[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by lemetier

MPPK Certification

Aha! The plot gets more intriguing.

I could easily be totally off, but it seems to me that the X3 M40i might also be powered by what is essentially the current B58 with the MPPK from the factory. This might explain why we didn't see evidence of a 355hp B58B30M0 brought forward before it showed up in the production vehicle. In fact, a few folks who correctly predicted that the X3 M40i would get 355hp believed so for basically that reason - that there was already a "production" car with the B58 + MPPK. Namely, this guy:

http://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1335467

By the way, whoever is maintaining the wikipedia page for the B58 (and someone actively is - its been updated since I last checked a month or so ago) still seems to think that only the original 322hp iteration is the "M0", while they call the later versions the "O0":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_B58#Models

So, I guess if we assume that the new B58 "Tu" makes as much as 355hp-ish in "factory" form, then with the future MPPK designed for those engines, 385hp seems reasonable. Question is, if the X3 40i is indeed just that - a B58 with the MPPK standard @ 355hp - will they do the same for the Z4 M40i, a B58Tu with MPPK standard @ 385hp?

[lemetier]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Aha! The plot gets more intriguing.

I could easily be totally off, but it seems to me that the X3 M40i might also be powered by what is essentially the current B58 with the MPPK from the factory. This might explain why we didn't see evidence of a 355hp B58B30M0 brought forward before it showed up in the production vehicle. In fact, a few folks who correctly predicted that the X3 M40i would get 355hp, believed so for basically that reason - that there was already a "production" car with the B58 + MPPK. Namely, this guy:

http://f30.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1335467

By the way, whoever is maintaining the wikipedia page for the B58 (and someone actively is, since its been updated since I last checked a month or so ago) still seems to think that only the original 322hp iteration is the "M0", while they call the later versions the "O0":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_B58#Models

So, I guess if we assume that the new B58 "Tu" makes as much as 355hp-ish in "factory" form, then with the future MPPK designed for those engines, 385hp seems reasonable. Question is, if the X3 40i is indeed just that - a B58 with the MPPK standard @ 355hp - will they do the same for the Z4 M40i, a B58Tu with MPPK standard @ 385hp?

Not off at all actually.

“To ensure unambiguous identification and classification, the engines have an identification mark on the crankcase. This engine identification is also necessary for approval by authorities. Decisive here are the first seven positions. The XXX engine has an engine identification that complies with the new standard, in which the first six positions are the same as the engine designation. The seventh position is a consecutive letter that can be used for various distinctions, e.g. power stage or exhaust emission standard. A general assignment is not possible, but an "A" usually means the basic model.”

[ynguldyn]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

By the way, whoever is maintaining the wikipedia page for the B58 (and someone actively is - its been updated since I last checked a month or so ago) still seems to think that only the original 322hp iteration is the "M0", while they call the later versions the "O0":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_B58#Models

EN page is wrong. DE one is correct. There's no O0.

So, I guess if we assume that the new B58 "Tu" makes as much as 355hp-ish in "factory" form, then with the future MPPK designed for those engines, 385hp seems reasonable. Question is, if the X3 40i is indeed just that - a B58 with the MPPK standard @ 355hp - will they do the same for the Z4 M40i, a B58Tu with MPPK standard @ 385hp?

G01 is in the 10/2017 release of ETK. I checked the engine - every single part, other than those that depend on the vehicle geometry like exhaust, is also used on other Gxx 40i models. The power bump is strictly software and possibly a better breathing exhaust. So yes, you could call it a B58M0 + MPPK.

The 385hp G29 is O1, not M1 + MPPK.

[supra93]

Older one that they made back in 2016.

[scoobysaurus]

Originally Posted by Viffermike

Not really, considering the history of ///M and what made M Division viable long-term, which is the hopping up of BMW's sedans and luxury coupes. The M1 wasn't really a BMW anyway, and the 3.0CSL was primarily a racing project.

It took M Division nearly two decades to work its magic on an actual sports car (the Z3) ...

... the first-ever BMW wholly produced outside of Germany. Now that's irony.

The M1 isn't a real BMW the same way the R8 isn't a real Audi. Sedans are what made AMG and Audi Sport viable too but I'd be dumbfounded if I woke up one day to see that they stopped making the GT-series and the new Project One, not to mention AMG versions of the SL and SLK/SLC just to focus on the sedans and SUV's because that's more viable. Even the damn FWD based Audi TT gets a full RS treatment.

There really is no excuse for not making more "sporty" models of your sports cars, unless of course M stands for marketing instead of motorsport.

[MalibuBimmer]

That's the new Z4? Yawn. Different for the sake of being different. Not really any better looking.

BMW's reticence has turned me away from the brand. For the first time in a decade. But as BMW continues to churn out boring "design studies" and even blander cars, they no longer interest me.

[Huz-Z]

Originally Posted by supra93

Older one that they made back in 2016.

The Z4 Concept had me wanting to get one right away. But this is a bit underwhelming and makes me think "why bother? There's nothing at all wrong with my E85".

[jts1981]

Originally Posted by Huz-Z

The Z4 Concept had me wanting to get one right away. But this is a bit underwhelming and makes me think "why bother? There's nothing at all wrong with my E85".

Hope this true so the e89 value goes up. So far not interested in the new model.

Overall BMW has lost its way. The M does in fact stand for marketing. Yes the new cars are fast but not fun, not drivers cars. BMW is catering to stats on paper crowd and are losing those that believed in "ultimate driving machine."

[scoobysaurus]

Originally Posted by jts1981

Hope this true so the e89 value goes up. So far not interested in the new model.

Overall BMW has lost its way. The M does in fact stand for marketing. Yes the new cars are fast but not fun, not drivers cars. BMW is catering to stats on paper crowd and are losing those that believed in "ultimate driving machine."

Plus you also get the aesthetic appeal, security and comfort of a hard top.

[supra93]

[CeEl]

Is this the older prototype?

On a separate note: shall we create a new thread with standard must have features and options?

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by CeEl

On a separate note: shall we create a new thread with standard must have features and options?

No because it wont have them.....
....thinking of an LSD....

[jts1981]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

No because it wont have them.....
....thinking of an LSD....

Worse yet, it'll have the e-diff the e89 has.

Does it work...yes.

Is it fun and promote a "drivers car" feel.....nope!!!

I'd sacrifice a few hp for hydraulic steering.

I'd prefer a real lsd, preferably a helicial.

[GuidoK]

The e-diff is a glorified esp. Its valve operated and has thus no real regulating abilities. Its a modulated valve that can either be switched on or off, unlike a real e-diff like the m2/m3 has (or like any mechanical lsd)

For the m235i/m240i bmw has an optional real lsd available, but that is not a factory fitted option (dealer fitted and very expensive....).
At best that'll be available as a dealer option (4k or so, at least on the 2 series). But almost certainly not if the z4 gets a transaxle like Lemier thinks.
Lets hope for the aftermarket.
Imho its the first performance upgrade anyone should do on a sportscar.

[CeEl]

Have to admit somewhat shameful that i meant things one would select in configurator, such as blind spot warning- since visibility is typically poor in soft top convertibles. That should be a standard feature and not part of options package. Just for example.

[supra93]

Originally Posted by CeEl

Is this the older prototype?

On a separate note: shall we create a new thread with standard must have features and options?

Not sure, just know that the photos were taken on the 23rd of this month.

[supra93]

Another rendering

[GuidoK]

looks interesting. very 'sharkish'

[The HACK]

Is this going to be a mid 2018 release as a 2019 model?

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by The HACK

Is this going to be a mid 2018 release as a 2019 model?

Yes. You can refer to this thread for known future BMW release information:

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=901686

[supra93]

[Fugly M3]

Originally Posted by supra93

Another rendering

I am a non roadster person, but I would seriously consider something like this, if ED is available of course!