[Jaymax85]

Originally Posted by ndukyh

Meant the Macan and f80

Oddly i don't but that's my macan

[Lt1camaro]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

I can't wait for all the people that will complain that the G80 is gonna have an automatic , as if the DCT they've been driving for the last 3 years isn't.

It's ok DCT guys , if the automatic is *faster* than the 6MT... that's all that matters right ?

I too will love having the same old ZF8 that has been in my past 5 daily drivers as well as almost every single luxury car in the market in my M3.

Hate it all you want, but the DCT has character and gives you a connection to the car that the ZF will NEVER give.

[RedGT3RS]

Originally Posted by dmboone25

Agreed...but the more important problem to me is the physical size, just like you say. Why, must each generation be bigger, even if it happens to be lighter? Makes no sense to me.

I agree, why does each generation keeps getting bigger?? People aren’t growing at an alarming rate!! The e90 size should have been it size wise.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Remonster

No, they didn't. The marketing department may claim that the original F80s had only 425hp vs the E90's 414 but this was never true. I work at a shop with a Dyno Dynamics dyno and we've tested countless M3s, the original F80s (pre-ZCP) always put down at least 50 wheel horsepower more than the E90s including my own 2013 E92 M3.

My personal E92 M3 did an average of 311whp (remember that a DD dyno reads lower than a more common Dynojet by roughly 17%) and every single stock F8x we ever tested was over 360whp and had a much, much wider powerband.

I've never believed the "free HP" story, no way do BMW give you free HP, hell they charge for split fold rear seats on a 100k F10 M5 they are mean, also what marketing dept that has a car with 475hp and then tells the world its got 425hp?

The answer? That kind of marketing dept doesn't exist and wouldn't last long.

[adc]

Originally Posted by Wills2

I've never believed the "free HP" story, no way do BMW give you free HP, hell they charge for split fold rear seats on a 100k F10 M5 they are mean, also what marketing dept that has a car with 475hp and then tells the world its got 425hp?

The answer? That kind of marketing dept doesn't exist and wouldn't last long.

What you believe is irrelevant.

If you chose to ignore the numerous dyno charts, look at the average 1/4 times and speeds for the two generations. There is a 5 mph rough difference between them (110-112mph to 115-118mph). That is not the work of 11BHP from the official documentation.

I've owned both cars, and the F80 is substantially faster, on and off the track. I expect the G80 to be again as much faster, regardless what dummy HP numbers they will advertise for it.

[brianeck]

Originally Posted by Lt1camaro

I too will love having the same old ZF8 that has been in my past 5 daily drivers as well as almost every single luxury car in the market in my M3.

Hate it all you want, but the DCT has character and gives you a connection to the car that the ZF will NEVER give.

Lol that's exactly the point us 6MT guys had. . . The 6MT has character and gives you a connection that NO automatic transmission will ever give. It is pretty funny seeing the shoe on the other foot now.

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by adc

What you believe is irrelevant.

If you chose to ignore the numerous dyno charts, look at the average 1/4 times and speeds for the two generations. There is a 5 mph rough difference between them (110-112mph to 115-118mph). That is not the work of 11BHP from the official documentation.

I've owned both cars, and the F80 is substantially faster, on and off the track. I expect the G80 to be again as much faster, regardless what dummy HP numbers they will advertise for it.

The better acceleration comes from having lots more power across the rev range earlier and then sustaining the peak power from 5500rpm.Compared to the S65 at points it makes over 100hp more that's what makes the difference, only at the very end does the gap narrow to 11hp that's a red herring.

But if you want to believe they gave you free HP and like underselling their cars then what ever makes you happy.

[autopal]

Originally Posted by adc

What you believe is irrelevant.

If you chose to ignore the numerous dyno charts, look at the average 1/4 times and speeds for the two generations. There is a 5 mph rough difference between them (110-112mph to 115-118mph). That is not the work of 11BHP from the official documentation.

I've owned both cars, and the F80 is substantially faster, on and off the track. I expect the G80 to be again as much faster, regardless what dummy HP numbers they will advertise for it.

The big difference between the 2 generations is torque, not HP. Not just the difference in ft pounds, but how much earlier peak torque arrives and stay flat with the F80. There's an old saying "horse power sells cars, but torque wins races"

[Remonster]

Originally Posted by Wills2

The better acceleration comes from having lots more power across the rev range earlier and then sustaining the peak power from 5500rpm.Compared to the S65 at points it makes over 100hp more that's what makes the difference, only at the very end does the gap narrow to 11hp that's a red herring.

But if you want to believe they gave you free HP and like underselling their cars then what ever makes you happy.

I'm telling you that we have dyno tested F82 M4s on the same day as my own personal stock (at the time) E92 M3 and PEAK horsepower was 360 at the wheels on the M4 and 311 at the wheels on my car. This lines up with all other E9x and F8x cars we have ever tested. E9x M3s were all around 305-315whp and F8x M3/M4s have all been above 350whp in all conditions. What you choose to believe is up to you.

Here is an example from K&N's dyno

[Wills2]

All the experts are out in force I see, another corrected dyno run on a self correcting turbo engine.

Wheel Dynos are good for one thing showing the delta before and after tuning nothing else. so your M4 loses 120hp between the crank and the wheels if you think it's making 480hp at the crank....OK.

Go bench test an engine like BMW do and then come back with the results, but you don't need to as they have already done it and went out of their way to explain why the peak hp number didn't matter in relation to the outgoing e92 on launch due to the fact that the S55 makes more power everywhere and sustains it.

Why would they do that when they had launched a 480hp replacement?

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by Wills2

The better acceleration comes from having lots more power across the rev range earlier and then sustaining the peak power from 5500rpm.Compared to the S65 at points it makes over 100hp more that's what makes the difference, only at the very end does the gap narrow to 11hp that's a red herring.

But if you want to believe they gave you free HP and like underselling their cars then what ever makes you happy.

I couldn't agree more with this post - my 425 hp F80 was WAY faster than any 414hp E9x - not because the 425 hp peak was "underrated," but because of the S55 making way more power earlier in the rev range (due to turbos) vs. the S65. Comparing FI to NA is not really a fair comparison, but it certainly does explain why a FI with 425 hp is way more "powerful" overall vs. a 414 hp NA car (all other factors being equal or nearly equal)...

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by Remonster

I'm telling you that we have dyno tested F82 M4s on the same day as my own personal stock (at the time) E92 M3 and PEAK horsepower was 360 at the wheels on the M4 and 311 at the wheels on my car. This lines up with all other E9x and F8x cars we have ever tested. E9x M3s were all around 305-315whp and F8x M3/M4s have all been above 350whp in all conditions. What you choose to believe is up to you.

Here is an example from K&N's dyno

I know a couple of years ago on the forum, there were a series of posts showing that for FI engines there are somewhat different parameters for dyno testing than what are applicable for NA engines - stated differently, the application of the exact same principles for dyno testing of NA engines to dyno testing of FI engines will always make the FI power ratings appear to be "underrated" - when in fact they are not (I'll try to track down these posts - I'm no engineer and I know I'm not properly stating the principle - stay tuned)...

So - 414 hp is 97.4% of 425. Is the S65 97.4% as powerful as the S55 at all rpm ranges? Of course not. The S65 at 8300 rpm is 97.4% as powerful as the S55 is from 5500-7300 rpm. So - it is only for that very brief, discrete RPM point of 8300 rpm that the S65 is close to the S55 in power. But when the S65 is at 5,000 rpm, 6,000 rpm, 7,000- rpm - the S65 is not even close to 97.4% of the horsepower level of the S55.

Once should look at: 1) the wheel horsepower of the S65 AT 8300 RPM vs. the S55 between 5500-7300 rpm; and 2) also while considering the S55 is FI. If both factors 1) and 2) are properly factored in, I'll bet the S65 at 8300 rpm is in fact 97.4% wheel horsepower (or close) to the S55, but the farther below 8,300 rpm the S65 is, the more noticeable of a horsepower gap there will be vs. the S55...

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

I know a couple of years ago on the forum, there were a series of posts showing that for FI engines there are somewhat different parameters for dyno testing than what are applicable for NA engines - stated differently, the application of the exact same principles for dyno testing of NA engines to dyno testing of FI engines will always make the FI power ratings appear to be "underrated" - when in fact they are not (I'll try to track down these posts - I'm no engineer and I know I'm not properly stating the principle - stay tuned)...

So - 414 hp is 97.4% of 425. Is the S65 97.4% as powerful as the S55 at all rpm ranges? Of course not. The S65 at 8300 rpm is 97.4% as powerful as the S55 is from 5500-7300 rpm. So - it is only for that very brief, discrete RPM point of 8300 rpm that the S65 is close to the S55 in power. But when the S65 is at 5,000 rpm, 6,000 rpm, 7,000- rpm - the S65 is not even close to 97.4% of the horsepower level of the S55.

Once should look at: 1) the wheel horsepower of the S65 AT 8300 RPM vs. the S55 between 5500-7300 rpm; and 2) also while considering the S55 is FI. If both factors 1) and 2) are properly factored in, I'll bet the S65 at 8300 rpm is in fact 97.4% wheel horsepower (or close) to the S55, but the farther below 8,300 rpm the S65 is, the more noticeable of a horsepower gap there will be vs. the S55...

Here is the link re dyno testing FI engines and why it incorrectly appears that many FI engines are "underrated" by the factory:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...ght=underrated

[Wills2]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

I know a couple of years ago on the forum, there were a series of posts showing that for FI engines there are somewhat different parameters for dyno testing than what are applicable for NA engines - stated differently, the application of the exact same principles for dyno testing of NA engines to dyno testing of FI engines will always make the FI power ratings appear to be "underrated" - when in fact they are not (I'll try to track down these posts - I'm no engineer and I know I'm not properly stating the principle - stay tuned)...

So - 414 hp is 97.4% of 425. Is the S65 97.4% as powerful as the S55 at all rpm ranges? Of course not. The S65 at 8300 rpm is 97.4% as powerful as the S55 is from 5500-7300 rpm. So - it is only for that very brief, discrete RPM point of 8300 rpm that the S65 is close to the S55 in power. But when the S65 is at 5,000 rpm, 6,000 rpm, 7,000- rpm - the S65 is not even close to 97.4% of the horsepower level of the S55.

Once should look at: 1) the wheel horsepower of the S65 AT 8300 RPM vs. the S55 between 5500-7300 rpm; and 2) also while considering the S55 is FI. If both factors 1) and 2) are properly factored in, I'll bet the S65 at 8300 rpm is in fact 97.4% wheel horsepower (or close) to the S55, but the farther below 8,300 rpm the S65 is, the more noticeable of a horsepower gap there will be vs. the S55...

This graph they released on launch shows us all we need to know.

[Jason]

Updated March 27, 2018

The G80 M3 has finally hit the Nurburgring and the test drivers definitely weren't taking it easy on the G80 for its first time out - check out the glowing rotors!

G80 M3 at the Nurburgring

[termigni]

Wow that exhaust is the same ugly exhaust that was recently posted in the M2 Competition spy pictures.

[stvding]

Foating caliper。。。only alfa has fixed for rear now

[bimmer456]

MX AWD? Looks like they are testing in the snow.

[Dippydo]

Originally Posted by JibSTir13

Very aggressive front fender flares!

So much aggressiveness on the front they forgot the rears LOL...

[raysspl]

Totally diggin' the 'ring action shots!

[Aaaaaaaaa]

No M Mirrors no care

[georgere]

No hood hump