Next BMW M5 will nix V10 in favor of twin-turbo V8

jetsetter

jetsetter

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
7,257
Location
Seren?sima Rep?blica de California
Car(s)
1997 BMW 528i
http://img135.imageshack.**/img135/8243/bmwm5turboco9.jpg
BMW may begin straying from its long held tradition of equipping its M models with rev-happy, naturally aspirated engines. According to a source speaking with Automotive News, the twin-turbocharged 4.4-liter V8 currently equipped on the new X6, could be stroked out to 4.8-liters and fitted on future Ms, including the new M5, due out in 2011. The twin-turbo'd 3.0-liter inline six found in the 335i, 535i and entry-level X6 proved that BMW has the chops to create highly efficient and eminently entertaining blown mills, and there's no doubt that significant tweaks to the turbocharged V8 could boost power levels over the stock mill's claimed 407 hp, to take take serious aim at Audi's 572 hp RS6.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/07/next-bmw-m5-will-nix-v10-in-favor-of-twin-turbo-v8/
Click to expand...
 
BMW said a long time ago that they would introduce more and more turbo engines.. The M cars can't escape.
 
Meh, as long as they introduce a new proper supercar/GT with a V12 to take over it's slot I don't care. A true M car, not a stupid uprated saloon. Somewhat like a modern M1.

Still hate Turbos though...
 
static said:
That's old news that have been posted here decades ago.
Click to expand...

That picture is old, but last time it was posted here, the news story suspected a twin turbo V10..

These spy shot takers dont know shit, its all just quessing..
 
Boring


(<---hates turbos)
 
that makes me sad! V10 > blown V8
V12 would have been even better
 
W00t turbo.
2all that hate turbos:

Love it or hate it but a turbo engine is insanely easy to tune as compared to an N/A. A simple ECU flash will give pretty big results if thats not enough you can always fit a bigger turbo.
 
DarkReaper said:
Meh, as long as they introduce a new proper supercar/GT with a V12 to take over it's slot I don't care. A true M car, not a stupid uprated saloon. Somewhat like a modern M1.

Still hate Turbos though...
Click to expand...

Ottobon said:
Boring


(<---hates turbos)
Click to expand...

NooDle said:
that makes me sad! V10 > blown V8
V12 would have been even better
Click to expand...


Ok, so you guys don't like turbos, fine, but honestly how many of you car afford or are planning to buy a car in this performance class/price level that it really matters to you? Will it actually impact your future purchase plans?
 
Forced Induction FTW... i have heard nothing but awesome things about the V8tt in the X6
 
I don't see a problem with Turbos

BMW will probably find a way to make the Turbo power smoother and less like a sledgehammer.

BMW is also using Twin-Scroll turbos which barely even suffers from turbo lag.
 
Last edited:
thedguy said:
I guess BMW lied when they said the M division was going to stay naturally aspirated.
Click to expand...

Some reviewers complained that torque was lacking at low revs in the M5. The twin turbo 4.4L V8 in the X6 produces nearly 450 lb/ft between 1800 and 4500 rpm, so I doubt anyone is going to complain about torque in the updated M5.
The other main complaint with the M5 was the SMG (in the US at least), I assume BMW will offer their new DCT transmission to solve that problem as well.
 
bartboy9891 said:
Some reviewers complained that torque was lacking at low revs in the M5. The twin turbo 4.4L V8 in the X6 produces nearly 450 lb/ft between 1800 and 4500 rpm, so I doubt anyone is going to complain about torque in the updated M5.
The other main complaint with the M5 was the SMG (in the US at least), I assume BMW will offer their new DCT transmission to solve that problem as well.
Click to expand...

Just another reason we should perfect (infinitely) variable valve timing. I see turbos as a great device for things that stay on the throttle, like trucks, boats, powerplants, i don't know, just not a light-footed car.
 
Ottobon said:
Just another reason we should perfect (infinitely) variable valve timing. I see turbos as a great device for things that stay on the throttle, like trucks, boats, powerplants, i don't know, just not a light-footed car.
Click to expand...

And I'm inclined to argue the other side of that. Infinitely variable valve timing will have it's limits (there will be a point where displacement is the only way to get more torque).

Now adding infinite VVT with sequential or Variable vane turbos, direct fuel injection and creative use of the ecu (i.e. mild form of anti-lag) and there won't be any reason to hate turbo's other than perhaps the whine.
 
edkwon said:
Ok, so you guys don't like turbos, fine, but honestly how many of you car afford or are planning to buy a car in this performance class/price level that it really matters to you? Will it actually impact your future purchase plans?
Click to expand...


I love turbos, I have a turbo car, but I just think it's a "cheap" way of making power from an engine.

The Ferrari F430 gets > 100hp/l, which is fantastically difficult to make without some sort of boost (turbo or supercharger)

It also means the power delivery is more linear, and easier to handle than just a big old lump of turbo boost

which is what I like
 
Ottobon said:
Just another reason we should perfect (infinitely) variable valve timing. I see turbos as a great device for things that stay on the throttle, like trucks, boats, powerplants, i don't know, just not a light-footed car.
Click to expand...

I agree with the below.
thedguy said:
And I'm inclined to argue the other side of that. Infinitely variable valve timing will have it's limits (there will be a point where displacement is the only way to get more torque).

Now adding infinite VVT with sequential or Variable vane turbos, direct fuel injection and creative use of the ecu (i.e. mild form of anti-lag) and there won't be any reason to hate turbo's other than perhaps the whine.
Click to expand...
Just to add to that the new variable geometry turbos spool as early as 1100/1200 RPMs. I drive a turbo car and it is very smooth on boost, even the chipped version that gives the engine a more aggressive tune doesn't give you whiplash when the turbo spools up.

Whine is really not a problem that I've noticed, from inside the car it seems that the exhaust noise takes over when you are about 1000rpms over the boost threshold. Outside the turbo can be heard*.

*Based on experiences with 1.8T VW/Audi engine, 240SX SR20DET and KA-T engines that I have heard.
 
i'm with Prizrak and TheDGuy. with the way diesel trubo tech is finally trickling over to the petrol side of things smooth power delivery will be the norm. Honestly the only issue i see is going to be part throttle lag but that can be helped with an EGR system similar to whats found on current WRC cars.
 
NooDle said:
The Ferrari F430 gets > 100hp/l, which is fantastically difficult to make without some sort of boost (turbo or supercharger)
Click to expand...

The japanese can squeeze out almost 200hp/liter from a bike engine...
 
The_Finn said:
i'm with Prizrak and TheDGuy. with the way diesel trubo tech is finally trickling over to the petrol side of things smooth power delivery will be the norm. Honestly the only issue i see is going to be part throttle lag but that can be helped with an EGR system similar to whats found on current WRC cars.
Click to expand...

VVT and direct fuel injection can cure that. When the driver gives more throttle the computer can advance the exhaust cam a bit and set the ignition timing a little bit later on a cylinder or 2 and it'll respond quite nicely.

A friend of mine drove a 335i not to long ago and said the throttle response was better then on his Ka24de 240sx, and just about anything else he could recall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top