[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Sticky

Running in circles with you is pointless as you will continue to distort whatever you can to attempt to strengthen your argument of the M3 motor being a weak point. Yet you can't seem to explain how the M3 outperforms the vast majority of motors in the marketplace with more torque. You don't get the M3 can make more power with less torque with more revs. If an LS3 could rev to 8k and maintain its peak torque, it would be a crowning achievement, but it cant and never well.

The M3 performs so well because it makes a lot of power - plus, it makes very efficient use of that power, particularly with the automatic. I don't think the motor is a weak point, but the car (or any car) would be a better performer with more power at the same weight.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Gearing, as we were generally speaking, would encompass spacing. If you want to sit here and nitpick semantics I suppose we can do that. Now speaking of spacing, I am not sure what you don't get about the SMG with 7 gears being faster as it keeps the motor in that 6-8k rpm range more often than the 6 speed manual does. It is geared shorter with the 7, increasing torque to the wheels at all RPM ranges, rather simple.

What you specifically said was: "The M3 motor is a more sophisticated piece of engineering with smooth, even power throughout the range and allowing greater gear multiplication due to the revs." Later on (in note 64), you said "...they can gear it shorter, allowing larger multiplication of torque to the rear wheels." "Greater gear multiplication" doesn't do a damned thing for you. Power is what does it. Period. If you make the power at low revs, you don't need as much "gear multiplication" as compared to making the power at high revs. No big deal, but now I know you just don't properly understand the concept of power - as I thought when I originally asked the question.

Closer gear spacing is better for acceleration, obviously. Different discussion.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Ah, so you sold Hondas. Good for you, I am speaking of my friend who had the 2.0 let go on him, THREE TIMES. He eventually got the 2.2 but felt it just did not have the same excitement. Purely subjective, so who is to say who is right or wrong?

So your "Many" quote was ONE GUY? Man, if you're willing to lie about such an ancillary point, one wonders about everything else you state as fact.

Originally Posted by Sticky

You can't prove me wrong regarding placing the AMG motor in the E92, so why don't YOU prove it? Logic would dictate the larger motor would require completely different spacing in the engine bay. Either way, it is a stupid suggestion.

OK, I guess we're done on this one.

Originally Posted by Sticky

As far as the weight, I guess you missed it when I wrote the weight was the same as my E46 M3 SMG. Too big and heavy in your opinion? Compared to... what? It is the LIGHTEST car in its class, but I guess you can never please everyone.

Again, your reading skills need a little honing. Maybe you should get some more ChapStick and go to work on it.

When you said your E92 weighs exactly what your E46 weighed, I asked if that number was 3400 pounds, because that's what our E46 weighed. If the E92 does in fact weigh 3400 pounds I stand corrected on the weight problem.

In point of fact, however, I think pretty almost every production car being made nowadays weighs more than it should.

Bruce