Thread: S65 vs. S62
View Single Post
      01-20-2013, 03:45 PM   #6

Drives: m3
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

The problem is people often want it both ways. Many people critisize the M division for caving to the masses with their new stuff and the turbo's etc to essentially address the low torque issue coupled with some gas mileage but real world shows that too be disapointing in terms of mileage.

These same "purists" often complain at the lack of torque for the m3-which first off 99 percent of people do not properly label it as a deficit of engine torque which equates to a deficit of wheel torque down low in the RPM band.

These are the drivers who should not really be in the e9x because if you are not wanting and willing to keep the revs above 5500 when you want to have fun in the car than you bought the wrong car as at 6k and above the wheel torque is superior and as good as the s62 or whatever else.

The same can be sead for the S54 and the S85-the last decade and more the M department did focus on a "purist" car who valued track performance and race technology that could be enjoyed on the road and track.

So those that complain about the low torque then go complain M is moving away from being a purist when in reality they were not content when M was serviing their dedicated purpose driven cars and purists.

The whole torque thing is just so misunderstood. Someone needs to find a better way to present numbers and have no clue why they dont replace maximum Wheel torque as a number rather than engine torque.

Give a wheel torque or thrust is even better at the wheels and a horsepower measurment-than every single car would be truly represented to the naive people who don't understand what engine torque is and how it relates to thrust