RE: Driven: BMW 1 Series M Coupé
Discussion
Guvernator said:
The frustrating thing is that turbocharged cars can be made to rev, my previous Subaru and Skyline both pulled like a train to their 8000rpm+ redlines and this was 10 years ago. Disappointing from M if this isn't improved for the final production model.
Guvernator said:
They didn't need to resurrect the S54 as that engine is rather dated now but they could have made this rev a bit better, turbo'd cars can be made to rev.
See the posts re: emissions testing. For a manual* car (and I've said this repeatedly), the emissions test favours those engines which deliver a high % of peak torque low-down the rev range and with a low peak-rpm, as manual engines are forced by the test to shift at a set-% of peak-rpm.
So the very nature of internal-combustion technology favours diesels massively, and after that turbos, and especially low-rev optimised turbo-petrols - consider a K20A VTEC engine vs a VAG 2.0T - both deliver c.200bhp, but at 60% peak rpm (for example):-
- the VAG engine changes-up at 3,600rpm, is at peak-torque and is delivering ~150bhp or so.
- the VTEC changes-up at ~5,000rpm, is delivering at best 140bhp, but more importantly is OUTSIDE the efficiency 'sweet spot' for n/a petrol-engines, which typically is 3,000-4,000rpm.
Note however that at a 70mph cruise the VTEC would be at ~3,750rpm while the VAG would be at more like 3,300rpm. The VTEC would be in the 'sweet-spot', while the VAG lump would have the turbo fully-spooled. And real-world economy is consequently little-different! Yet the CTR fails Euro-V, coming in at ~215g/km yet the Golf now records 170g/km (previously 185g/km for the MkV). So all that effort by e.g. Honda and BMW to make real-world efficient performance cars during the 90s is to nothing, hence the demise of all of their hardcore n/a engines...
* Autos, inc. DSG, can be set to auto-mode which typically shifts up as early as possible and thus unfairly favours auto-boxes. Stupid, eh?!?
havoc said:
Guvernator said:
The frustrating thing is that turbocharged cars can be made to rev, my previous Subaru and Skyline both pulled like a train to their 8000rpm+ redlines and this was 10 years ago. Disappointing from M if this isn't improved for the final production model.
Guvernator said:
They didn't need to resurrect the S54 as that engine is rather dated now but they could have made this rev a bit better, turbo'd cars can be made to rev.
See the posts re: emissions testing. For a manual* car (and I've said this repeatedly), the emissions test favours those engines which deliver a high % of peak torque low-down the rev range and with a low peak-rpm, as manual engines are forced by the test to shift at a set-% of peak-rpm.
So the very nature of internal-combustion technology favours diesels massively, and after that turbos, and especially low-rev optimised turbo-petrols - consider a K20A VTEC engine vs a VAG 2.0T - both deliver c.200bhp, but at 60% peak rpm (for example):-
- the VAG engine changes-up at 3,600rpm, is at peak-torque and is delivering ~150bhp or so.
- the VTEC changes-up at ~5,000rpm, is delivering at best 140bhp, but more importantly is OUTSIDE the efficiency 'sweet spot' for n/a petrol-engines, which typically is 3,000-4,000rpm.
Note however that at a 70mph cruise the VTEC would be at ~3,750rpm while the VAG would be at more like 3,300rpm. The VTEC would be in the 'sweet-spot', while the VAG lump would have the turbo fully-spooled. And real-world economy is consequently little-different! Yet the CTR fails Euro-V, coming in at ~215g/km yet the Golf now records 170g/km (previously 185g/km for the MkV). So all that effort by e.g. Honda and BMW to make real-world efficient performance cars during the 90s is to nothing, hence the demise of all of their hardcore n/a engines...
* Autos, inc. DSG, can be set to auto-mode which typically shifts up as early as possible and thus unfairly favours auto-boxes. Stupid, eh?!?
Every diesel i've had returned 10-20% less.
I saw this car on the photo shoot a few weeks back when I went to Munich. Can't remember where I saw it but do remember it waiting on the side road for an opening in the traffic.
I came flying around the corner, only to have my mate shout out "Camera.... Camera" Though it might have been the Fuzz but it was a professional photographer trying to squeeze a few pictures.
Car still looked menacing, even with the twirly patterns.
shoestring7 said:
Inspired by the 1st gen M3 my arse. Its only inspiration was some marketing geek's chart showing a gap inthe market for a slightly faster 1 series, costing slightly less than an M3, and adding the 'performance' s
t the Sceptics like to think makes their cars better.
t the Sceptics like to think makes their cars better.
You only have to scan through the inane posts on 1Addicts on this to see that...
"It's not a ///M car if it hasn't got quad exhausts" and crap like that....
I agree with 'caboosemooses' Tii style concept of a lwt 1 coupe with a 300hp N52 though...especially if fitted with ITB's
They could have saved a lot of weight by not going for the big arch look and ///M diff etc., just do what a lot of 135i owners have done, M3 arb's and other items, and used the older style non ///M LSD unit which would have been more than adequate with a tweeked N52..... and would have also saved more weight.
shoestring7 said:
I bet there's a frustrated cabal of BMW engineers in Munich with an 1100kg, turbo 2l 1 series twinkle in their eye.
They are already working on the next gen 1M which insider info says will have more designed-in weight reduction and will be lighter with a 4 cyl turbo engine anyway.God there's some idiots on here. Some of the comments are ridiculous.....what period do some of you think we're living in? The 90's?
The funny thing is a lot of comments come from people who have never driven and may never drive what is ultimately going to be a very good car.
And to the people who wrote comments like 'uninspiring engine' and 'crappy engine'...WTF?? Have you ever tried one?
The funny thing is a lot of comments come from people who have never driven and may never drive what is ultimately going to be a very good car.
And to the people who wrote comments like 'uninspiring engine' and 'crappy engine'...WTF?? Have you ever tried one?
Edited by Palmball on Wednesday 13th October 00:04
Palmball said:
God there's some idiots on here. Some of the comments are ridiculous.....what period do some of you think we're living in? The 90's?
The funny thing is a lot of comments come from people who have never driven and may never drive what is ultimately going to be a very good car.
And to the people who wrote comments like 'uninspiring engine' and 'crappy engine'...WTF?? Have you ever tried one?
Well I chose a Z4 Coupe with 265bhp over the 135i with 300bhp because it drove better. I'll buy a new 1M when it has a normally aspirated engine and weighs a chunk less than an M3. Never, in other words ;-) I'll spend my money on racing instead, where I can drive a proper driver's car.The funny thing is a lot of comments come from people who have never driven and may never drive what is ultimately going to be a very good car.
And to the people who wrote comments like 'uninspiring engine' and 'crappy engine'...WTF?? Have you ever tried one?
Edited by Palmball on Wednesday 13th October 00:04
TheRoadWarrior said:
otolith said:
kambites said:
I just think it's a shame that one of the last companies who actually tried to produce drivers' cars has given up, even if I do accept that it was entirely the right thing for them to do from a commercial prospective.
Completely agree - and with the people who said that BMW's engineers probably don't like it much either.kambites said:
I think the days of (relatively) affordable drivers' cars from mainstream manufacturers are over.
That is definitely the way the wind has been blowing for a while. The ability to spin decent driver's machines off mainstream platforms has been compromised by demand in the mainstream market for bigger, safer, taller, more comfortable cars which aim to minimise driver involvement, and the bland downsized, down-cylindered, down-speeded blown engines that the need to haul that weight around and meet environmental pressures force. I don't think journalists moaning about anything that needs revs helps there either.Chink of light is that the high water mark of lard may have been reached, with an increasing focus amongst manufacturers on making their next models lighter than the cars they replace.
The other hope is that if mainstream spin-offs get crap enough, the enthusiasts will stop buying them and breathe some life into the market for real sports cars instead.
k wants a 7-speed auto type box in a car like that??! It's madness! When you think about the effort involved in designing, engineering and building new cars with the sole aim of getting some number on a particular test higher, then the cost and effort for the consumer buying this wonderful new machine only to find it's no more efficient than their 10-yr old car they had before, just heavier and less rewarding to drive.. it really is a shocking waste of effort all round.
/rant
The DSG is a outstanding for commuting AND spirited driving.Why do dual clutches have to be the preserve of supercars?BTW there is a rumour that only the 7-speed DSG can fit in the 1.4 Twincharger PQ25 platform's bay,it has to do with the shape and size of some of the drivetrain components.Also the 7-speed DSG is smaller,lighter and less oil consuming than the older 6-speed DSG.
You can ignore the facts and continue to bleat all this new tech is ''shocking waste of effort all round'' and i agree about the ''less rewarding'' bit,but most new performance car are more economical,less poluting and more powerful.The weight issue has been discussed to death,the only ways to produce a lightweigth mainstream car today are to:
1.strip it of luxuries and NVH stuff and fit plexiglass where possible.
2.make 3-4 stars NCAP shell and keep the luxuries and NVH stuff
3.use composites and make the car twice as expensive
4.make a small and cramped shell with pathetic boot,the next Golf arriving on a Mini platform
On the weight thing, I think if it is down to 1,500kg dead or less they will be doing well (and I believe they mean without dirvers ect. when they say 1,500kg), as to reduce the weight with the extra M3 bits (diff, extended track, exhaust, brakes ect..) with a restricted budget would be difficult.
Here are some real world weights from Sport Auto. They weigh their test cars independently.
TTRS - 1,480kg
Cayman S - 1,406kg
Lotus Evora - 1,390kg
135i - 1,516kg
All manual
The ti TT y a RS e is £50k isn't it?OTR @ ~45k
Cayman S is ~46k but does not come with full leather or xenon's or LSD ect.. as standard.
So price wise I think it needs to slightly undercut both.
Here are some real world weights from Sport Auto. They weigh their test cars independently.
TTRS - 1,480kg
Cayman S - 1,406kg
Lotus Evora - 1,390kg
135i - 1,516kg
All manual
pilchardthecat said:
Skodaku said:
zakelwe said:
Needs to be under £40k without the M1 badge I think.
Andy
Needs to be a long way under £40k whatever badge it's wearing. Silly price for a car in this class.Andy
Cayman S is ~46k but does not come with full leather or xenon's or LSD ect.. as standard.
So price wise I think it needs to slightly undercut both.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Absolutely spot on. Performance derivatives should concentrate on how the car drives, weight, throttle response, steering feedback. All modern m/// cars are now are "top of the range" I.e. most expensive. Most expensive as loaded with junk that those who want a real drivers car have no interest in. M/// is now just for those that want to say they have the most expensive, flash looking model.
Herman Toothrot said:
Absolutely spot on. Performance derivatives should concentrate on how the car drives, weight, throttle response, steering feedback. All modern m/// cars are now are "top of the range" I.e. most expensive. Most expensive as loaded with junk that those who want a real drivers car have no interest in. M/// is now just for those that want to say they have the most expensive, flash looking model.
Unfortunately we have to face up to the fact that we are in a minority - that's not what sells most cars. The M division's job is to produce cars that sell, and obviously they think the AMG approach works better. At least BMW are still offering a manual gearbox (for now).I think there will always be small volume manufacturers producing drivers' cars; at least for the foreseeable future.
Edited by kambites on Wednesday 13th October 08:40
mainaman said:
TheRoadWarrior said:
otolith said:
kambites said:
I just think it's a shame that one of the last companies who actually tried to produce drivers' cars has given up, even if I do accept that it was entirely the right thing for them to do from a commercial prospective.
Completely agree - and with the people who said that BMW's engineers probably don't like it much either.kambites said:
I think the days of (relatively) affordable drivers' cars from mainstream manufacturers are over.
That is definitely the way the wind has been blowing for a while. The ability to spin decent driver's machines off mainstream platforms has been compromised by demand in the mainstream market for bigger, safer, taller, more comfortable cars which aim to minimise driver involvement, and the bland downsized, down-cylindered, down-speeded blown engines that the need to haul that weight around and meet environmental pressures force. I don't think journalists moaning about anything that needs revs helps there either.Chink of light is that the high water mark of lard may have been reached, with an increasing focus amongst manufacturers on making their next models lighter than the cars they replace.
The other hope is that if mainstream spin-offs get crap enough, the enthusiasts will stop buying them and breathe some life into the market for real sports cars instead.
k wants a 7-speed auto type box in a car like that??! It's madness! When you think about the effort involved in designing, engineering and building new cars with the sole aim of getting some number on a particular test higher, then the cost and effort for the consumer buying this wonderful new machine only to find it's no more efficient than their 10-yr old car they had before, just heavier and less rewarding to drive.. it really is a shocking waste of effort all round.
/rant
The DSG is a outstanding for commuting AND spirited driving.Why do dual clutches have to be the preserve of supercars?BTW there is a rumour that only the 7-speed DSG can fit in the 1.4 Twincharger PQ25 platform's bay,it has to do with the shape and size of some of the drivetrain components.Also the 7-speed DSG is smaller,lighter and less oil consuming than the older 6-speed DSG.
You can ignore the facts and continue to bleat all this new tech is ''shocking waste of effort all round'' and i agree about the ''less rewarding'' bit,but most new performance car are more economical,less poluting and more powerful.The weight issue has been discussed to death,the only ways to produce a lightweigth mainstream car today are to:
1.strip it of luxuries and NVH stuff and fit plexiglass where possible.
2.make 3-4 stars NCAP shell and keep the luxuries and NVH stuff
3.use composites and make the car twice as expensive
4.make a small and cramped shell with pathetic boot,the next Golf arriving on a Mini platform
I know the DSG tech is improving all the time, I just think it's better suited to a larger more waftey car.
Going back to the BMW for a moment, I think it's pretty disapointing the direction they are headed at the moment, you only have to look at the M3 GTS to see it- sure its more hardcore than an M3.. but the price!!
Maybe its time for limited runs of " Sport" cars with a real minimalistic approach. Don't sell them as high spec, sell them as cheap foot on the ladder cars. Lower power na, smaller wheels, no leather, air con, stereo, airbags. GRP bonnet, boot lid, no carbon to be seen, keep that to the m///. Back in the day didn't they do similar with the e30 318is?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's not like a model like you describe would be expensive to develop, nor does it necessarily have to preclude the current 1M from existing. It would be fascinating if BMW would have the balls to also produce a 130iS, say, with the mods you described. It could be sold at a much lower price (think Porsche's 968CS) than the 1M and it would be interesting to see the market's demand for such a car.
aeropilot said:
Herman Toothrot said:
M/// is now just for those that want to say they have the most expensive, flash looking model.
Sadly true.The spiral downwards started when ///M decided it would be a good idea to make an E30 M3 convertible......
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff