2009 BMW M3: The End Of The M As We Know It

None of this is shocking to anyone with common sense. BMWs high winding motors aren't even more efficient than larger engines with similar power and more torque. The high redline was the ONLY benefit. BMw know it can get more power, FAR more torque, better mileage and lower cost with a turbo V8. BMW is in business to make money afterall. I do love it because it will shut up all the people who have been trying to convince us that "real" performance engines need 8000rpm redlines. That has been a lie since the first day it was told.

I say the BMW N54 came pretty close to that instantaneous throttle response you've mentioned. However, anyone who is sensitive enough and has driven it back-to-back with a comparable NA engine will likely say it's not quiet there...

I personally don't mind FI engines but between two COMPARABLE FI and NA engines, I'll take the NA one on any given day.

Not true 1487. In Edmunds own comparo with the C63 the M3 returned 15% better economy than the Benz - even though said Benz had a super tall 7th gear to assist in fuel economy. Even the EPA ratings show the M3 with a significant advantage in economy there.

Additionally, high torque engines need drivelines engineered to handle the load. This adds weight and usually diminishes the quality of shifter and clutch interaction - important tactile considerations in a sporting car. A high hp, lower torque car does not need nearly as much beef in the driveline.

As for the final statement, sounds like a strawman to me. Where are "all those people"? Links?

@louiswei,

I had a chance to drive a 335i (6MT) and Audi S4 (6MT) back to back recently, and the supercharged Audi positively shamed the BMW in throttle response. Same goes for M3 vs. 335i. I think "pretty close" is giving the N54 too much credit. Turbos are always going to need time to spool up, no matter how ingenious their design.

@1487,

Since when have sporting cars been about common sense? Try taking that argument to the Porsche 911 GT3 team. They'd laugh and throw schnitzel at you.

-JS

Naah, it's not 'disturbingly like AMG' - it's EXACTLY like AMG. The link between the world-standard I6 powered BMWs of old and today's BMW is just about completely gone. Weight? Fine, bring it on. Style for styles sake? No problem. We'll just put a big turbo v8 in it, it'll sell...

Don't forget the runflats on the X5M. Course I wouldn't go looking to Porsche like they're some sort of driving purists, they're best selling model is the Cayenne.

On the other hand I'm still waiting for the E92 M3 CSL, which doesn't seem to be coming, and BMW ditched F1, so they seem to be running away from the real motoring, and over to the mainstream side.

+1 to SBT.. I felt the same, the supposedly imperceptible n54 turbo lag was noticeable to me (calibrated to NA bmws and porsches). The s4 engine gets much closer to lag-free feel, but it is supercharged (and possibly less efficient than the n54).

church:

The MR is rated at 14/40 vs 13/19 for the C33. What advantage are you talking about? The M3's engine is 2.3L smaller than the C63's and its a whopping 1mpg more efficient. That is within the margin of error.

"all those people" are the BMW fans who are all over the internet- and this site. I understand your concerns about the clutch and driveline but I question the relevance considering the number of sports sedans/coupes that are sold with DSGs and automatics. Many performance cars don't have conventional manuals anymore. While it may be true that a smaller engine can contribute to shifter feel and man/machine interface you don't have to go shift crazy in a car with torque and a lower redline. I don't see the point of an 9k redline considering the sounds the M3 makes.

Sadlier:

Based on your previous comments and SRX reviews I know aren't a fan of common sense but unlike you BMW has to have a method to its madness. The small, high revving engines were costly because they don't share much with the mass produced engines. Now BMW can make a high performance V8 that shares much of its componentry with lesser V8 powered vehicles. More power, more torque, less cost. Sounds like BWW is on to something.

Agree in general with this post, its sad to see SUVs branded as M cars... but you are wrong about the first M badged autos, the E36 M3 was available as an auto sadly enough.

^Ah! I forgot about that. Right you are. I remember looking at some E36 classifieds a while back and seeing a number of sedans with the auto. I'll make a note of it.

for once i'm gonna agree w/ 1487. he argument has logic.

The auto business is tightening its belt, not just because of the current global situation, but because of how the industry will shape up when its over. Fuel efficiency regulation is swooping in across the Western World and companies are going to have to pinch pennies to offset those additional costs.

Just my opinion that I literally just thought up...what about going back to the I6 and doing a supercharger/turbocharger combo for the next M3? they're gonna get railed by every journalist in the world if they put the TT V8 in the next M3.

"Since when have sporting cars been about common sense?"

Tell me about it. Since when did the sports car world become a giant pissing contest between people on the internet? You buy a car like this for FUN, not because its 0.02 seconds quicker to 60 or because common sense tells you to do so. BMW caters to the type of enthusiast that thinks its FUN to rev an engine toward some stratospheric redline. Those same buyers wouldn't have as much FUN with a more relaxed engine even if it has more power/torque/economy. 1487 won't buy this argument, but sometimes its not just about the numbers.

I too feel extremely disappointed by BMW's recent decisions concerning its M-division, but I can't say that I'm surprised. BMW as a whole is trying to do the same thing Mercedes did 12 years ago: build cars to a quantity rather than a quality. Once their reputation tanks, which it certainly will because the engineers will be stretched too thin, hopefully they will right their wrong. I can't blame the company for trying to emulate AMG, for they sell a ridiculous number of cars for a "speciality division" and that kind of cash would be highly appealing when trying to expand one's lineup so greatly. I just never thought BMW would fall into this trap.

Its 12/19 vs. 14/20 1487. Wow, read that sentence fast. A 16% improvement in city rating is not insignificant. And, as previously noted, Edmunds saw a 15% advantage for the BMW in their head to head test data. We all know highway econ numbers are more about aero and low rpms than they are about engine size. Yet, the BMW still betters the Benz there despite being geared much, much shorter in top gear. Thus, the smaller engine is the more efficient one. I know efficiency isn't the primary purpose of what a sporting car is about, but it does matter.

Additionally, the bigger you make an engine, the heavier its components get and that goes beyond just my previous reference to driveline mass. The smaller engine will tend to have more immediate responses, rev quicker, etc. These are all things that matter.

Finally, the M engines being different from the rest of the lineup is a big part of what made the M cars so special. If they're but breathed upon versions of the existing BMW lineup, they will be less appealing to the enthusiast. After all, you can buy 400 hp for far less than what BMW charges.

@sabastian:

Since the advent of the N54, BMW has NOT catered solely "to the type of enthusiast that thinks [it's] FUN to rev an engine toward some stratospheric redline." And with the upcoming increase in CAFE standard, balancing power and torque with economy has become far more important for the company. And, ultimately, they have to follow the regulations and yet still make money in order to stay in business.

""Since when have sporting cars been about common sense?"

Since CAFE and the environment have taken precedence over useless sky high redlines, that's when.

Bottom line, the highly strung, super high redline naturally aspirated engine is DONE. It CANNOT meet the new standards that are set into place while providing the necessary performance that enthusiasts demand. Deal with it and get over it. Even BMW can't afford to produce these purpose built low volume engines that share no parts with their mainstream offerings. As I have stated before, the M engine formula is flawed because it cannot used across the entire BMW line-up and especially in heavier cars the way the 6.2L AMG V8 can. You can stick that huge V8 in the diminutive C class or the overweight CL and still get impressive performance. Having no torque is cute in an S2000 and flat out dumb in an M5 let alone something larger. From a pure business perspective, the switch to much a more efficient DI/turbo makes all the sense in the world because a) the engine shares commonality with the regular BMW V8 b) the engine can be adapted for a wide range of vehicles c) can be mated to a wide range of transmission choices (I'm not aware of many automatics that can handle 8000rpm shifts).

It is my theory that these supposed "purist" buyers simply don't exist in the numbers people on this site claim. Most people who can afford these cars can't even drive a stick (look at the take rate of high performance cars that offer the option of a automated manual) so I think people should cut the act and stop crying. I think anyone who enjoys over abundant power will be just as happy with a 4.4L DI twin turbo V8 M5 as they were in the unbalanced V10 version with its sloppy transmission.

My suggestion to those who absolutely crave a "pure" driving experience is to buy a sport bike. You can get all the high RPM fun your heart desires. As for the rest of us with common sense, we'll take superior horsepower, torque and fuel efficiency that will come with the new M engines.

church123- the CTS-V weighs 4300lbs with a 6.2L s/c V8 with 142 more HP and essentially ties M3 in EPA MPG (14/19 vs 14/20). It easily beats the M5 in mileage which is a more accurate comparison given the vehicles are almost exactly the same size and even the automatic gets superior mileage. Aero is barely a factor at the velocities used in EPA highway testing. As you said, gearing is a factor and more torque allows for taller gearing which is an advantage, not a disadvantage. High revving, low torque engines simply cannot move sizable mass efficiently. More revs equal more fuel and it's as simple as that.

1487 & chavis10 -

has it occurred to you that other people's preferences may differ from your own? why the need to immediately try to shoot down any opinion you disagree with?

until the recent X6M and X5M travesties, M cars have always been extremely focused vehicles. All he is saying is that he's afraid this is another shift toward the mainstream for what many of us hope remains a niche line of cars.

This is your uh-oh moment guys, and there's a time-honored method for dealing with these situations. When a car company/division you like looks like it's about to jump the rails, you snag one of the models they got right and leap to safety. You enjoy the car, try to keep it nice, maybe do a little happy dance when depreciation wrestles the new one to the ground and mauls it, leaving yours unscathed (at least, that's what I've heard from Porsche 993 owners). Mostly, as Elvis gets fatter and more drug-addled, you try to keep "Jailhouse Rock" and "Viva, Las Vegas" out there, so everyone remembers that once upon a time, he really was The King.

My uh-oh moment was a while back. See, to me, Ms have always been about high-revving inline 6s. I know about the E30 M3, E39 M5, and the new V10s, but it was always the yowl of the six cylinders that let me know an M I liked was near - the E28 or E34 M5, E24 M6, the E36 and E46 M3.With the V10 already in production, and the V8 M3 announced, that's when I snagged my Z4 M Coupe, to get the last, great M-division 6-cylinder. With that car sitting on my drive, I'm much more philosophical about the M-Division's direction, more detached. I've got my little chunk of history to enjoy.

So, now's the time to get that E46 M3 Competition, Sadler. And might I recommend Michael Jackson's "Off the Wall" CD for someone of your generation? Someone's got to remind people of a time when both parties were at their peak...

Actually, I think I read the next M3 will get a turbo 6, no telling if it'll be inline or a V.

I personally like turbo cars that rev to 8k :) In my experience, you can improve torque and hp out of the same displacement NA engine by 50% with minimal lag. If you're willing to accept some more lag, then 100% increase is not an issue.

I'll take some turbo lag over not having the power. I had two turbo cars previously and now have a S2000. While the S2000 is a ton of fun, you're just not going anywhere very fast, especially if you're below the VTEC engagement point.

For comparisons sake, my 2005 S2000 is 2.2L, 240hp, ~160 tq, 8k redline. A simple reflash, no other mods at all, to an Evo X bumps its 2.0L, 291hp/300tq to an easy 350hp/350tq, and it'll rev 8k all day long. And it'll make more tq (and therefore hp) by 2500rpms (if not sooner) compared to my S2k.

The S2k might have better throttle resposne for that fraction of a second when you tip into the throttle, but after that, it's just weak. Very weak. I need to boost this thing.

"It is my theory that these supposed "purist" buyers simply don't exist in the numbers people on this site claim. "

http://www.pressportal.com.au/news/310/ARTICLE/4266/2009-02-04.html

+1 sabastian. Emotions, not logic is the reason people buy sports cars. There's quote in that article somewhere where the head of the M division basically says that.

The beauty of capitalism is that people have options. Some people love the thrill of winding a high revving engine to its redline. Some like explosive punch that a well tuned turbo can provide. Others live by the mantra "there is no replacement for displacement".

If the M division changes its engine philosophy, it will be sad because they have always been the one of the standard bearers for smaller, high revving performance engines and the people who like that in their cars will have to look elsewhere.

At the same time, getting stuck in the past can be a fatal flaw as well. It almost killed Jaguar.

What a total bummer. Even though I suppose they'll try their best to reduce turbo lag, it's still a shame.

Whatever happened to the "no M will have turbo engines" of the past? What happened to the original M boss? He's obviously not there anymore because he would have died of disgust.

Turbo engines are usually for those who can't build engines properly. Audi has built "RS" crap versions for a while before returning to a NA one for the previous RS4.

I think that a lot of the point of engine building is specific output in a NA engine. That is what defines its response and general "feeling"... just go ask Porsche with their GT3. Yes, they build a Turbo and a GT2 but their sportiest model is clearly the GT3.

BMW has totally wimped out on this. I guess we have the fuel economy standards to blame but it is a shame. The V10 in the M5 had plenty, I mean plenty of torque. I've driven it and the engine seemed pretty damn insane.

By the way, there's an advantage to "low torque" engines: they don't suffer the same loss of traction as ones that have more torque, particularly if the torquier one has a turbo. I recall one tester saying of the M5 "i've driven 200 horse compact turbo cars that have greater traction losses than this". And yes, they'd be right.

I don't care much about the X5M/X6M being turbocharged. I thought it was obvious that if they ever made M versions of those things they'd use a turbo engine because with 2300 kgs it's pretty important to have some real torque, but I cannot figure out why they can't just include the improvements done to the E92 MV8 to the V10 and call it a day. The E92M gets pretty decent consumption and as noted before, in Edmunds' test it got significantly better mileage than the C63.

What a shame... all I'm wondering about now is what transmission they're putting into it, because the MDCT only handles 500NM and the M5 will have a whole lot more than that!

I guess it all comes down to reality: most people who have "good" cars are a bunch of gaelic pussyboys who like showing it off but know nothing about driving.

I wonder how much BMW has lost with this whole M engine disaster. First they build the V10 from scratch, clearly meaning to keep it for several generations of the M5. Then they design the SMGIII specifically to be more durable, etc etc and with a design that is exclusive to a SMGIII, so no sharing the parts bin.
Later they spend even more improving the V10's technology to make the current M3 V8. Then they build the MDCT for that engine, knowing it will never handle turbo cars because of the torque restrictions.

Finally, they build an 8 speed slushbox that can be faster than the MDCT (much faster for several-gear changed). Then they use a 6 speed slushbox and tune it for "M" duty in the X6M and X5M.
Now they revert to doing "an Audi", which means: "when you don't know shit about making engines, borrow them from Lamborghini and possibly slap turbos on them too" and comes out in the form of a TTV8 for the M5...

What a mess. They could have kept the exact same engine, given it a MDCT and called it a day.

Who cares!? As Jeremy Clarkson would say: "POWER!!"

About the Z4M: a friend of mine has that thing and my God, that is truly the purest definition of an "M" car. Another friend actually sold a M3 CSL because he felt the Z4MC was even more beastly.

I almost forgot: what BMW has to do now to lose any shred of credibility is to put a god-forsaken V6 in the next M3...

Another comment: about turbos and chipping: please understand that although it seems like easy horsepower for free, such a thing does not exist. If an easy 100 horses remained in the N54 with just a tune, BMW would be happily charging a couple thousand for an MPack with a lot more horses. Please, lets all get real. For increases of just 40 horses in turbo engines, manufacturers already change pistos, degree of sinterization for various pieces and plenty more. Yes, you can forgo all that, but claiming that your N54 (or any other turbo engine) can do 400hp reliably doesn't make you any less of an idiot than someone who has turbocharged his E46 M3 to 600 horses and says he "hasn't had any problems"...

About the Z4M: a friend of mine has that thing and my God, that is truly the purest definition of an "M" car. Another friend actually sold a M3 CSL because he felt the Z4MC was even more beastly.

I almost forgot: what BMW has to do now to lose any shred of credibility is to put a god-forsaken V6 in the next M3...

Another comment: about turbos and chipping: please understand that although it seems like easy horsepower for free, such a thing does not exist. If an easy 100 horses remained in the N54 with just a tune, BMW would be happily charging a couple thousand for an MPack with a lot more horses. Please, lets all get real. For increases of just 40 horses in turbo engines, manufacturers already change pistos, degree of sinterization for various pieces and plenty more. Yes, you can forgo all that, but claiming that your N54 (or any other turbo engine) can do 400hp reliably doesn't make you any less of an idiot than someone who has turbocharged his E46 M3 to 600 horses and says he "hasn't had any problems"...

Since the advent of the N54, BMW has NOT catered solely "to the type of enthusiast that thinks [it's] FUN to rev an engine toward some stratospheric redline."

The N54 is not an M-car engine.

syt_shadow, an engines ability to handle forced induction is purely based on how strong the stock block was designed from the factory (assuming no changing of the interals). Even among factory turbo cars, not all engines are created equal. The engines in Evos are known for handling twice the factory rating with no reliability issues. Previous generation STIs are known to blow ringlands after only a modest power increase (~350whp). The old Mazdaspeed Proteges also had weak bottomends.

I had a SR20DE in my Nissan SE-R, stock rating of 140hp/132tq. Roughly 120whp. At about 60k miles, I added a turbo, putting down 260whp/260wtq. I beat the crap out of that thing everyday in addition to doing a dozen or so track days, dozens of auto-xs, and a few hundred drag strip passes for the next 5 years and 100k miles. Still ran like a champ at 160k miles when I sold it.

Slightly off topic....

Reading through the posts I'm impressed by the knowledge about the M cars. It got me wondering how many people out their actually own (or have owned) an M car of any series... and how many are arm chair quarterbacks.

Always lots of strong opinions, who can back it up?

(FWIW.. I have never owned or even driven an M car of any series.)

firstwagon--I have never owned, nor imagine I will ever own a M-car. BMWs don't really interest me. That's why I've not posted anything in the M3 threads...besides this one.

One word: China.

The number of millionaires is exploding in China, and pretty soon they're going to surpass the U.S. market. BMW has to get in on that market to stay alive, and that means a twin-turbo V8 M5 with a slushbox. Chinese business millionaires aren't looking for the perfect driving experience, but instead massive power and ease of use.

Ferrari and Lamborghini have enough of a reputation and their cars sell in such low numbers that they can continue to produce high-revving NA V8s and V10s and people will gladly buy them and pay the gas-guzzler tax, and Ferrari will gladly pay the EPA fines for not meeting CAFE. (According to C&D, in 2008 Ferrari paid the EPA an average of $616 dollars per car because they don't meet emissions standards, which works out to a measly $1 million/year). BMW, however, can not afford to have consumers pay an extra $3000 gas guzzler tax plus paying the EPA for not meeting CAFE, so they can't stay in the game of NA V8s making big power anymore.

China and the EPA are both demanding turbo V8s, and to hell with throttle response, precision, and increased control.

Mine:
http://home.att.net/~epbrown01/mcoupe/062109b.jpg

You sound as disillusioned as nintendo fanboys compaining about the games for the wii. Bmw is a car COMPANY like any other. Even m cars aren't built for some lofty ideals, they are built for profit because they believe there is a market for such products.

Just gotta love how China is the cause of every problem...

FWIW, millionaires in China don't drive M cars, they stay either with the basic BMW/MB/Audi or go directly to Porsche/Ferrari or even RR/Bentley. However, enthusiasts in China will get M cars and they want handling and responsive engines just like enthusiasts in everywhere else.

"A turbocharged engine simply can't match the instantaneous throttle response of a naturally aspirated one, and no amount of low-end torque can approximate the thrill of winding out a classic M motor to its 8,000-ish-rpm redline. I thought the Motorsport folks understood that."

Encore.....encore, somebody finally understands! Unfortunately, some folks here only look at numbers when it comes to performance and totally ignore or choose to forget about the tactile side of performance. Tactility is just as important, if not more than performance numbers.

"I do love it because it will shut up all the people who have been trying to convince us that "real" performance engines need 8000rpm redlines."

1487, no one here has stated that high performance engines SHOULD have lofty rev limits. Whats been stated is those lofty rev limits add a significant element to the overall driving experience that's much different and much more intense/enjoyable vs a lazy, large displacement/big torque engine. We never claimed the extra revs added a performance benefit but claimed that it adds a totally different element to the character of the car and the overall driving experience. How many times do I have to explain this?

Lucky for me that Im open minded enough to understand the preference of each and respect both types of performance engines (high revs vs big torque) but I prefer the small displacement, high revving units as they are so race car like and ultra responsive.

That said, Ill really miss that 10 individually throttled V10 and that banshee wail as it was one of the major elements that helped the M5 set the standard in its class.

This is why I love (and to some extent hate) the current V10 M5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z08jcWoM7ak

This is the BMW M car Id build if our household income would suddenly double:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS5yDet6ngI

P.S. 1487, as mush hatred as you have for BMW cars and BMW enthusiasts, you should be thanking BMW Motorsport because without the M5 the CTS-V would probably not even exist.

This not only ruins the cars M division will build, but it also ruins its legacy. Suddenly, M division's heritage is tainted and its reputation erased. The thirteenth letter may be falling out of favor.

Holy shit people. I know people here drink a lot of BMW sauce, but people are writing esseys here. Turbocharging is the way to the future I guess. I'm guessing a Turbocharged Ferrari is next.

Epbrown, loving your M Coupe!

I am of the opinion that anyone who has experienced a car with an 8k+ rpm V8 and then goes on to say that they get more joy out of a turbo engine with the same power is either full of crap, or hasn't actually driven anything with such a motor.

(for the record, I've driven four.)

You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Make up your mind.

Good god Mr.Sadlier you've awaken a sleeping giant with this one. :)

Personally give me a supercharger and a turbo I will have the best of both worlds.

Whether or not you like the 4 litre V8 in the M3 or the 5 litre V10 in the M5/6, I hope everyone is a little sad they're leaving us.

@ notabigdeal: "Turbocharging is the way to the future I guess. I'm guessing a Turbocharged Ferrari is next."

Err, I've got some news for you from the "been there, done that" department... ;)

@hondacura: Thanks! I was expecting to see more Ms...

I guess all the fuss is because, like any relationship, you fall in love with a brand thinking she'll never change, that you have the same goals and philosophies, then you discover that while you've clung to those ideals, she's more interested in money and success, and then her model line starts putting on weight and doesn't care that it bothers you, perhaps cruelly pointing out that you couldn't afford her anymore anyway. Soon, you're driving a used Lotus or Caterham, maybe even an Ariel Atom, shaking your head as you watch an M-badged 7-series automatic go by, looking for all the world like the AMGs the two of you scorned when you were younger.

The X5 M and X6 M are abhorrent to me as an M-car owner and have, to a degree, betrayed the meaning & heritage of ///M.

But it's erroneous to assume that BMW doesn't have an historical record of great, turbo-engined, drivers' cars. The classic 1970s 2002tii leaps directly to mind: one of the all-time great Bimmers.

I do believe, because of weight/carbon externalities'containment/future fuel efficiency -vs- power goals (BMW Vision) that turbo engined Bimmers are inevitable. The reason why the N54 has been so popular - public and press - is that people like the ready torque of a TT engine. A hi-rev NA engine, a race-model engine, is more of an aficianado's treat - and more challenging to extract the best from, that's the treat.

And I beg to differ that the only great ///M's have to have a IL 6 (have owned 2). The e39 M5 and the S65 V8 in the E90x are great, great ///M engines (V10 too). In fact, the S65 took the crown as International Engine of the Year 3-4 liters cap for 2008, 2009; taking over from the none-too shabby 997 3.6L boxer 6.

I've glsd I've ordered a new commuter car to rest the M3 E92 so I can extend the ownership horizon to many enjoyable years of driving the first/last M3 w/ a V8 + individual butterfly throttles. I suspect this M3 will garner the same kind of fasicnation to collectors in 30 years' time as the great muscle cars just prior to the 1973-74 energy crisis.

And it's too bad there will be no E92 M3 CSL. To those that have an E46 M3 CSL: lucky bastards!

Porsche has come to its senses after the VW acquisition and will return to its core portfolio: building great 2-door sports cars (and duh Cayenne buyers: the shells were made by VW and Porsche was making over 100% EBIT margins, but I digress) once the Panamera and Cayenne platforms end their model runs (~7 years hence).

I can only hope that the X ///M cars go the same route.

But as to hybrid/TT engines in future ///M coupes and sports sedans: that will happen and best to embrace the future - I'm sure some will be great drivers' cars.

And also take care of one's ///M NA-engined classics.

epbrown- "I guess all the fuss is because, like any relationship, you fall in love with a brand thinking she'll never change, that you have the same goals and philosophies, then you discover that while you've clung to those ideals, she's more interested in money and success, and then her model line starts putting on weight and doesn't care that it bothers you, perhaps cruelly pointing out that you couldn't afford her anymore anyway. Soon, you're driving a used Lotus or Caterham, maybe even an Ariel Atom, shaking your head as you watch an M-badged 7-series automatic go by, looking for all the world like the AMGs the two of you scorned when you were younger."
Beautifully written

To all of you:
I think your missing the point BMW M is still building high class performance orientated cars that are pleasurable to drive. Yes i am a fan of BMW, but the point is regardless what engine gets put under the hood someone some where will always be willing to buy a BMW with that prestigious M badge.

I remember fans crying it's the end of the world when they stopped using the high winding straight 6.

It didn't end then and I don't think it's the end now.

Just a new chapter.

I'll bet a twin turbo V8 will have an incredible mid range.

spdracerut,

As someone who owns 2 S2000s (1 F20, 1 F22) and an EvoX, I have to say that I disagree very much with your assessment of throttle response.

First of all, stock to stock, the F22 S2000 vs. the EvoX, you're going to find that acceleration wise (outside of a standing start) they are very similar. On the same dyno, the Evo makes about 12-14% more wheel hp (the F22 puts down a fair bit more power than the F20), but weighs 25% more. The meaty torque curve offsets things, but you get the picture.

Additionally, said EvoX doesn't spool up until after 3000 rpm, even with a reflash to optimize the cam timing and mixture for better spool up. In fact, in 1st and perhaps 2nd gear, it won't spool up till 4k plus.

Now, you may be willing to trade that softness down low and soft throttle response for more top end. I fully understand the decision as you might expect, but it does no one any favors to begin to compare throttle response between the Evo and an S2K. Power is important, but there is something wonderful about being able to meter out precise power to the rear tires through a corner and control the balance of the car that way. With most turbo cars, the turbo gets in the way of that. You can work around it, but it does nothing to improve the joy of driving.

p.s. - my F20C is supercharged (no throttle response issues) and the F22 is turbocharged. I actually prefer the F20C for street driving. It is far more tractable and about as fast on the top end. When boost hits at 3800 rpm on the F22, its a wild ride, but the turbo definitely blunts the precision of the F22.

Agree 100% with the blog. The e90 M3 may be a car to buy in a year or two for no other reason than it may be the last of its kind.

It's funny--people threw the same temper tantrums when BMW dumped the high-strung 4-cylinder (E30 M3) for a big, lunking, polar-moment-havin' I6 (E36 M3).

Same story, different decade.

@jakvanagh: Same story? Not with the X5 and X6 in the mix. We're completely off the reservation now.

Changing times? Maybe. Unlike me, the generation headed for M-buying territory cut their teeth on WRXs, STis, and 1.8Ts. As they graduate to BMWs, this market will expect the rich torque and cheap tuning ability of turbos and superchargers. They're already strapping these onto the E46 M3s as those reach their price range, so it makes sense to get ready for when they're ready to buy new. Those of us lamenting the high-strung motors of the present are old fogies to them, nursing our old cars until BMW comes out with a Rascal. :)

Church, I agree and disagree to extents. Given the option of... say a LS7 or a boosted VQ35 so that they are equal hp and torque, I'd take the LS7 all day long due to the throttle response.

Option of my stock F22 S2000, or a boosted one, I'll go for more power every time.

Now, say you have the option of the 400hp, 4.0L M3 engine, and a 500hp/500tq boosted 3.2L, I'd go for the boosted engine. This is analagous to comparing BMW engines, the NA 5.0L (500hp/380tq)M5 engine and the twin turbo 4.4L V8 (550hp/500tq in the M versions).

Both my previous cars, the SE-R with a t25, and a 2005 Evo with the stock turbo, spooled relatively quickly. On a road course, above 4k, the response was near instantaneous due to the relatively small turbos. I'd guesstimate roughly 0.5-1.0 second to full boost on the Evo. I'd even say that the slight lag acted somewhat like traction control.

For me, I'll give up the throttle response for a bit of lag time for a lot fatter midrange than an NA engine can provide. I've tracked and auto-x'd the S2000 (and Evo, and the Nissan), and the S2000 is great on the auto-x where you can't use that much power anyways. Then the instant throttle response pays bigger dividends to control the balance of the car like you mentioned. When I tracked it at Autoclub though, I felt like there was an anchor behind the car anytime I was below 6k. And then the VTEC transition causes a significant torque spike that would cause the rear to step out on corner exit. I need to bring that engagement point down, or just upgrade from the stock rubber.

People are always scared of change; going from B-series to K-series, going from 4G63 to 4B11T, and that extends to all aspects of life. Just look at the response the health care debate has sparked! Anyway.

Well, those are just my preferences and thoughts. For those days I want that 'pure' feeling, I just hop on my 600RR and take it up to 15k rpms :)

I would rather go for an Alpina if I did not care how much I spend on a car.

I've always been a fan of vehicles that are fun to drive, and by that I'm not just talking about mash-gas and go, but rather driving a vehicle at that limit that makes it fun. I owned a 1992 Dodge Colt, which was basically an extremely underpowered death trap. That being said, it was a manual and was a lot of fun in curves. The same goes for my MINI. It was a justacooper, but it was fun even if not the swiftist.

The switch to turbos may yield better fuel economy and it may even be faster, but its a shame. There are plenty of armchair engineers and spreadsheet drivers on websites like this that just look at the numbers and are unable to understand the difference between fast-fun and boring-fast.

"Finally, the M engines being different from the rest of the lineup is a big part of what made the M cars so special. If they're but breathed upon versions of the existing BMW lineup, they will be less appealing to the enthusiast. After all, you can buy 400 hp for far less than what BMW charges."

Its a done deal. As I said, BMW is in business to make money and the high revving engines were low volume and expensive. There are PLENTY of cars that have engines larger than the M3's that are fun to drive. I would like to remind you that conventional manuals are on the way out so your concerns about the shift quality of a car with a larger performance engine are moot.

"has it occurred to you that other people's preferences may differ from your own? why the need to immediately try to shoot down any opinion you disagree with?"

You are missing the point. Sadbuttrue and his fan club are on here complaining about the death of the high revving M engines as if there is no justification for BMW's decision. There is PLENTY of justification. High revviing engines are pointless for the most part and that is why only a handful of such engines (talking about V8s and V10s) exist. They are essentially a method of bragging for various automakers but in the real world the tangible benefits are few. I'm not shooting down anyone or anything- the facts are the facts. BMW cannot afford to keep producing these pricey, small volume, gas guzzling engines anymore. MB has been using high performance engines based of their general engine architecture for quite some time. Same goes for GM and Ford and others. BMW was largely alone. Porsche and Ferrari are different because they sell so few cars at such high prices and they are known EXCLUSIVELY for high performance vehicles. BMW is a regular car company that just happens to be known for performance and handling. If we had every BMW that is sold in Europe we would understand that BMW makes a full range of product- not just high performance luxury vehicles. Using common components is one reason a CTS-V costs $30k less than an M5.

"I almost forgot: what BMW has to do now to lose any shred of credibility is to put a god-forsaken V6 in the next M3..."

BMW doesn't make V6s.

"Reading through the posts I'm impressed by the knowledge about the M cars. It got me wondering how many people out their actually own (or have owned) an M car of any series... and how many are arm chair quarterbacks.

Always lots of strong opinions, who can back it up?"

Missing the point as usual. The facts are the facts. No one has suggested an M car isn't fun to drive so what the hell does "experience behind the wheel" have to do with the discussion at hand? BMW is making this decision to save money and improve efficiency. There is nothing else to add to the equation. No one has claimed that a vehicle with an 8k redline isn't entertaining to drive and listen to- we are saying that such a vehicle is impractical from a cost standpoint and inefficient.

"1487, no one here has stated that high performance engines SHOULD have lofty rev limits. Whats been stated is those lofty rev limits add a significant element to the overall driving experience that's much different and much more intense/enjoyable vs a lazy, large displacement/big torque engine. "

Lazy? The MB 6.3L is lazy with a 7200rpm redline? Are you serious? I suppose same applies to LS7. Even the Lexus V8 in the IS-F redlines at 6800rpm. These are not "low revving" engines. When the average four cylinder redlines at about 6500rpm it is ludicrous to say that any V8 with a redline lower than the M3 is "low revving" and "lazy". You are undermining your credibility. 10 years ago you could hardly find any V6s, I-6s or V8s with redlines higher than 6700-6800rpm. The last gen 18v MB V8 redlined at about 6200rpm and the BMW 4.4L wasn't much higher than that.

"P.S. 1487, as mush hatred as you have for BMW cars and BMW enthusiasts, you should be thanking BMW Motorsport because without the M5 the CTS-V would probably not even exist."

More delusion on your part. When did I say I "hate" BMW? never. I like the 335i except for the price and the dated interior. If the CTS wasn't out I would probably say the 5 series was the best midsize RWD luxury car. I really don't care much about the crossovers, 6 series (ugly, overpriced) or Z4. The problem with BMW fanboys is that they don't believe other car companies have the capability of building sports sedans and coupes. BMW has no monopoly on engineering talent.

"I am of the opinion that anyone who has experienced a car with an 8k+ rpm V8 and then goes on to say that they get more joy out of a turbo engine with the same power is either full of crap, or hasn't actually driven anything with such a motor."

Since no one made any such claim I would wonder why you bothered to make such a comment. Oh, I got it- you wanted to let everyone know how many M cars you have driven. Now that you are done with the bravado you might want to go back and read the initial points. What WAS said is that you can get just as much power and more torque and better efficiency out of a larger displacement engine. I love how everyone keeps beating up on turbos when no one said you HAVE to use a turbo. BMW made that decision but MB has not. Gm is using forced induction and NA engines in its high performance vehicles. You don't have to utilize turbos to create a high performance car.

""I almost forgot: what BMW has to do now to lose any shred of credibility is to put a god-forsaken V6 in the next M3..."

BMW doesn't make V6s."

Hi 1487. Well, if you read the interview with Mr M Boss, you'd know his textual words were that it would be an I6 or a V6. It was his inclusion, not mine.

Just for fun, I did a word count up to this point.

The "Comments" section for this post is almost 8,000 words.

Whew! My eyes hurt...

1487, it isn't a moot point. Some of us won't buy a car with a DCT/DSG type transmission. Therefore, someone will probably keep making regular MTs for us and we will want engines that match.

You also need to lay off the strawmen. You complain that you didn't say certain things that others assigned to you, then you go and say "You are missing the point. Sadbuttrue and his fan club are on here complaining about the death of the high revving M engines as if there is no justification for BMW's decision." Where did anyone say there wasn't justification? Plenty of people said they understood the rationale, but didn't like it. It's like you're reading the first third of a post and then assuming the rest.

Actually few who are criticizing this move have said they understand the rationale. Much of this was about showing engineering prowess- it had nothing to do with the M philosophy being the best solution to a problem. BMw now believes it can show its engineering know how with turbos and direct injection. The current M engines use a means to an end and the new M engines utilize a different means to get the same end result. The initial post complained about BMW not understanding the appeal and visceral connection between a man and his high revving engine. I'm sure BMw understands all that but believes any such concerns will be put to rest once someone actually drives an M3 or M5 with a turbo. Before the 335i came out BMW fans used to make fun of FI engines. I used to be told that use of forced induction was a subsitute for lackluster engineering abilities. After people sampled the 335i doubts about the 3L turbo vanished.

I don't get the complaints about the engine size when the M5 has a 5L engine and the new turbo V8 is 4.4L. If increased engine size leads to dampened responses through the shifter and a heavire clutch how will the next M5 suffer by getting a 4.4L v8? With turbos you can decrease engine size and get more power so if you want a manual tranny I don't see forced induction as the enemy.

@church123

zcalvert wrote: "has it occurred to you that other people's preferences may differ from your own? why the need to immediately try to shoot down any opinion you disagree with?"

I think that's what 1487 was referring too.

The bottomline is this: BMW is smarter than Sadlier and any one else complaining about the new direction in M powertrains. Their new cars will likely be faster and more efficient than the current V8 and V10 who's capabilities are limited. When you build an engine that's already stressed to the max, there is no room for improvement. That's the disadvantage of that power philosophy. How can the current M3/M5 make more power? Either you can add displacement or increase rpms, that's it. If you add displacement, you'll likely get fractionally more HP but much more torque and the rev limit will decrease. If you add revs, you will destroy the linearity of the torque curve to get more power at the top % of the rpm range that is barely useable.

With the new turbo/DI engine, you always have headroom and I would think "purists" would appreciate that fact.

Or you can simply think of it like this: if BMW really cared about the purists or wished to give them what they wanted, they'd have to jack up the price of M cars even higher to offset the cost of producing the purpose built engines. Perhaps that'll help pay for their CAFE penalties as well.

1487 = chavis10

Don't ignore 1487, I'm sure that his automotive engineering expertise is second to none.

How could he NOT be an enthusiast? He drives a fucking Saturn!

Ah yes...

we can always count on 1487 to add a certain condescending tone to the debate. thank you so much!

perhaps the editors could grace us with a tool to ignore certain posts, along with the edit function that everyone seems to want.

and yes, i know 1487 will now call me evil and stupid for wishing M would stick with high-rpm, NA engines. i should clearly know better than to disagree with any of his opinions. i'll try not to break down in tears when i read his response insulting my terrible ignorance.

"Before the 335i came out BMW fans used to make fun of FI engines. I used to be told that use of forced induction was a subsitute for lackluster engineering abilities. After people sampled the 335i doubts about the 3L turbo vanished."

Um, I hate to say it, but FI is precisely that: a substitute for proper engineering.

If you need "proof", watch how people put 500$ chips in their 335i's to get 400 horses. Never mind that they aren't a reliable 400 horses, just realize how easily they get them.
In a NA engine, to get from 300 to 400 horses you have to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

To put another example: for around 5000$ ESS sells supercharger kits for E46 M3's that leave you at 450 horses minimum.

It is patently obvious that FI is the easy way to get power. There can be no doubt about that.

"syt_shadow, an engines ability to handle forced induction is purely based on how strong the stock block was designed from the factory (assuming no changing of the interals). Even among factory turbo cars, not all engines are created equal. The engines in Evos are known for handling twice the factory rating with no reliability issues. Previous generation STIs are known to blow ringlands after only a modest power increase (~350whp). The old Mazdaspeed Proteges also had weak bottomends. "

Umm... no. A engine's ability to stand more power depends on every single part that moves and that is now under greater stress. The pistons themselves, the O-rings, the conrod... EVERYTHING. Those pieces are now transmitting much higher values of torque, values they were not designed to transmit.

The reason they don't blow up immediately is that they are built to be pretty reliable. There are some engines which are over engineering, however, you can be sure that nowadays it is a major priority to shed all unneeded weight from an engine, gearbox or whatever.

Like I said, manufacturers change multiples pieces for increases of just 40 horses. You can be absolutely, unmistakably sure that there is a good reason for that.

isellcars,

Nice cop out if you dont like what is being said. I speak for myself only. Sorry to disappoint.

msh1:

Whenever you have nothing intelligent to add you can always fall back on profanity and talking about what car I drive. Now that I have been "outed" in terms of my car I will run and hide now. I don't know what you drive because honestly I don't even recall seeing your name around here- good to know you are paying close attention to my posts though.

zcalvert:

My opinion is irrelevent. BMW has made the decision already which means the points being raised are valid. Attacking me or ignoring the truth of the matter isn't going to change that. I don't design BMW engines and thus you are wasting your time venting your anger at me. Send an email to Munich. Got to love people who have nothing to say about cars but plenty to say about other posters. If know little about the topic at hand just stay silent- it wont kill you. I respect performance, I'm not that concerned about how its achieved and obviously BMW isn't either at this stage.

isellcars00. 1487 = chavis10 = BMW's decision to make a modern powertrain suitable for the future.

"Um, I hate to say it, but FI is precisely that: a substitute for proper engineering. "

No, actually, modern FI is precisely a way to increase power without increase displacement and keeping fuel consumption at bay. With direct injection, the charge is much cooler than FI engines in recent past which decreases internal wear. If you think BMW's turbo/DI engines lack "proper engineering," then I guess this debate is truly pointless.

This is absolutely terrible news, even though I heard this like a year ago. Makes me think that my e46 will be the last M car I own, unless I change my mind about the e92 or they come out with a z4 m with the beautiful s65 power plant.

a few people have already outlined why M high-revving engines are so great, but I'll re-iterate. The most important thing is that they give the car such a wonderful personality. When you tap the throttle to slowly pass someone at ~4k rpm, it's like the engine is saying "c'mon, just downshift one more gear and let me have it!" There's an eagerness about M engines that just isn't present in any of the competition.

When I was looking for my e46, I test drove the usual competition: 335i, c55/c32 AMG, S4. These cars CAN go fast for sure (c55 felt noticeably faster than my M), but they aren't half as fun to ring out. Flooring those cars felt sort of like flooring a Camry, but evertyihng is fast forwarded 2x. In the e46, however, I get great satisfaction flooring it even if it isn't the fastest car out there. The engine just keeps pulling and pulling while screaming a downright evil song.

The point is that M cars are supposed to give you a full race car experience while still seating 4 comfortably. Each generation has gotten softer and softer as far as suspension/weight/steering etc. goes, and now the final nail in the coffin is coming with M division putting in turbos.

Are these high-revving, small engines efficient from either a price or performance standpoint? Absolutely not. But if I'm driving a sports car, I would MUCH rather have a high revving screamer with 400hp than a lazy high displacement/turbo motor with 500hp. This is why this news is such a shame. Numbers do not make the car. The driving experience does... Sure, more power/effeciency is nice, but at the price of the car's soul? Hell no.

BTW 1487, you mention all other cars having high redlines, ie c63 AMG etc. You're completely wrong. While these cars may have high red-lines, their power falls flat on its face around the 6k mark. It's 100% noticeable if you were to actually drive one. You can also look up the Dyno graphs for those cars. Off the top of my head, the only competitor with as high-strung of an engine as M cars would be the RS4. Even that engine is pretty subdued and quiet comparably though.

Also, these recent M division developments (M SUVS, turboes, etc.) are NOT comparable to what porsche did. Porsche makes tons of paper from the Cayenne, but they turn around and build great, true sports cars like the GT3, 911s, etc. The M division lineup, however, is now left with only ONE sports car, and even that is questionable considering it's 3700 pounds. I would have no problem with them building these turbocharged sedans and SUVs, if they just made ONE true sports car like a CSL or whatever.

"Therefore, someone will probably keep making regular MTs for us and we will want engines that match."

Agreed, Church. I don't really get the contingent of people out there who expect manual transmissions to be completely gone in 5 years. Its not going to happen. The numbers may reduce, and we may see more performance cars that are sold based on their numbers (read: GT-R) without a manual, but it will never disappear completely.

Thank you, 1487, for proving my point about your posts. At least you're consistent - any time a writer here dares to post a personal opinion or preference, you're johnny-on-the-spot to spout off your "facts" that prove how wrong they are.
What makes your posts so amusing is that you lack the self awareness to see how obnoxious you are. Perhaps politics is in your future?

One last time - it is an OPINION that some people like BMW M cars better with smallish NA engines. That OPINION has nothing to do with what you claim are facts about BMW's corporate decision-making (which unless your commute in your Saturn is to the BMW corporate offices in Munich, I doubt you have much inside insight into). Nobody cares if you disagree, just that you choose to be a jerk about it.

1487: "My opinion is irrelevent. BMW has made the decision already which means the points being raised are valid. Attacking me or ignoring the truth of the matter isn't going to change that. I don't design BMW engines and thus you are wasting your time venting your anger at me."

I'm picturing Leonard Nimoy when I read the above. I don't know how much use this will be, you don't seem particularly well socialized, but I'll try.

You seem to have misunderstood the point of this thread, which is to mourn the passing of the M-Division's ideals. People aren't upset with you over your opinions, but over your timing, because you follow-up each eulogy with comments like "Eh, never cared for him anyway." "Big deal, he's dead, he's been sick for YEARS - you're surprised?" "Some of you guys didn't even know him all that well, what are you moaning about?"

People haven't discussed the political and economic realities because (aside from the fact they're OBVIOUS), that's not what the discussion's about. We're discussing a fallen soldier, and you're lecturing about the politics behind the war.

There's someone that feels that way at every wake. They aren't emotionally involved, don't see the fuss, didn't even like the dead SOB. Typically, they have the tact to remain silent. Why not give that a try for now?

one of the best posts in terms of comments generated. :)

i imagine an M car will always be a blast to drive no matter what BMW came up with next. i am very jealous of those who can drive one ... while i live in New England i will probably never buy any of these perfect machines -- the road salt will eat through everything in a couple of years. and affording one is one thing, but needing a winter car doubles all expenses. *sigh* although the G37 is somewhat close for a LOT less money.

epbrown: well put... but he won't get it. it's tough to make a rational argument to someone who doesn't seem to think rationally.

i expect you'll be joining me in his next post telling us how stupid we are.

"In one fell swoop, the M brand went from a symbol of unadulterated driving passion to something disturbingly like AMG."

You sold me at this comment, Josh. I've always said I'd rather have an AMG than an M, here's hoping that BMW can figure out torque.

-mm

1487, the 3.0TT hasn't erased doubts about turbos in BMWs. If anything it's reinforced the notion that turbos and inline 6s do not = fun.

syt_shadow:Umm... no. A engine's ability to stand more power depends on every single part that moves and that is now under greater stress.

syt_, sorry for being a little too generic in my terminology. When I said 'stock block', I meant not opening the engine up to replace anything such as head bolts, conrods, pistons, bearings, etc. Hence, my references to the weak pistons of the STI and the weak rods of the Protege.

I've worked as an engineer in the automotive industry for about 5 years now, I'm quite familiar with engineering to specified durability requirements.

@boxermike "here's hoping that BMW can figure out torque."

Bit of a throwaway: BMW has one more Int'l Engine of the Year awards, and by the proverbial country mile, (voted on by global auto journliasm community) than any other marque. And BMW designed/built the V12 in the defining purists' supercar of the 20th Century, the McLaren F1. For anyone who has traveled to Europe the range of engines is staggering, from small diesels to V12s.

Methinks the BMW engineers have figured out Nm or lb/ft (if living in the measurement equivalence of Dark Ages).

BMW's shift is in my view about appealing to a different target market that does not want to finesse MT changes at 8,400 redlines, while heeling & toe-ing; and agreed w/ others, it's about leveraging existing engine designs while meeting anticipated power/economy goals.

And yes, ///M needs to make 'lazy' torque to move the hefty X5 M & X6 M around. And no secret that those vehicles are to exploit another niche vs the Cayenne & ML AMG. A highly profitable niche w/ higher EBIT margins than the sedans/coupes. It's not as if this strategy is a secret, see comments from BMW Australia below:

"“Their first priority was a car [the X6, sic!] with coupe design, agility and performance, street credibility and uniqueness. In addition, they appreciated the versatility offered by a sports activity vehicle.

“Many X6 customers are entrepreneurs or self employed professionals with one or no kids, and new to the BMW brand. They told us that traditional SUV styling was boring and normal coupes offered less versatility than the X6.

“Now with the arrival of the X6 M, we’re able to offer an M version which will tempt performance-oriented buyers considering an ML 63 AMG or Cayenne Turbo .."

So, there'll be new BMW ///M buyers - different from those who came before.

Bottom line: I expect BMW will cater to the Old Guard by coming out w/ a lighter, more efficient M3. Just not an E92 M3 CSL - that's already fallen by the wayside. Next gen.

Edit above: BMW has WON more Int'l Engine of the Year awards - hey, taking some painkillers for my headache and clearly disengaged my brain when typing :D

Also meant to comment on the original blog: "just wait till it's got a blown V8 under the hood like every other M."

Bit clueless: M CEO's interviews have been out a few weeks stating that the next M3 will have a turbo 6 - not an 8. And yes, could even be - heresy (being ironic here) - a V6. The rationale for the latter probably is to be able to more facilely achieve the goal of 50/50 weight distribution given a more compact block can be mounted more front/mid.

Admittedly, would be a huge shift culturally for BMW to move away from IL 6 config. But hey, they're making ///M SUVs now (<cough, SAVs ;) ) so how many more taboos can they break?!

If anything, I can mentally embrace a V6 ///M engine more readily - if it leads to more efficient design solutions - than the sell-out implications of the ///M SAVs.

BMW AG has to make money ... so if ///M SAVs gives us a lighter M3 in the future through profit subsidization, so be it!

^"Bit clueless: M CEO's interviews have been out a few weeks stating that the next M3 will have a turbo 6 - not an 8."

Bit harsh, but true. I'll strike "V8" from the original. Point stands.

-JS

I dunno, I hear ya on the naturally aspirated thing, but they can do some pretty amazing things with turbos these days. The 2.0T in VW and Audis for example. That engine has near instant throttle response, no turbo lag, and a torque curve that looks more like a naturally aspirated diesel than a little turbo 4 cylinder gas engine. If we were in 1985, I wouldn't believe it to be possible.

Stingray454: I've had extensive time behind a Golf GTi V (200 hp TFSI engine) and you can be sure there is turbo lag. If you're used to turbos you may think it has less lag than a traditional one, which is true, but it certainly has lag

"Bit harsh, but true. I'll strike "V8" from the original. Point stands.
-JS"

Fair enough. I should have been more tactful. Apologies.