http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee99599/cmd.233/embedded..ee9959c
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee99599/cmd.233/embedded..ee9959f
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee99599/cmd.233/embedded..ee995a2

There's been a steady trickle of information coming out of BMW about its new M3. The company unveiled a "concept" version of the two-door M3 at the Geneva auto show this month. Now, BMW has deigned to release full engine specifications. And what specifications they are.
Like its primary competitors from Audi, Cadillac and Mercedes-Benz, BMW will use a V8 in its compact-sized sport sedan. The new naturally aspirated 4.0-liter unit generates up to 420 horsepower at 8,300 rpm, at least by European measurements. That number is not finalized for the U.S. market and by conventional Euro-to-U.S. conversion would be 414 hp. Either way, that's more than 100 hp per liter, still something of an accomplishment for a naturally aspirated motor. This is achieved, in part, through extremely high engine speeds. The new engine redlines at 8,400 rpm -- stratospherically high for a V8. At that speed, each of the V8's pistons are moving at 66 feet per second. Typical of high-revving motors, the new V8 makes a relatively low 295 pound-feet of torque at 3900 rpm. Just as impressive as its horsepowewr output is its weight. At 445 pounds, the new V8 is lighter by 33 pounds than the 3.2-liter inline six in the current M3.

The motor uses the familiar double VANOS infinitely variable valve system and has eight individual throttle butterflies. The exhaust manifolds, formed from thin-wall stainless steel pipe, is nothing short of art.

Two new technologies debut on this motor as well. First, is the so-called Ion flow technology, which uses the spark plugs to not only ignite the fuel/air mixture but to also act as a knock sensor. The other debut is the Brake Energy Regeneration system which is similar to regenerative systems used on hybrid powertrains. It captures kinetic energy from the brakes to recharge the engine's battery. This frees the engine up from having to devote power to charging.



[Inside Line]

fanatasic. I'd say the new M3 is going to rival the likes the R8 and gransport.
I really like the new styling. maybe there might even be another CSl. that would be super awsome. until then M3 all the way

High-res pics here: http://www.autoblog.com/photos/2008-bmw-m3-4-0l-v8/

I'm curious to find out what the transmission choices will be. I bet the manual will be the same 6-speed that both the e60 M5 and M6 are using. Which actually the same trans from the e39 M5.

There apparently bringin out a new dual clutch transmission too. Good stuff I say.

Dang this V8 revs high!

That's a decent amount of horsepower, and it's not a bad looking engine aswell, I quite like it. I'm a little disappointed with the torque though, I expected it to be in the low 300s at least, but it's a high revving motor, hopefully it will be quite a light car aswell.

wow wow wow wow wow wow.

i got shivers up my spine reading this.

lighter than the 3.2 I-6 in the E46 M3!? wha!?

this new M3 is gonna be awesome.

besides, i love high revving engine. they're so much fun. and, the torque peaks at 3900rpm, which really isn't that high. i bet we're gonna be surprised at how the torque from this V8 will plateau. plus, i know this V8 will sound awesome.

good find mikey.

if this M3 was basically a 355i with an enigine upgrade, the bhp per ton would be the same as that in the e46 M3 csl. So obviously the new M3 will be lighter so this will beat the old CSl. *mr burns voice* perfect

Mr. Burns says "Excellent". DUHHHHHHHHHH.

I just said in another post that small high revving, torque less engines are made for light cars. I expect this car to be tipping the scales around 1600kg so that throws "light" out the window.
I'd much rather get my self and E30 M3, E21 325 or better yet; a second hand 911.

At lest the engine looks nice. I would love to see it stuffed into a Z4 or Z5 (or whatever its called)

Wow!! As powerful as the R8!!

if this M3 was basically a 355i with an enigine upgrade, the bhp per ton would be the same as that in the e46 M3 csl. So obviously the new M3 will be lighter so this will beat the old CSl. *mr burns voice* perfect

What makes you think this will be lighter? The M5 is nearly 100kg more than the 550i.

I'm kinda disappointed in the torque number, but we'll just have to see how it performs when it's in the car...

oh hell yehh.. if its light that should be awesome!! ass long as it doesnt go over abbout 1550kg.. it should be good, at 1400kg and less(which i doubt) it'll be menacing!!

higerh hp
higher tq
lighter
frikken 8k redline
damn son

this thing looks pretty damn hot, but i guess torque production is really low for this thing... 295??

and would it be faster than an E39 M5... i would expect so in the corners, its like a bagillion pounds lighter than the heavy ass E39

since when was 300lb-ft of torque "not enough"? the RS4 only makes margainly more torque than this does, but i've never heard a peep about that engines torque output.

since when was 300lb-ft of torque "not enough"? the RS4 only makes margainly more torque than this does, but i've never heard a peep about that engines torque output.yea but the rs4 DOES make more and thats what matters...

I kinda expected more because when you look at the 335i it has 300hp and 300lb/ft and the what is supposed to be the performance monster has "only" 292 lb/ft you get disappointed...but as I said before we have to wait until it gets in the car to judge...

It's about time they redesigned the M3. The old one was seriously getting boring.

<>

I love it! Although, the torque numbers are kind of low but the engine is meant for high-revving abilties. I wonder if theres going to be another GTR or CSL street additions...

lol, I think when people think of 'M3', they probably won't care that it has some "partial hybrid technology". They just want to put the pedal to the metal and hear that V8 roar.

that is high reving for a street car, not because it's a v8. Lets put it this way; the higher rev you go the shorter life spam your engine would be. simple. powerful engine.

yea but the rs4 DOES make more and thats what matters...
ok, dude. the RS4 makes 317 lb-ft of torque at 5500rpm. this new M3 engine makes "only" 292lb-ft. that's a difference of 7.9%. that's not a big difference any way you look at it. and, it makes peak torque at a much higher rpm, only requiring more revs to access the available torque.

so what's your point? that because the RS4's engine makes marginally more torque, (which is propelling a much heavier car i might add) this engine is in some way inferior? it also has a smaller displacement and makes marginally more power at slightly higher revs. so i fail to understand the source of your complaint. frankly i couldn't ask for a much better powerplant than this. this engine is an amazing achievement in the automotive world. an engine of this caliber rivals the likes of Ferrari, which i might ad, i have never heard of anyone complaining of the relatively low torque figures of a Ferrari.
that is high reving for a street car, not because it's a v8. Lets put it this way; the higher rev you go the shorter life spam your engine would be. simple. powerful engine.
life spam? you mean life span? all i have to this is, Honda V-TEC buddy.

ok, dude. the RS4 makes 317 lb-ft of torque at 5500rpm. this new M3 engine makes "only" 292lb-ft. that's a difference of 7.9%. that's not a big difference any way you look at it. and, it makes peak torque at a much higher rpm, only requiring more revs to access the available torque.

so what's your point? that because the RS4's engine makes marginally more torque, (which is propelling a much heavier car i might add) this engine is in some way inferior? it also has a smaller displacement and makes marginally more power at slightly higher revs. so i fail to understand the source of your complaint. frankly i couldn't ask for a much better powerplant than this. this engine is an amazing achievement in the automotive world. an engine of this caliber rivals the likes of Ferrari, which i might ad, i have never heard of anyone complaining of the relatively low torque figures of a Ferrari.Did i say the engine was inferior? Did I even say it was a bad engine? No...i said i was disappointed. I had high hopes for this engine because BMW just came out with an I6 that has 300hp and lb/ft and to see that the M3 has less torque let me down. I am not denying that this is a great engine it's just that I expected more and I think that BMW could have given a bit more...

Did i say the engine was inferior? Did I even say it was a bad engine? No...i said i was disappointed. I had high hopes for this engine because BMW just came out with an I6 that has 300hp and lb/ft and to see that the M3 has less torque let me down. I am not denying that this is a great engine it's just that I expected more and I think that BMW could have given a bit more...
well, seeing as how you display no dissapointment for the RS4's powerplant, yet you do for the M3's, it's easy to get the implication that you find the M3's powerplant to be inferior. the degree of inferiority may be minimal, but suspected inferiority thoughts none the less.

ok, dude. the RS4 makes 317 lb-ft of torque at 5500rpm. this new M3 engine makes "only" 292lb-ft. that's a difference of 7.9%. that's not a big difference any way you look at it. and, it makes peak torque at a much higher rpm, only requiring more revs to access the available torque.

so what's your point? that because the RS4's engine makes marginally more torque, (which is propelling a much heavier car i might add) this engine is in some way inferior? it also has a smaller displacement and makes marginally more power at slightly higher revs. so i fail to understand the source of your complaint. frankly i couldn't ask for a much better powerplant than this. this engine is an amazing achievement in the automotive world. an engine of this caliber rivals the likes of Ferrari, which i might ad, i have never heard of anyone complaining of the relatively low torque figures of a Ferrari.

life spam? you mean life span? all i have to this is, Honda V-TEC buddy.
Thats a good point, I guess I was over-reacting a bit, even just trying to find some sort of fault with the car but it would be nice to have more torque and less weight in both cars. But I have complained about the torque you get in the smaller Ferrari engines such as the F360 and F430.

guess it was close to my expectations ,, its got a perfect size for a V8 ,, great stats ,, cant wait to see the real thing on the real car !

The new engine redlines at 8,400 rpm

wow, now that would be good...but


the new V8 makes a relatively low 295 pound-feet

thats bad, kind of bad, but


at 3900 rpm.

thats quite good i think...

but then, wow that looks great, all those parts, gosh they look amazing! great status, but i hate that MV8 badge on the engine...i hate it, it would be better if it just had the V8 badge or with the M badge, but whatever, thats quite good looking and sounding good

well, seeing as how you display no dissapointment for the RS4's powerplant, yet you do for the M3's, it's easy to get the implication that you find the M3's powerplant to be inferior. the degree of inferiority may be minimal, but suspected inferiority thoughts none the less.Well when you dont have high expectations it's hard to disappointed but I had high expectations of this M3 and not as high expectation for the RS4. But as I said before we have to wait until the engine is in the car...

I dont think the engine is inferior...it has potential to be a great engine I am just worried about the low torque number. But one thing I know is that the car has an excellent chance to be superior to the RS4 performance wise.

Yes this engine has peak torque at a lower RPM but the RS4 gets 90% of it's torque between 2,250 and 7,600 RPM making the peak torque RPM not matter as much...

The engine is eally awesome, V8 superlight and high rev,a perfect combination for any enthusiast...however, sorry guys but I am not impressed with the styling of the new M3.:mad:

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=4998

there's for all you're high expectations. look at how linear the power dilivery is, and how flat the torque curve is.

That's just sick.. every once in a while BMW comes out with something that reminds you of why they are so highly regarded.. and this is it.

I don't even care about the car, that's one beautiful engine.

It's just a shame they have to hide it with all of that plastic.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=4998

there's for all you're high expectations. look at how linear the power dilivery is, and how flat the torque curve is.
I'll admit thats very impressive, but when the 335i's torque curve is this flat at such a low rpm... http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=34&article_id=3853
you still look for more out of the M3 which is the top of the line performance wise.

While it's still a nice engine and I would rather have this than the 335i's, you have to wonder could BMW have gotten more out of this engine? I think so, maybe they are just leaving room to improve in the future...

They make a 105 horsepower per liter 4.0L V8 and it's not enough? You people are insatiable.

^^I think you miss understand me...It's a great engine and I'm satisfied with it...But I think BMW could have gotten more torque out of it...thats all...

As I have said, torque isn't a necessity when you can spin up to 8,400 RPM and don't weigh much.

I don't know why you'll hate the styling cues theres nothing wrong with it. Really I like the bulge on the hood it gives some excellent cues. Although why do all of you'll like the new styling though!!

Attaus, just give up. there are some people who just aren't teachable.

Cool! Awesome stuff! looks like BMW is gonna get a few new rivals with this.. :D

Funny as it may sound, I'd like to see this car go against the Maserati GranTurismo....

This is everything i have been waiting for... and more...

the new engine, coupled with that styling, and the performance...

this is gonna be a hard car to beat...

i'll take one in black, thank you very much...

As I have said, torque isn't a necessity when you can spin up to 8,400 RPM and don't weigh much.

before knowing the rpms and the lightweightedness I was gonna complain about the lack of torque.

seems odd that an engine should have 100 less tq than hp

Here is a sound of the engine reving when the car was revealed! :)


http://videos.streetfire.net/video/df195d3f-c8d6-45a8-ac4a-98f0012f41fa.htm

I agree with diesel that torque numbers should be just as important as hp numbers in most cases but BMW's M division has been doing this since the E46 3.2 litre. Lets just hope the car is light enough.