Quote:
Originally Posted by Advskier
Where to begin?
We are talking about a high performance sedan/coupe/convertible, aren't we? How much does the entire M3 weigh compared to the other "similar" cars with "better" engines, i.e. C63?
So the naysayers pick one item (on a relatively light car) they feel is heavy, ignore the positive characteristics it might have, and go off on it.
And how do you guys drive on the street, on a daily basis that, that you need to ring an M3 out to make it enjoyable to drive?
My M3 can get me in plenty of trouble from a standstill, let alone ringing it out.
No doubt, the next generation M3 will be better than the present one. And just like now, people will still complain that it is not "raw" enough compared to the last one.
The current M3 is arguably one of the best cars of any manufacturer ever produced. When BMW builds it's replacement, they've got their work cut out for them, and it had better be a superior car in every respect.
|
How about we all take (another) deep breath, relax a bit, and look at the basics. This discussion is really about engines.
First, the M3 V8 is a hell of an engine. It makes very good power, very good power for its displacement, and has an exceptionally wide power band. It also makes scintillating noises, and revs to hell and gone - eagerly, I might add.
There's more, though.
It just doesn't suffice to say that this engine has an exceptionally wide power band and revs eagerly. It may in fact be more accurate to say, for instance, that the powerband width could be unprecedented. I might be corrected on this, but I personally have never heard of an automobile engine that loses only about 11% of its peak torque
over a band of 4400 rpm. That's right. At the power peak, you're seeing 262 pound feet of torque against a 295 max, 4400 rpm earlier. That's almost unbelieveable for an emissions-compliant modern engine in a more or less affordable car.
As far as revability (yes, that's a word - now), this engine reminds me of those fuelie small-block Chevies from the sixties*, or perhaps the Yamaha/SHO engines in those nondescript Taurus bodies. In other words, its zingy as all hell, and I don't wonder that BMW cautions against aggressive revving in neutral.
One of the difficulties you find as an engineer is that if you've designed an engine that delivers at very high rpm, you've got to gear it in such a way that the power is available in everyday driving. In other words, aggressively. You pay a penalty for this however, in that rotational inertia raises its ugly head, and you lose a fair bit of that power just to speed up the rotating components so quickly.
What BMW has done, however, is to lighten or work those components aggressively so as to reduce their rotational inertia - and I'm not just talking crank, rods, pistons and valvegear. I'm also talking engine-driven accessories, flywheel, clutch and pressure plate, and probably transmission components, as well. The damned thing feels almost like a race engine in its ability to gain rpm, so the M guys didn't miss anything in their quest to "add lightness", as Colin Chapman used to say.
Trust me on this. Eight throttle bodies may help the cause, but our E46 never zinged up the way the E9X does.
OK, that's it for throwing roses. Now for some brickbats.
First, the damned thing is down on torque, and by that I mean not only doesn't it produce as much as some of its rivals, but that it is also down on torque per liter - compared to our E46, for instance. The upshot is that the car feels a little soft when you're just pedalling around - compared to its rivals, but also compared to the X35 cars. I don't know anybody who thinks the M3 feels as quick or willing as a 135 or 335 when you're just goofing around. You can feel this at cruise on the highway. It ain't a slug, but you feel the need to drop a gear or three if you want to go right now.
It's easy to drive through this softness to get to the good part of the powerband, but you're aware you're doing it - again, compared to some other cars. Whether it's a downshift or just holding gears longer, that's what you do.
That gets us to the second brickbat, which is fuel consumption. Reving it to get into the fun part is easy, as mentioned, but it costs you. For its size and weight, this car is really a fuel drunkard. Not that everybody cares, but there isn't anyone outside of Arabia who thinks that fewer mpg or more liters per 100km is actually a
good thing, no matter the cost of fuel.
The third thing is that BMW went ahead and bragged about how the new V8 weighed 30 pounds less than the six it replaced, coming in at 445 pounds.
Oops. Mistake.
That let guys like me (who don't actually give a damn about any particular manufacturer) do the math, and come up with the idea that the M3 V8 just wasn't special at all in regard to its weight. Mercedes at 439 pounds, Chevy at 436 for the LS3 and 453 for the Z06. Hmm. Pop one of those puppies in the car, solve the torque issue, gain power, hmm. Sure, you lose the last 1200 to 1900 rpm, but the rev freak is safely behind you listening to and feeling those cubic inches blow exhaust in his or her face.
Of course, the M faithful are full of fury at the concept, but that doesn't mean it's a bad one. Just that it's lacking in M religion.
Bruce
PS - In regard to the car, it's better in almost every way compared to its forebear, but it's gotten even heavier and less wieldy, which bothers some of us. Here's hoping the next one will not only be a better car, but might lose a little weight in deference to fuel regs.
*Those small block fuelie Chevies ran rich
all the time, so throttle response was exceptional.