Originally Posted by swamp2
I am truly baffled by the credibility and opinion of someone who buys an E9X M3 despite the engine. Get that baby on a track or some good back roads and spend a few laps above 6000 rpm as much of the time as possible then please report back. Such a statement really does almost warrant some good old fashioned name calling...
I have not had my M3 very long but I already taken it to an autocross and spent plenty of time above 6,000 RPM. Honestly, after the autocross I don't plan on doing a trackday with the M3 anytime soon. For the track I prefer my Yamaha R6 "streetbike" as I find it a lot more engaging.
Actually, my R6 is another great example of a vehicle I purchased despite
its engine. The R6 has a 16,000 RPM redline but is notoriously gutless at low RPM. Even when compared to its direct competitors with nearly identical powerplants such as the GSXR (which also features an inline 4-cylinder engine with a similar redline) it lacks low end power. Obviously this is not optimal for the street but the R6 is the best handling bike in its class so I chose to sacrifice low end power for improved handling - see a trend developing here?
Every vehicle is going to be a compromise. Its up to the purchaser to decide which attributes are most important to them whether it be luxury, power, handling, etc.
Looking at the graph you posted, I concur the torque curve is quite flat. However, compared to an LS series engine I think the curve is about 200 (?) NM lower. Which, based on my real life experiences with the two powerplants seems to negate that benefit. The LS series engines make more torque just off idle than the M3's engine makes at its peak.