Forseen by Audi and you can bet, MB beside the V12 Biturbo, they will start to use turbos on small engines too.

the difference being if BMW made a 6.2L engine it would be a V12 and have over 600hp. Which they did, actually, 15 YEARS AGO, in a car you might have heard of -- the McLaren F1. Those giant AMG engines are impressive, but give credit where credit is due, as they're only third best in their own country at building engines. Both BMW and Porsche are better at it.

BTW I prefer high reving engines, but manufactures prefer easy money, so the customer will pay for this. We´ll miss the great sound of high reving engines (nothing like that) however, some turbos have a nice sound when they engage.

If BMW does go back to an I4 config for the M3 (which they won't because there is too much cache surrounding 6 and 8 cylinders these days)I think they should go back to the 2.3L engine size, for old time sake. Add a turbo for good measure and bring the rating up to about 350hp. A 3.0L gasoline hasn't been done since Porsche's effort in the 944. And the transverse rear-drive layout is a bit wasteful. The required gearing would likely add weight back and negate any gains to be had from shortening the front of the car.

The current 335i is a joke. Only 300hp from a 3.0L twin turbo setup?!? Come on. Mitsubishi and Subaru are killing those numbers with 2.0L 4s with single turbos. Who are they trying to fool? If they plan to use turbos, use them properly, or stick to the evils they know and hope their buyers (who are usually apologetic about the brand's shortcomings anyway) will stick with them.

C'mon, you know I know BMW always play this trick of factory claiming. All dynos show 335's probably 350hp. You can tune to 450 hp, but it won't be linear.

Anyway, being the owner of both 3 and G, I can fully appreciate what BMW tries to achieve - refined smoothness. G's V6 is impressive to rev to 7500 rpm w/ output of 94 hp/L, but it cannot achieve the lineality feel of BMW's I6, turboed or not. That, my friend, is what bimmer does to better qualify as a luxury brand.

tango: I don´t have a word to say against what you said. I agree with you. Japanese were able to get 320hp from 3.0 V6 on 300ZX Twin Turbo more than 10 years ago.

I hope they keep the V10's in their lineup. The sound the M5 and M6 creates is phenomenal. I guess its going back to sounding like the previous M5 with a little whistle.

It'll sound like Tony Soprano on a diet.

The BEST move BMW could ever make. This is exactly why I purchased the 335i. My 2008 Steptronic 335i Coupe with JB3($795), 95 Octane, and Nitto NT255R tires. All else stock. 0-60 in 3.9 sec and 12.4 sec qtr mile @ 112.8mph. OMG I can't wait for the turbo charged M3.

Consider these advantages:

**Turbocharged engines are smaller and lighter.
With a turbo, it takes less engine to make more power. To make a naturally-aspirated engine more powerful, you need to increase its capacity and its bulk.

**Turbocharged engines are easier to regulate power.
Engines are constantly evolving and becoming more powerful, sometimes at the expense of driver safety. For the racing sanctioning body concerned with safety, controlling the speed of a turbocharged car is as simple as reducing the turbo's boost. A naturally-aspirated engine, on the other hand, must be
drastically re-engineered when the horsepower it generates becomes excessive.

**Turbocharged engines are less expensive, and more reliable.
Turbocharged engines don't have to rely on exotic, expensive materials to reduce reciprocating mass. As naturally-aspirated engines become larger to increase power, the stress due to the necessary increase in engine RMP and increased reciprocating mass placed on their various components also increases.

**Turbocharged engines are quieter.
The turbocharger on an engine acts as a natural muffler, minimizing engine noise.

I'm all for the turbos. The High revving n/a engines tend to be lacking in low end torque. The Honda S2000 has zero torque. You have to rev the engine up to 4000 rpm just to get out of a supermarket parking lot.

These days, turbos are getting more reliable I believe, I wonder if their costs still remain high?

Nissan is going turbo, hyundia,going turbo,soon every auto maker will.The turbo engines are more effient,less emission from the tailpipe and gives a V6 performance if it is a four cylinder,and the engine will runs quieter due to a balance system.There will be a variable compression ratio with some makers engine like nissan and ford etc.And I must point out that a turbo engine moves faster than a N/A.

Better hang on to my M5.

Looks like that V10 is gonna be a classic.

Also probably the most sophisticated engine BMW will ever sell.

I love the V10 engines. Sound very nice especially with an Kreissieg exhaust.