View Single Post
      01-02-2008, 12:31 AM   #46
swamp2
Major General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 9,939
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
I'm not sure...

360/343 x 228 = 239 so the T increased proportionally to the HP...not greater
Not sure I follow your "not sure". I am comparing the E46 M3 vs. E46 M3 CSL % torque gain at different rpm then applying simple ratio-ing to the E92 M3 case. The percent gain is absolutely different at different rpm.

At the rpm where each (E46s) have peak torque (4900) the torque figures are straight from BMW specs. The peak torque increase was (273-269)/269 = 1.5%. But developing more torque at higher rpms is more important than developing a great peak torque percentage increase. This is basically saying hp is more important than torque. Indeed the torque gains (as a percentage of base) at the rpm of peak hp are equal to torque gains (again on a percentage basis).

(360-343)/343 = 5% just as (239-228)/228 = 5%

Anything you are not sure of here?

So I agree with you that enhancements to the E92 M3 for modding or by BMW for the CSL will not do much to the peak torque. Yet I disagree that there is almost no torque to be had. One needs to qualify the torque curve not just peak figures, which seems to be what you did in your original post. BMW should be able to get at least 5% more torque at the rpm of peak hp, hence 5% more hp, through breathing enhancements alone. That would be 440 hp (441 for the sticklers and that is based on 420 hp not 414...). I'm guessing by raising the redline to 8500-8600 and/or by doing a bit better than the 5%, we will see 450 hp.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote