BMW M admits the new turbo motors do not match the previous naturally aspirated motors and that they want their own car

Biermann is dreaming if he thinks M-division would be able to build a car. Biermann says: "M is not selling horsepower; that's not what we're about." Who would want to buy a weak M-car? We want BMW&power i.e. Bimmer&boost.

Btw. about turbo and NA matching, he talks about "response" not quite matching. We know that the power is not matching if you compare a car with and without turbos...

Originally Posted by 654

Btw. about turbo and NA matching, he talks about "response" not quite matching.

Yes, it doesn't match the response. The headline is designed to grab your attention before going into the details

@Sticky - should I post the M3 GTS/M3/M5 comment?

Originally Posted by inlineS54B32

@Sticky - should I post the M3 GTS/M3/M5 comment?

Please do, what comment is that?

A turbo motor will never match the response of an NA motor but so what? These turbo motors will outperform any previous M motor and will be easier to tune and upgrade. I'll trade a tenth or two of lag for the much higher performance once the boost hits.

Originally Posted by 654

Biermann is dreaming if he thinks M-division would be able to build a car. Biermann says: "M is not selling horsepower; that's not what we're about." Who would want to buy a weak M-car? We want BMW&power i.e. Bimmer&boost.

Btw. about turbo and NA matching, he talks about "response" not quite matching. We know that the power is not matching if you compare a car with and without turbos...

So... the E34 M5 was just some POS then ?

I think a good project for the M-Division should be finishing the M1 (not 1M) !

Originally Posted by Jimefam

A turbo motor will never match the response of an NA motor but so what? These turbo motors will outperform any previous M motor and will be easier to tune and upgrade. I'll trade a tenth or two of lag for the much higher performance once the boost hits.

They need the turbo motors to move these heavy behemoths. The throttle response is part of the experience which is why we always saw independent throttle bodies.

Originally Posted by Sticky

They need the turbo motors to move these heavy behemoths. The throttle response is part of the experience which is why we always saw independent throttle bodies.

Sure having instant throttle response is nice but I guess I'm just a results orientated person. I'd prefer to be the guy with the slightly slower throttle response and much faster car. For me winning a race is a nice experience.

Originally Posted by Jimefam

A turbo motor will never match the response of an NA motor but so what? These turbo motors will outperform any previous M motor and will be easier to tune and upgrade. I'll trade a tenth or two of lag for the much higher performance once the boost hits.

+1. You are sacrificing response for mpg, TORQUE & POWER. If you're not in the 5% who uses these cars on the track and steering on the edge with the throttle, you can learn to live with a little lag (and I do mean a little!).

Originally Posted by Jimefam

Sure having instant throttle response is nice but I guess I'm just a results orientated person. I'd prefer to be the guy with the slightly slower throttle response and much faster car. For me winning a race is a nice experience.

Factory M cars were never dragsters. They were well balanced, razor sharp, super responsive machines.

Originally Posted by aquaskr

+1. You are sacrificing response for mpg, TORQUE & POWER. If you're not in the 5% who uses these cars on the track and steering on the edge with the throttle, you can learn to live with a little lag (and I do mean a little!).

Sure, you can live with it. But you have given something up. Porsche provides a choice, BMW doesn't. M was not about sacrificing or cutting corners previously especially not for MPG.

he said "response", he didn't say "underperform"

Originally Posted by Sticky

Factory M cars were never dragsters. They were well balanced, razor sharp, super responsive machines.

This.

It wasn't just their M-cars either. Their base cars where never the most powerful in each segment, but they always came out on top in the comparos.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Factory M cars were never dragsters. They were well balanced, razor sharp, super responsive machines.

...and then they got FAT, just like everyone else's cars.

Originally Posted by aquaskr

...and then they got FAT, just like everyone else's cars.

Audi and Mercedes now have lighter models...

Originally Posted by Sticky

Factory M cars were never dragsters. They were well balanced, razor sharp, super responsive machines.

Sticky your talking about two different things though, in the thread your talking about the difference in motors and turbo vs NA. These motors are not the reason why the cars aren't sharp handling track cars. Look at the 911 turbo and its not even about weight because the GTR is turbo and heavy as he'll and it's very sharp. The problem is BMW is focused on comfort and competing with MB and Lexus for the older luxury car buyer who wants a sedate ride that hauls in a straight line. I agree with you that these cars have gotten to fat and the handling has been numbed down.

Originally Posted by KB

Please do, what comment is that?

Interesting answers from Albert Biermann - the current head of BMW M - to questions asked in this months Road & Track:

Q - "Is turbocharging the future of M?"

A - "At least for the point where we are today. Already the M5 will be the 4th turbocharged M model. We are convinced that this is the way to go, to bring the best results for the customer."

Q - "What would you rather drive around the Nurburgring: an M3 or an M5?"

A - "The M3 GTS! It is much better to drive. It is very close to a race car. The new M5 is very close to the regular M3, but we aren't ready to tell you which is quicker."

Q - "Why not 600 horsepower for the M5?"

A - Enough is enough. Compared to the V-10, our new engine's peak torque begins just above 1500 rpm and holds it to 6000 rpm, so unlike other turbo cars our new M5 surges forward all the way to it's 7250 rpm redline."

I personally thought that the 2nd question/answer was the most remarkable. It's almost marketing AGAINST the M5 in my opinion. It's almost unbelievable that he said this - but is nice to hear an honest answer to a question.Pretty cool car nonetheless. I am sure we all know what's quicker - the M5... I find it pretty interesting that he finds the M3 (GTS) to be a better car for the Nurburgring and/or that the new M5 is "very close to a regular M3".

Cheers.

Sticky, I feel your pain. I suspect it was a difficult decision for BMW (unless they've taken the keys to the M dep't away from the purists and given them to the business managers) and the efficiency POTENTIAL of the turbo'd engine wins more points than throttle response.I shout 'potential' because in my experience a boosted engine can burn astonishing amounts of fuel when you ask it to. Having sympathized with you (because you seem to need it a bit today ) I'll confess that I'll trade a bit of throttle response for big bags of torque throughout entire rev range any day of the week - on the track or on the road. Now add tunability to the equation and, to me, you've got a compelling package.It may not be worthy of the M designation, which is probably the main point, but it sure ticks a lot of boxes on my 'must have' list.

Originally Posted by GTR-Dad

Sticky, I feel your pain. I suspect it was a difficult decision for BMW (unless they've taken the keys to the M dep't away from the purists and given them to the business managers) and the efficiency POTENTIAL of the turbo'd engine wins more points than throttle response.I shout 'potential' because in my experience a boosted engine can burn astonishing amounts of fuel when you ask it to. Having sympathized with you (because you seem to need it a bit today ) I'll confess that I'll trade a bit of throttle response for big bags of torque throughout entire rev range any day of the week - on the track or on the road. Now add tunability to the equation and, to me, you've got a compelling package.It may not be worthy of the M designation, which is probably the main point, but it sure ticks a lot of boxes on my 'must have' list.

Why wouldn't a turbo be worthy of the M designation? Also, does "purist" mean hate turbos...love automatic tranny(DCT) M cars have never been the fastest in a straight line so that tells me it has always been about handling and the fun factor. But now, with the new turbos, they are fast as $#@! in a straight and like you said...add the cheap tunability, the M cars are only getting better. Heavier, but better...but that is why they have the 1 series, to replace what the 3 used to be, the 3 is the 5 and so on...but that is a different topic. Im drinking!

Originally Posted by KB

Why wouldn't a turbo be worthy of the M designation? Also, does "purist" mean hate turbos...love automatic tranny(DCT) M cars have never been the fastest in a straight line so that tells me it has always been about handling and the fun factor. But now, with the new turbos, they are fast as $#@! in a straight and like you said...add the cheap tunability, the M cars are only getting better. Heavier, but better...but that is why they have the 1 series, to replace what the 3 used to be, the 3 is the 5 and so on...but that is a different topic. Im drinking!

Define better. Maybe in acceleration, but that alone. The new M5 lost to the new E63 in the AutoCar comparo. The reviewers said the E63 felt more percise, sharper, and has a greater sense of agility.

It is the twilight zone, where the M-car is heavier, less nimble, but has more power. While the AMG is lighter, more nimble, with less power.(although E63 recorded a quicker 0-60)