Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.
I thought SMG was astoundingly good on track, and the worst automatic gearbox ever for the street.
I thought I addressed your drivel about unobtanium-filled connecting rods by saying that the Chevy would last at least as long as the bimmer, each driven within their respective limits. See, the Chevy doesn't need those rods (and the other admittedly cool stuff) because it doesn't need to rev as high to produce more power than the bimmer. Capische? BMW goes to the trouble because they have to, in turn because the M tradition is for high revving engines making a lot of power per liter.
Faster always equates to better. That said, I agree with your contention that traditional M characteristics need to be preserved.
I asked about gearing because it seemed from your original statements that you don't get it in regard to that subject. See, the M3 needs aggressive gearing because of where the power is in that car. It's that simple. In addition, the M5/6 is so fast because it makes a ton of power, and has really good power to weight. It's that simple. Once under way (say, from 25-30 mph and up), overall gearing essentially doesn't matter. It's just power and weight. Period.
Torque is important, as well. The M3 would be a better car if it had a 4.4 liter V8 making 10% more torque, even if max power didn't change. Think S2000. The 2.2 was a better engine in that car than the 2.0, even though it made the same power. The increased low and mid range torque made for a more responsive drive.
They don't cheat the EPA at all. They simply get much better mileage in the real world. See my quote above in regard to my son's GTO. More weight and better mileage in that car, according to the EPA and also in the real world. My last Vette (an LT1) averaged 24.8 mpg over the entire time I owned it, including track time.
Anecdotally, CAGS was a real mileage-killer in that car. Everybody who owned one would both gun it and rev it in first gear to avoid that piece of engineering crap, and thus used more fuel, rather than less. We all defeated it first chance we got.
Why, compared with each of the other engines we've been discussing, of course.
Of course I'm not suggesting that BMW load up on LS3s. The bimmer engine is an essential part of the package, and it deserves its accolades. I've just suggested that the M3 would be faster while getting better mileage with an LS3. To me, faster is better, as long as you don't add weight or screw up the balance. Still waiting for you to give me specifics on how the MB engine would do that, by the way.
Bruce
|
So SMG is great on the track yet horrible on the street? Well, in comes DCT which is better at being an automatic than an automatic and a better manual gearbox than SMG. Case closed.
Faster is always better? Why aren't we all driving Z06's? Maybe if someone really feels they need more power than the M3 has stock the aftermarket exists to satisfy such demands?
Uh, gearing matters once you get under way. The M5/M6 have to be at the top of the powerband to be as quick as they are. Look at the difference between the manual transmissions and SMG. The cars are MUCH faster with 7 gears, from a roll or stop.
Many people felt the 2.2 made the s2000 lazy and less exciting, losing some character. Plus, Honda just could not keep the 2.0's together with the 9k redline and it was a business decision not one in the favor of the enthusiast.
Uh, YES, they do cheat the EPA. They design the cars to inflate their numbers on the EPA test. You talk about vettes and their mileage how about that their 6th gear is just a fuel mileage gear? The z06 hits top speed in 5th gear, not 6th. You give the M3 a 7.0 liter motor and the m3's gearing it is going to burn fuel faster than a 4.0 liter, it is simply inevitable.
There is a long list of cars with larger motors with more torque that get bitch slapped by the M3. The evidence clearly points that the M3 is exactly where it should be and an impressive performer at that. Nothing else stacks up to it per liter (GT3).
No, you DID suggest BMW should use the LS3 saying the car would be better with it. This is essentially saying the LS3 is a better motor for the car. How else should one interpret your statement regarding if the sole difference was the motor the M3 would be a better car?
As for the AMG 63 dimensions, you look it up, this isn't a homework assignment and I think I have typed out quite enough information for you as is.
You say the M3 is heavy and needs a larger motor for its weight. It is the lightest car in its class and shockingly close to the E46 M3. Many have weighed their car and the numbers were the same as my SMG E46 M3, crazy?