Spy Photos: Turbocharged BMW M5 on the Nurburgring

This is for all the whiners that complain about a "lack of torque". Well, now they'll have plenty of that!
I wish they simply improved the V10 and kept it NA. Besides, if the new engines is the TTV8, how the hell are they going to use the DKG of the M3?

"The larger numbers look nice but the way they are delivered will totally change and neglect the M concept and philosophy. Its not about numbers. =("

Agreed. I need to find a nice pre-owned M car sooner than later.

The German horsepower race was so 2007.

The M3 is nearly what the old M5 was anyway. Maybe BMW will find a need for a 1-based M1.

I agree with you hondacura, at least about the dilution of the M3. However, I drove the 09 M3 and if it wasn't for the full garage already I know I would enjoy it. But the E46 m3 still remains one of my most desired cars.

I wonder when fuel economy concerns will necessitate a decrease in M power. In the last 20 years I can't think of one model from any car company that was replaced with one of lesser power.

Horse Power is only a part of the engine delivery. Look at the torque of the new engine it started to deliver the 500 lb ft at 1500 rpm. The 0-60 will be faster and the daily driving will be more pleasant as this is a sport sedan for people who wants fun, easy, and some comfort. Also the turbo will have more room to modified.

"I agree with you hondacura, at least about the dilution of the M3."

Inlinesix, never mentioned the M3 specifically as it, for the most part, is still inline with the M philosophy.

BMW started diluting the badge with the introduction of the X6M and X5M and the addition "low revving" turbo V8. Now, this V8TT has a chance to be in the next M5. I surely welcome the added power and torque but the small displacement, high revving character was a large part of what defined the M concept and it helped heighten the driving experience.

Out of my 3 favorite car companies (BMW, Honda, Ferrari) only one has stayed true to its higher performance offerings and that's Ferrari with the Scuderia and Challenge trim models.

Honda of Europe, unfortunately slapped a Type R badge on the "high performance" version of the Civic hatchback. Its only a Type R in name as its certainly not inline with the Type R philosophy. Now BMW is doing something similar with the M badge.

I'm really afraid these 2 badges will end up becoming marketing tools instead of remaining Honda and BMW's true, pure and unique definition of high performance.

"In the last 20 years I can't think of one model from any car company that was replaced with one of lesser power."

Actually Audi is doing this in the S series sedans with big V8's and swapping them down to V6's with less power

I wanna believe that IF they put the TTV8 to the new M5, it will be the highest revving turbo seen by then... :)

hondacura4,

I generally agree with what you say here, but I wouldn't say using a TTV8 in the case of the X5M and X6M is diluting the brand. Putting a NA V10 that makes "little" torque doesn't make much sense when you're lugging around 2350 kgs, so I always thought they'd use a TT to up the torque.

The problem is that the TTV8, for all its excellence, doesn't meet the standards M5's set, that is: NA, high-rpm engine.

By the way, good point with the Type R here in Europe. They should just call then "Si"'s like in the US.

Cheers

HondaAcura4, I must be your brother. At the moment, My 2 of my 3 companies which are (BMW, Honda and Ferrari) are doing complete nonsense. Right now Mercedes seems more in touch with the M philosophy than the progenitors themselves. Honda now seems averse to sport, the very thing that made them as a brand in the first place. My heart aches...

This change in philosophy was invetiable. Small displacement, low torque high revving engines are no good in heavy cars. That is simply a fact. The M3 may be able to get away with this because it's under 4000lbs but this new M5 will probably be 4200+ lbs and with that kind of mass, you need torque. Otherwise, the E63 and CTS-V will continue to spank this car in acceleration. 383lbs-ft is a joke considering the level of torque the competitors come to the game with so I applaud BMW for making the M5 relevant again. You people may not want to admit this but the current M5 was a flawed concept from the beginning. Nobody wants a single automated clutch in a big full sized sedan, just ask Maserati. Also, why do I have to push a button to get the full power of the engine? I hope BMW just delivers a fast car without all the useless techno wizardry. Give me cubes or forced induction and a dual clutch or a slushbox and I'll be happy.

Actually chavis10, if a car has a gearbox then acceleration times depend on HORSEPOWER, not torque. Torque is not capable of accelerating anything as it cannot do any work, only horsepower can.
Torque changes how comfortable it may be to drive a car (ie not having to downshift), but only horsepower will make it accelerate quicker if one can downshift.

syt_shadow- I'm well aware of the defintion of horsepower and torque. Small dsiplacement engines basically can get to their horsepower peaks faster than larger displacement engine because of quicker revving (lower recip mass) but the heavier the vehicle the more stress the motor undergoes to produce impressive results. Look at how Honda basically abandoned their whole high specific output formula. They are now making 3.7L V6s to keep up with the competition. As you said, torque doesn't quicken acceleration but its abundance greatly improves driver satisfaction.

Horsepower is the rate in which torque is applied so the more torque you have per given horsepower, the easier things are for the engine to achieve the same acceleration. However, your little physics lesson does not address the issue of this approach in heavy cars. In car like say an S2000, it doesn't really matter because of its low mass but this philosophy is flawed in modern porky sport sedans. The new head guy over a M GmbH cleary said he's after the best solution to produce impressive performance and if a turbo works that's what he'll use. This means fewer cylinders, direct injection and forced induction. The mileage on the current M cars is atrocious given the relatively small displacement of their enignes (comapare the mileage of a 4L M3 to the heavier 6.2L s/c CTS-V to get my point). The lack of torque means the engines must really rev to move these cars with any authority and higher RPM means higher fuel consumption. BMWs new generation TT/DI engines are simply much better solutions than the current fleet of M engines.

BMW used to scoff at AMG for making supercharged V8s and V12s to get big power. Lo and behold they are now doing the same thing. Amazing how times change. BMW had reached the limits of what could be done with NA engines and in order to increase hp and produce decent torque to deal with their heavy tech laden vehicles they had to go to forced induction. Considering the terrible mileage of the M3 and M5 I would suspect we will see better efficiency in the next gen models.

I do not know why there is so much hate towards BMW building an X5/X6 M. People who love the M brand love what it does to the cars we already love. I am starting a family and love SUV's. If I had the money, the X5 M would be the only choice...looks great, comfortable, and fast as stink! Having sold my M3...this is an opportunity to have my cake and eat it too...

Having been a fan of BMW M cars since the E30 M3 came out when I was in Jr. high (yea, I'm old), I'm okay with the new changes. I'm not a fan of the ideas of the X5 or X6 M, but the turbos are fine with me. The times are changing, get over it. That being said, I'll flip out if BMW ever changes from inline 6s to V-6s. Since BMW announced they'll have 4 cylinder turbos in the 3 series in 2012/13, I hope they'll put one in a lighter 1 series and call it a tii model. That would be a blast.

I am in full agreement that the low-rev nature of the new N63B44 engine is counter to M GmbH's roots. That being said, there is a slight chance that a high-revving version of the engine will see the light of day. M has stated that they will keep the engine and transmission in character with the vehicle using it. Does an M5 deserve a lofty redline? Who knows...the first three models never went for top revs, so I wouldn't bet on it. I'm expecting a very similar engine and transmission (auto, ugh) as the X5/X6 M. The next generation M3, however, better have a sky-high redline. It can be done with smaller displacement and turbocharging - the new McLaren MP4-MC12 will have twin-turbos and an 8,500 rpm redline. Supposed to be "green," too (at least relative to the power output). Unfortunately, if the next M3 goes twin-turbo, there is the possibility that a V6 with a similar setup as the twin-scroll, twin-trubo V8 in the X5/X6 M will be used...

BMW-M cars division needs to meet new challenging regulations concerning MPG & emissions. The force induction is the only easy solution right now. So a 5.0L V10 w/twin turbo will be no problem to get 600 numbers for both HP and torque.

chavis10: My "little physics lesson" addressed your sentence stating:

>

I was merely pointing out that the phrase is incorrect. I'm glad you understand the concept (as you show in your reply post) but it isn't that obvious. Just the other day, IL editor Ed Hellwig didn't seem to get the point when he wrote this: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/autoshows/frankfurt/2009/audietronconceptfrankfurt.html so it's not like it's obvious.

Regarding consumption and the rest of your comments, we agree. RPMs are the 600-pound gorilla when it comes to consumption.

Cheers

Here's the sentence in question:

"Otherwise, the E63 and CTS-V will continue to spank this car in acceleration"

syt-Shawow. That's no surprise (your link). Most of the auto writers are journalists with little foundation on basic principles. That is why I take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Theorhetically, if the new M5 were to gain weight, as seems to be the trend nowadays, and a new engine of a similar design produced more power without an significant increase in torque, then my statement does have some merit. The extra weight of the vehicle would curtail the engine's ability to rev as quickly as needed to maintain or improve the current vehicle's acceleration. The high specific output approach reaches the point of diminishing returns once vehicular weight crosses a certain threshold. Dedicated sports cars with this kind of engine (think R8 4.2/5.2, 599GTB), even if heavy, have the advantage rear engine placement for better initial traction and/or AWD to help launch off the line.

As an aside for all the M lovers who lament the new powertrain direction, Lexus and Ferrari are insane with these two new engines. The LF-A will get 550hp out of 4.8L and we all know the story of the Italia's powerplant- the highest specific output naturally aspirated engine to ever be put into production.

"I generally agree with what you say here, but I wouldn't say using a TTV8 in the case of the X5M and X6M is diluting the brand."

Syt, I have no issue with the modified V8TT used in the X5M and X6M as they are extremely heavy. What I have a problem with is these actual applications wearing the M badge.

"This change in philosophy was inevitable. Small displacement, low torque high revving engines are no good in heavy cars. That is simply a fact."

Chavis, I have to disagree as it depends on the engines overall execution. I'm unsure if you've ever driven the current M5 but the V10 has more than enough torque for at low to mid RPM. Its overall paper specifications may give the impression that its peaky but in reality its very very impressive at any engine speed. A 4100lb car with 5.0 normally aspirated liters that can trap in the 115 range is more than adequate in my eyes and had no issues running with its larger displacement German rivals. The current CTS-V is faster because of obvious reasons like 1.2L displacement advantage and a supercharger.

"Look at how Honda basically abandoned their whole high specific output formula."

Chavis, Honda didn't abandon that concept as their mainstream cars have always been fairly modest in terms of HP/L, usually in the 65 to 75 HP/L range. Its the high performance engines that have always been of the specific high output type. The F20C, F22, K20, B16A, B16B, B18C1, B18C5, C30A, C32B all were all higher in specific output and debuted in high performing vehicles.

"BMW used to scoff at AMG for making supercharged V8s and V12s to get big power. Lo and behold they are now doing the same thing. Amazing how times change."

I know! I remember an ad in one of my car magazines 4 or so years ago where they basically bragged about not using forced induction, while indirectly dissing Mercedes for doing it with their AMG models.

to me, that looks like 7 series in m, not m5.

Hondacura4: I've driven an E60 M5 twice and what surprised me each time is how much it pulls at just 2000 rpm. I guess "lack of torque" is a relative concept when you have E63's and CTS-V's around, but it didn't feel peaky at all, more like I had some kind of insane rocket engine in the front of the car.

The biggest problem I saw with the M5 is the SMGIII. It's sad something like that made it into production. Granted, when driving like if you were on a closed course it works very well, but around town the shifts could not be any worse, jerkier or slower.

I don't know why they can't just improve the V10 to lower consumption and put the MDCT into it. I don't see downsizing offering big advantages, after all, in the European cycle a Golf GTi (2L, turbo, 200 hp) consumes more than a 530i (3L, NA, 272 hp).

Besides, the 4.4TTV8 will never sound like the NA V10 does. In comparisons of the E46M3 and the 335i there is a massive, undeniable advantage to the former in terms of sound. The current V10 sounds significantly better than a CTS-V too. What a shame :(

"The biggest problem I saw with the M5 is the SMGIII. It's sad something like that made it into production. Granted, when driving like if you were on a closed course it works very well, but around town the shifts could not be any worse, jerkier or slower."

I definitely agree with you SYT in regards to the SMG as it was near perfection in spirited or aggressive driving. However, around town it was unexpectedly unrefined and overly clunky. I didn't care for the actions of the 6 speed manual at all as it just didn't feel connected to the car. If I was going to buy an M5 Id still get the SMG.

"I don't know why they can't just improve the V10 to lower consumption and put the MDCT into it. I don't see downsizing offering big advantages."

SYT, I think we are on the same page. Instead of using the turbo V8 I wish BMW would also make some significant improvements to the V10. Maybe an increase of displacement to 5.5L's, add DI and lighten a few internal parts just as Porsche did with its amazing 3.8 flat 6. I think there is plenty of life left in the V10 in both the areas of power/torque production, increased performance and increased efficiency.

This turbocharged mess makes me worried about the next M3 engine as its V8 was sourced from the M5's V10.

LOL, seems like we've got our private thread here :D

I haven't tried the 6 speed manual in the M5 because it doesn't exist in Europe. Reading about the SMGIII in forums I understand there's a learning curve to it but I still think it's absolutely ridiculous. Besides, I study engineering and there *are* ways to make things engage smoothly, even SMG's or whatever. You certainly don't see production robots having strange clunky movements!

I think that keeping displacement (or maybe increasing it a bit) and just adding the upgrades they built into the M3 V8 would be a wicked upgrade. Hell, keep the same engine and give it the DCT! No one complains about the beautiful engine, they complain about the stupid gearbox.

This TT "higher efficiency" is a load of BS. As you said, Porsche is able to consistently get more power and less consumption and BMW has also done that all throughout the years. I remember when the TT I6 came out and BMW said that it had comparable power to their old 3.5L V8 and consumed less --nice try BMW, but try comparing to an engine that isn't 30 years old.

A NA engine can have very low consumption and plenty of power, all it needs if clever engineering. The V8 in the M3, a "gas guzzler" according to everyone, got 17 mpg in a comparison against the C63, which got 15 mpg. So much for high-revving gas guzzlers...

Anyway, about the M3's V8: read this and weep:
http://blogs.motortrend.com/6556141/car-news/fewer-cylinders-turbos-the-future-of-m/index.html
I wonder who this new dude in the M division is... a weener?

Cheers