swajames

edit: nevermind.

JetBlack5OC

That would leave you with the E92 M3. Way more nimble than the 550, with a beautiful high-revving V8.

pennetta

I have driven an M6 convertible from Huntington to Bridge Hampton over the summer. Sounds fantastic, great handling and very fast. My single compaint is that with the roof down you can only fit one golf bag in the trunk, We had to put the other across the useless back seats.

BetterMakeWay

I agree 100% with Jet. That's the best you're gonna get from BMW right now, considering what 550isport is looking for.

But i'd like to point out few things. The statement "less is more" is very well suited for the sport auto industry. For example, when the E46 M3 CSL came out it made such a big stir, as many magazines and auto journalists bashed it as it came with a price tag of over Euros 20-30K more that the normal M3, considering that in the base configuration it lacked air conditioning, it lacked a radio or any other base comforts. Truth be told economically speaking it made complete non sense to pay such extra for less equipment, but that car was not aimed at people that valued first the comforts or luxury, it was aimed at those seeking raw sporty characteristics from a sport street car coupe. If we compare the sale numbers of the M3 CSL with the standard M3 you can simply say that there aren't many people out there that would have jumped on the CSL. And i bet you it's not because of the extra price.

What i'm trying to prove here is that as someone else said " all bmws have bloviated in the current decade to the point of no return... ". This is very well true but that's mainly because of the customers. How many of us would really desire (as a main or single car) a BMW with no iDrive or no electric adjustable seats, or no clever electronic diffs or no air conditioning and so on?? Because 550isport compared the actual car philosophy (BMW mainly) of that from 20 years ago. Well i bet you that 20 years ago the cars didn't have so much technology in them, not even 10% of that from the current level. We currently take the base configurations and even some extras for granted but we also complain about weight, so you can see how auto makers struggle to find the best solutions and come out with the least weight.

Also considering the actual global crysis it's truly a dare exercise to even consider making some old school cars (like the CSL- which not even that was so old school as it still had a flappy paddle gearbox aka SMG 2). I now fully understand BMW ditching the E92 M3 CSL project. Considering the money invested in R&D for the CSL in the current economic crysis is just crazy. I also can bet that BMW didn't make so much money on the E46 M3 CSL as still the best selling BMWs were not even M ones but 3 series and 5 series BMWs.

We want our 6 series to be powerfull, yet rather comfortable as in creature comforts, ideally make the car sporty when we want to (adjusting gearbox ferocity and suspension settings) but comfortable for other times, we want also to have a resonable practicability but still be as light or as nimble as a 911. Well tell me how on Earth would a man accomplish such a thing???

Bottom line is if you want something more from a car (to be more sporty) you have to sacrifice something in return. You also pointed out at the new Z4, and you said it is too small. That's exactly what i stated above. We want almost all the stuff but we aren't ready to make compromises.

pennetta

I'll go back to my original post, just make them lighter then the only trade off is money. More aluminum, more magnesium and really start using carbon fiber on all of its cars.
The results are better gas mileage, better acceleration, better handling and better stopping.

BetterMakeWay

But that would very much result in a ferrari or a lambo. And BMW doesn't target that crowd.

Moreover using lots of CF and lots and lots of exotic materials to make, for example, a 7 series lighter by 100kgs when the whole car is filled up with latest technology like road sign reading, and back seats with fully body massage and full electric switches on the back seat is simply non sense. That would only lift the performance by probably 1% but lift the price by 20-30%.

pennetta

Bettermakeway,
The weight difference between the manual 2009 535 and 335 is 67 pounds, the 0-60 times are 5.6 secs and 5.4 respectively. The final drive ratios are the same at 3.08 and the engines are the same. Where you came up with only a 1% difference in performance due to 220 lbs (100kg) weight reduction is beyond me because this is only a 67 lbs (30kg) weight difference and you already have a 3.6% performance increase.
By the way, BMW already is using carbon fiber in the M3 Coupe roof, so no longer does only Lambo and Ferraris have the corner on it.
PS- Used data from the BMW 2009 brochures

BetterMakeWay

Hey,

What you say is true, but that's mainly because the 335 is a smaller car compared to the 535i. It's not like 335 received some weight loss diet and the 535i didn't. You just proved that a smaller car which most of the times means lighter car, equipped with the same engine as a bigger car is faster. This is general truth and nobody contested it.

I was talking about improving the same model. For example the E60 compared to E39 and the upcoming F10 compared to E60. If you look at the stats those cars and not only, put some weight with every passing model. The same can be said about the E46 M3 and E92 M3. Even though the engine in the E92 M3 is quite light, being much lighter than the E39 M5 engine, and almost as light as the E46 M3 one, the car weighs roughly 100 kgs more and that's what...220 pounds more. Even with a CF roof, which E46 M3 didn't have. Having said that, using CF in most of the areas were there is used already aluminum on the E92 M3 would only shave off a few Kgs but surely increase the price by at least 10 000 euros (and i'm talking about the front panels and the engine hood).

If you take a look at the aftermarket CF hoods for the E60, those only are literally a few kgs lighter but cost 2-3k, because our stock hoods are aluminum made. I doubt it would make much difference, unless you start shaving off from other parts, case in which the cost goes even higher.

As you point out the difference is roughly 30 kgs but 30 kgs is pretty hard to loose, with decent costs, and without shrinking the car. Don't forget that CF is still very expensive, and instead of using exotic materials which cost alot maybe it's better to go on a diet with all that technology. After all the E46 M3 CSL didn't loose 200kgs (440 pounds) just by using some CF roof and some light rims. It lost by dumping all that excess "fat" lying in the electric seats, radio, air conditioning, and other comfort stuff.

That's what i'm trying to prove in this thread. It's useless to use CF, even on all the car and exotic alloys for the rims, while the car has two front seats with heating, air cooling and a gazillion of electric switches that weigh more than all the CF body panels themselves. Really now! Do you have any ideea how much a packed comfort seat weighs? I'm telling you that you could hardly lift it up.

pennetta

The point was if you decrease weight of the 535 to the weight of the 335, it has a similar benefit in acceleration as adding horsepower/torque, but with the added benefits of better handling, better stopping and better fuel mileage.
The question to ask is WHY is the 535 ONLY 67lbs/30kgs heavier than the 335? The answer is that there is more aluminum in the 535 and aluminum was as expensive as carbon fiber as compared to steel not that long ago. You are correct lighter weight is more expensive, but if CF became more mass produced it would become cheaper.
The genesis of this thread (which is open to interpretation) was asking if the feature laden cars we have today are good or bad for us, I think good. But I was suggesting more technology towards weight reduction.

BetterMakeWay

Allow me to disagree. Although your statements are general truths like: "The point was if you decrease weight of the 535 to the weight of the 335, it has a similar benefit in acceleration as adding horsepower/torque, but with the added benefits of better handling, better stopping and better fuel mileage. "

"The question to ask is WHY is the 535 ONLY 67lbs/30kgs heavier than the 335?" My answer would be that it probably is because the car is slightly bigger.Not too much, a few inches here and there and that's probably where it gets the weight.

"The answer is that there is more aluminum in the 535 and aluminum was as expensive as carbon fiber as compared to steel not that long ago." I disagree with two things here. One is that there is more aluminum in the 535 than in the 335i, which i hardly believe that. However i don't have any evidence on this. And no two: aluminum has NEVER been as expensive as carbon fiber. Carbon fiber is lots more expensive, even the low cost CF which btw is poor quality CF, is more expensive than aluminum. Aluminum is recyclable wheres CF is not so, not really because of the chemical process in it but more because it's not so easy to find recyclable parts. So all in all the aluminum industry is no where near CF industry, and thus nor can be the costs.

Here are some other interesting stuff i found on the net:


"You are correct lighter weight is more expensive, but if CF became more mass produced it would become cheaper." Lighter weight is more expenive when that lightness is achieved with exotic materials, but throwing your comfort seat away with bum massage, electric movement, and electric heating, and back air cooling...costs nothing A bucket seat will cost you smth though Oh and sorry i disagree again: mass producing an element/material is by no means assurance of price reduction. Gold is also mass produced.