Turbo M Cars in the future?

[bmwqc]

BMW may be going the turbo route with its M cars.


http://www.autoblog.com/2008/11/27/bmw-switching-to-turbocharged-m-cars/

[Emre]

Makes sense to me. Will allow for smaller, lighter engines. They can also take advantage of E85 to make crazy power out of really small displacement engines.

Besides, BMW was one off the pioneers of turbos in production cars and racing cars. Turbos + M-Division = a natural match in my book.

[bmwqc]

Yep. Turbo engines are much more refined these days. Older turbo cars had problems with turbo lag, poor low end torque, poor reliability and high fuel consumption.




Makes sense to me. Will allow for smaller, lighter engines. They can also take advantage of E85 to make crazy power out of really small displacement engines.

Besides, BMW was one off the pioneers of turbos in production cars and racing cars. Turbos + M-Division = a natural match in my book.

[Gregster]

Perfect excuse for an electronic boost controller!

[Andrei]

Audi S cars are already going back to turbo. The new S4 is getting a 6 cylinder turbo with 335 hp (5 less than the V8). Lighter engines, lower consumption, lower emissions.

Even my SUV is only a 3.0L now. For some reason the registration says 2.0L. Maybe because it's an oil burner.

I have just discovered another advantage of diesel in QC. The gas pump handle has the little tab to lock it in open position. Those tabs are illegal on gasoline pumps due to risk of static electricity spark. But for diesel the amount of static charge needed to ignite it can only be generated if 5000 pimps in fur coats rub against an acre of persian rugs. I guess I can talk on the cell phone near the pump, too.

[kenneth]

Tuners and aftermarket industry will just go crazy!!!

[blacksheep]

Audi S cars are already going back to turbo. The new S4 is getting a 6 cylinder turbo with 335 hp (5 less than the V8). Lighter engines, lower consumption, lower emissions.it's actually supercharged, not turbocharged

I wonder if the turbo M cars will still generate the "overheat warning" and limp-home mode after track use like the 335's do

[kenneth]

it's actually supercharged, not turbocharged

I wonder if the turbo M cars will still generate the "overheat warning" and limp-home mode after track use like the 335's do

Probably not, but if it did, an aftermarket oil cooler would fix that, as it does for the 335. Non-sport 335 does not have an oil cooler, and the OC on the sport is smallish. A few aftermarket tuners have come out with enhanced OC which have been track proven with instructors driving them hard.

I will need to enhance mine eventually, when my driving skills improve and the car gets pushed harder. No limps to date.

[LagunaM3]

BMW may be going the turbo route with its M cars.


Bleh...yet another reason to get a Porsche.

[Emre]

Bleh...yet another reason to get a Porsche.Yeah, cuz Porsche doesn't do turbos.

:confused:

[sebdavid]

On one hand, you can't dispute the efficiency of modern turbo engines.
On the other hand, they usually don't sound as good, don't have exactly the same throttle response, and aren't as much of a "purist" choice.

[LagunaM3]

Yeah, cuz Porsche doesn't do turbos.

:confused:

Not on the cars I care about: Cayman, Cayman S, 911, 911 S, 911 GT3, 911 GT3 RS.

I'd never buy a 911 TT for a track car. I'd buy it if I had oodles of spare money and I wanted a 911 for a daily driver. And the GT2 is just an excuse to put a crazy motor in a 911 GT3 and charge a ton of $$ for it. Porsche's "serious" track cars are all normally-aspirated (i.e., GT3).

[LagunaM3]

On one hand, you can't dispute the efficiency of modern turbo engines.
On the other hand, they usually don't sound as good, don't have exactly the same throttle response, and aren't as much of a "purist" choice.

Bingo.

Plus FI engines are not as reliable as NA ones (on track).

[Emre]

Not on the cars I care about: Cayman, Cayman S, 911, 911 S, 911 GT3, 911 GT3 RS.I still have a weakness for the 930.


Plus FI engines are not as reliable as NA ones (on track).Even on the track, I'm not sure that this is a major issue in practice. If the car is well maintained and not modded to hell, then a turbo can be just as reliable. The unreliability comes from so-called "tuners" who extract huge power in reckless ways. Lots of name-brand tuners just advance ignition timing and turn up the boost. They accept high knock counts, lean running at high rpms, and boost spikes as necessary evils. They are not. With a good tune and proper fueling and cooling, a turbo car is just as reliable as anything else.

The other source of unreliability comes from not comparing like for like. "Your 2.0L turbo SR20DET is not as reliable as my N/A 2.0L Duratec." Really? Maybe that's because you're making >400 hp and >400 lbs/ft in one case and <140 hp and <140 lbs/ft in the other. Apples and oranges.

Personally, I'd put my money on a properly tuned 2.0L 4G36T lasting much longer (and being more problem free) under extreme track conditions than a properly tuned N/A S14B25 stoker. And I wouldn't expect a well-tuned RB26DETT to be any less reliable on the track than an S54B32. Until tuners start screwing with these engines, they are perfectly reliable.

IME and IMHO, the big downside of turbo applications on the track is the relatively poor throttle response. You have some lag between what the throttle pedal is doing and what's going on at the wheels. That makes it tricky to balance the car at the limit. In terms of throttle response, there's just no comparison between a real M-engine running multiple throttle bodies and a turbo car...unless the turbo is running an anti-lag system, which changes everything.

[bmwqc]

Forced induction does not necessarily mean less reliability. It all depends on how much power you want to extract from a given displacement. At the height of the turbo years, F1 cars used to get over 1000bhp from only 1.5 liters. The first 1.5L turbo engines in 1977 (Renault V6) had very poor reliability. The superior engine performance could not compensate for the high rate of DNFs. However by the end of the turbo era, during the transitional year in 1988, with lower boost, improved technology, the turbo V6 Honda powered McLaren cars killed the competition and managed to win 15 of 16 races. During that year, there were only 2 other teams using turbos, the others had all switched over to the 3.5L NA motors.

Street cars with turbos are very conservatively tuned compared to their racing counterparts. And with continued refinement, I could see them evenutally supplant the normally aspirated engines.




Bingo.

Plus FI engines are not as reliable as NA ones (on track).

[LagunaM3]

I still have a weakness for the 930.

Unless you have a time machine, you aint buying one of those new. :D Besides, the 930 is just an old 911 TT, and I stated my opinion on that.


Even on the track, I'm not sure that this is a major issue in practice. If the car is well maintained and not modded to hell, then a turbo can be just as reliable.

Maybe. Most of the people I know who have had FI track cars tend to have more engine-related issues than those with NA cars. That's just my un-scientific, anecdotal experience...



IME and IMHO, the big downside of turbo applications on the track is the relatively poor throttle response. You have some lag between what the throttle pedal is doing and what's going on at the wheels. That makes it tricky to balance the car at the limit. In terms of throttle response, there's just no comparison between a real M-engine running multiple throttle bodies and a turbo car...unless the turbo is running an anti-lag system, which changes everything.

I haven't driven every turbo car ever made, but I've never driven one that has the throttle response of my S54 M3. And I agree that relative throttle response is a bigger deal than relative reliability when comparing FI vs NA.

[LagunaM3]

Forced induction does not necessarily mean less reliability. It all depends on how much power you want to extract from a given displacement. At the height of the turbo years, F1 cars used to get over 1000bhp from only 1.5 liters. The first 1.5L turbo engines in 1977 (Renault V6) had very poor reliability. The superior engine performance could not compensate for the high rate of DNFs. However by the end of the turbo era, during the transitional year in 1988, with lower boost, improved technology, the turbo V6 Honda powered McLaren cars killed the competition and managed to win 15 of 16 races. During that year, there were only 2 other teams using turbos, the others had all switched over to the 3.5L NA motors.

Let's not talk about F1. There are a million variables. Teams had different expertise, different budgets, reached their engineering peaks at different times, etc, etc. I'm talking about street legal production cars.

To each their own. I've never driven a turbo car I've liked as much as a S54 M3 or a NA 911. If BMW stops making NA M-cars, it won't be the *primary* reason that I won't be buying an M-car. The primary reason will be that those cars are fat pigs, are not exciting aesthetically (to me), and have interiors that I don't like. If BMW sold an E30 M3-ish car with a turbo engine, I'd probably buy it. And no, the 130--which weighs the same as an E46 M3--is not E30 M3-ish.

[Gregster]

Problem solved!
http://www.hotrodlane.cc/LS9/corvette-ss-zr1-ls9-photo2.jpg

[Andrei]

Unless you have a time machine, you aint buying one of those new. :D Besides, the 930 is just an old 911 TT, and I stated my opinion on that.

Yeah, but with a 930 Turbo (not TT, it's a single blower) you can walk around the paddock and act like Chuck Yaeger. Because you don't know if the next session is going to be your last.

[LagunaM3]

Problem solved!
http://www.hotrodlane.cc/LS9/corvette-ss-zr1-ls9-photo2.jpg

Just wish it came in a different package. Oh, and had different acoustics. Seriously, an engine like that should have a flat-plane crank. But that would piss off all vette clients who like to hear "rumble, rumble...".

[LagunaM3]

Yeah, but with a 930 Turbo (not TT, it's a single blower)

Oops, you're right of course. I don't know why the term "911 TT" is used. No one calls the car a "911 Twin Turbo"..everyone just calls it a "911 Turbo" or "a turbo". I guess if we abbreviated the name to just "911 T" it would get confused with a 911T. Wouldn't want that. :)


you can walk around the paddock and act like Chuck Yaeger. Because you don't know if the next session is going to be your last.

:D

[Gregster]

Just wish it came in a different package. Oh, and had different acoustics. Seriously, an engine like that should have a flat-plane crank. But that would piss off all vette clients who like to hear "rumble, rumble...".

Audi is going supercharged on their engines and BMW should do the same. This way you get gobs of power just like a turbo but without the lag that Emre is talking about. Although from what I've experienced the turbo lag is minimal on BMW engines compared to lets say an SRT-4 or a Volvo.

[Emre]

Unless you have a time machine, you aint buying one of those new. :D Besides, the 930 is just an old 911 TT, and I stated my opinion on that.I'm just saying that, like BMW, Porsche was one of the pioneers of turbochargers not only in production cars, but also in race cars. Porsche wouldn't have been dominating sports car and prototype racing in the 70s and 80s if it weren't for turbos.

So, I guess I just don't see a disconnect between forced induction and the "spirit" of Porsche or the M-division. Turbos are part of what put them on the map in the first place. It makes sense to me that they should be at the forefront of this technology.


Maybe. Most of the people I know who have had FI track cars tend to have more engine-related issues than those with NA cars. That's just my un-scientific, anecdotal experience...Again, I think that's because it's tough to leave well enough alone. When all you have to do to release 50-100 hp is bolt on a turbo-back exhaust and $100 boost controller, it's pretty tempting to do so. But without the proper fueling upgrades and a custom dyno tune, you're playing with fire.

Personally, I went the opposite direction. I used to turn my boost down at the track. I'd drop down from the stock 19psi to around 15psi. There was still plenty of power, and I didn't have to worry about engine knocking while running WOT at high rpms for extended periods in 95 degree heat.


If BMW sold an E30 M3-ish car with a turbo engine, I'd probably buy it. And no, the 130--which weighs the same as an E46 M3--is not E30 M3-ish.They do. It's called the Mini John Cooper Works: 208 hp and 192 lbs/ft from a 1.6L twin-cam; compact dimensions; short wheelbase; 6-speed close-ratio tranny; and LSD as standard. The best part? It weighs just 2700 lbs. Sound familiar?

The problem, of course, is that it's wrong-wheel drive.

[Gregster]

Now for a piece of automotive history.

Chevy made a version of the Corvair that was a Flat6 turbo back in the early 60s. It suffered from the same handling characteristics as the 930s and Ralph Nader. I think the 2nd one was worse then the handling. It came in 150hp and 180hp versions... Some consider this the first "mass" produced turbo charged car.

[Emre]

Now for a piece of automotive history.Yeah, that's why I said that BMW and Porsche were among the pioneers of turbo technology. There was the Corvair (as you mentioned). Also the Saab 99 (mid-70s) and the Mercedes 300 diesel (late-70s).

As for racing, I remember reading that turbos had been tried in race cars as early as the 1940's, but they weren't reliable enough to win until the Offenhauser Indy cars in the 60s. It was another 10 years before Porsche started winning races with the turbo 917.

[blacksheep]

Now for a piece of automotive history.

Chevy made a version of the Corvair that was a Flat6 turbo back in the early 60s. It suffered from the same handling characteristics as the 930s and Ralph Nader. I think the 2nd one was worse then the handling. It came in 150hp and 180hp versions... Some consider this the first "mass" produced turbo charged car.There was also the Oldsmobile F85


Just wish it came in a different package. Oh, and had different acoustics. Seriously, an engine like that should have a flat-plane crank. But that would piss off all vette clients who like to hear "rumble, rumble...".To solve the ZR1 exhaust sound you don't need a flat-plane crank. You need 180 degree headers that give the low-RPM rumble of American V-8's along with the high-RPM wail of the flat-crank Ferrari V-8's

This clip has terrible audio, but you get the idea (especially the 2nd half of the video) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZTbR6C6Lw

[Gregster]

that doesn't sound right....

ZR-1 kills it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pvK8qmtK_w&feature=related

[sebdavid]

In terms of throttle response, there's just no comparison between a real M-engine running multiple throttle bodies and a turbo car...unless the turbo is running an anti-lag system, which changes everything.

Yeah, it changes reliability (!!!) and ease of driving... but it sound so cool...

[PassatVR6]

I still have a weakness for the 930.

Even on the track, I'm not sure that this is a major issue in practice. If the car is well maintained and not modded to hell, then a turbo can be just as reliable. The unreliability comes from so-called "tuners" who extract huge power in reckless ways. Lots of name-brand tuners just advance ignition timing and turn up the boost. They accept high knock counts, lean running at high rpms, and boost spikes as necessary evils. They are not. With a good tune and proper fueling and cooling, a turbo car is just as reliable as anything else.

The other source of unreliability comes from not comparing like for like. "Your 2.0L turbo SR20DET is not as reliable as my N/A 2.0L Duratec." Really? Maybe that's because you're making >400 hp and >400 lbs/ft in one case and <140 hp and <140 lbs/ft in the other. Apples and oranges.

Personally, I'd put my money on a properly tuned 2.0L 4G36T lasting much longer (and being more problem free) under extreme track conditions than a properly tuned N/A S14B25 stoker. And I wouldn't expect a well-tuned RB26DETT to be any less reliable on the track than an S54B32. Until tuners start screwing with these engines, they are perfectly reliable.

IME and IMHO, the big downside of turbo applications on the track is the relatively poor throttle response. You have some lag between what the throttle pedal is doing and what's going on at the wheels. That makes it tricky to balance the car at the limit. In terms of throttle response, there's just no comparison between a real M-engine running multiple throttle bodies and a turbo car...unless the turbo is running an anti-lag system, which changes everything.

Very solid point, A turbo on stock boost can last forever.