I just read Roundel's write up on the E92 M3 V-8 power plant.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by SunnyD

I totally agree with this...which is why I picked up a Z4M Coupe.

Imagine how fast the Z Coupes would be with a lighter, more powerful and quicker revving V8 + a 7 speed sequential box??

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by Garrett

You deal realize that the //M can get to it's power quicker than most cars. Meaning even if it has lower HP #'s or torque, it can rev faster, and with more gears it can get threw the rev ban faster.



-Garrett

+1

This really gets lost on people. The internal guts of the S65 is really light and the accessories are either electric or on a clutch......this allows the engine to go through the powerband much faster than say the S62 (E39 M5 engine) or a big American V8. Light is fast.

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Sure.....

• Is there any doubt the BMW can handle the Caddy around a race track?
• GTR is more a 911 TT competitor and this should be a sub 8 minute car
• RS6 - 580hp - M5 competitor and give the parasitic losses of Quattro I already have a bet the E60 M5 will be faster.....

So in the M3's class.....RS4, RS5 (using a tune RS4 engine), 911, SLK....other than the 911, the M3 stands pretty well.

1) Yes, lots. The prior generation CTS-V beat M3's in racing, why not the next generation? And anyone still stuck on 500HP for the new CTS-V hasn't been paying attention to the latest reports.
2) But at an M3 price...starting at $57K. People WILL be cross shopping GT-R's and M3's and CTS-V's. And C63's.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

1) Yes, lots. The prior generation CTS-V beat M3's in racing, why not the next generation? And anyone still stuck on 500HP for the new CTS-V hasn't been paying attention to the latest reports.
2) But at an M3 price...starting at $57K. People WILL be cross shopping GT-R's and M3's and CTS-V's. And C63's.

We aren't going to start talking about race cars are we? Does anyone believe a Cobalt SS race car has anything to do with the street car? The Caddy race cars are dedicated race cars. Stock for stock the M3 is a much better track car.

I believe the GTRs are $80K? $23K is a big jump.....


Oh enjoy this vid (nothing to do with this thread)

No the viper didn’t hit the brakes, it is a reflection….This was a 10 second Viper…..a full 2 seconds quicker than my M6 at the quartermile….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxZVhLnawNU

[GregW / Oregon]

Jeeez! Get real, people. This infighting is pointless. A modded 335i and an E92 M3 will both be great cars. There will always be cars with more power for the dollar or this and that, but the point is that whatever car you buy you can enjoy to the fullest. Whether a chipped 335i (or a CTS-V) makes more torque than an M3 means nothing to me. If I was buying a race car, yes it would. American cars are getting better, but I still think the German's understand a thing or two that the US makers don't.

The M3 is and always has been a relatively mainstream, but somewhat exclusive model that performs near the top of its class, but is very well rounded. You can commute through urban traffic, take it on trips, or run Nurbugring in it. Specs fail to capture the whole picture. Dry sump lube? What the fu*k does that have to do with the purpose of this car? It has two sumps and will not have oil starvation on typical track days, so I think that's good enough.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by Corey

If you read the article as you claim you know the new M3's V8 has already proven itself in the M3 GTR raced in the 2001 ALMS series. While it lacks the dry sump and flat plane crank of the GTR's engine, it does have close to the same power output at 8300 rpm, individual throttle bodies, etc. It even weighs 33 pounds less than the straight six found in the previous M3. This isn't an attempt to sound smart, this is straight from Roundel.

I do not think the Roundel atricle is saying the new M3's V8 is the same one used in the E46 M3 GTR. (That would be dead wrong. The new V8 is based on the V10, which also has nothing to do with the M3 GTR motor.) Instead, the article is simply saying that an M3 with V8 power has already proven itself in competition.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Garrett

You deal realize that the //M can get to it's power quicker than most cars. Meaning even if it has lower HP #'s or torque, it can rev faster, and with more gears it can get threw the rev ban faster.

+2

The rpm vs. hp graph is informative, but the third dimension is time. How fast the engine will go through its rev range is a function of not only the engine performance characteristics but also of other variables such as transmission efficiency and response (someone was pointing out drive train inertia issues), overall weight, grip, suspension dynamics, etc. So comparing rpm-hp graphs for two engines alone can be misleading.

Which brings me to a rather simple observation: not a single person on this forum has actually experienced the V8 M3 engine in an M3, so what's all the fuss about? How can anyone say it is better than this or that without driving the damn car? As far as I know, the engine/car has not even been evaluated by independent analysts, so we have very little to go on.

Also, I don't think that it really matters that the M3 will be too heavy and optioned out for the track UNLESS you are interested in competing and winning on the track. If that’s what you really care about, I doubt that you’d be buying a production M3 to begin with. If you are like me, and just want to have some weekend fun on the track, then who cares if it is not as light as it can be and so on. It boils down to this: would one have fun pushing this car around the track or not? I can't answer that since I haven't tried, but my guess is that one would!

Regards,

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

• To all those "chirping" about the new M3 (or any other generation) not being a true track/race car": DUH! Of course it isn't. The car has always been about a race BRED car using race technologies adapted to a sporty, civil and luxurious street car. M3 has always been about the best of both worlds which requires great engineering and design skill to appropriately balance and COMPROMISE in the design. Don't care much if you blast me for driving my new M3 to Starbucks, the grins it'll give me on the canyons, twisties and track will be plently for me.
  

Hear, hear! Finally someone has actually SAID this...

The M3 IS a road car, albeit a high performance one, marketed to people who demand a host of non-essential extras in their cars, and who will never go near a track or any of the car's performance limits (though some of them will still brag about these things )

If you are not one of these people, fine. But it does not change the fact that you will be in the minority.

[aerisolphaln]

I still think the base US MSRP will be $65 K.

[derryck]

"Beat down" E90 M3 owners in your 335. OMG get real. Maybe in a drag only, maybe to 60 or 100 with a Vishnu tune that is not even available yet. You are in fantasy land on this last statement.

No I'm not...my 335 will easily be over 400RWHP once my FMIC and exhaust are finished and my coilovers are sitting in my garage waiting on the other stuff to be finished. I have my LSD on order and after complete my 335 will easily put a beating on a E90 M3. My E46 M3 has full exhaust, intake, software, coilovers and is about 250 lbs. than stock and I'm betting it would be a handful for the new M3. I understand the new M3 is a track bred car and the 335 is not but most of us drive on the streets not on the track. I just sold my E60 M5 and the 335 was pretty close to the M5 up to about 80mph so I'm guessing that losing 2 cylinders won't make it faster in the upcoming M3.

[2m3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The S54 was at the end of its line. No room for extra bore, piston speeds too high, etc., etc. Totally maxed out. Not way to compete against 911, RS4 and AM Vantage without the new V8. Keeping the S54 would have been a terrible decision from an engineering AND marketing perspective.

"Beat down" E90 M3 owners in your 335. OMG get real. Maybe in a drag only, maybe to 60 or 100 with a Vishnu tune that is not even available yet. You are in fantasy land on this last statement.

I agree completely with swamp2.

On S54: I heard many horror stories about the weak engine from my friends working at BMW service dept., plus no way a high rev M engine has an over bore configuration (long stroke engine???)

ON 335i beating E92M3: Please people, do not just look only at HP/trq dyno number...there are many other factors powerband, final diff ratio (torque multiplication), and many more.

Make me wonder some people thinks they know more than the engineers at BMW, but they forget they get misled by the marketing campaign.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

1) Yes, lots. The prior generation CTS-V beat M3's in racing, why not the next generation? And anyone still stuck on 500HP for the new CTS-V hasn't been paying attention to the latest reports.
2) But at an M3 price...starting at $57K. People WILL be cross shopping GT-R's and M3's and CTS-V's. And C63's.

I don't think you can reasonably compare the CTS-V race car with the M3 race cars, which were really production based. The M3 used a regular street-derived chassis. If you have ever seen the inside of one of the PTG cars, you will see the stock dashboard shell, steel unit body tub, etc. The CTS-V, like the current "Pontiac" GTOs was a true tube-framed, purpose-built, racer with a silhouette body shell.

Even Porsche is finding it a challenge to compete with the tube frame cars. They really do not belong in the same class with cars based on production vehicles.

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by ILC32

I don't think you can reasonably compare the CTS-V race car with the M3 race cars, which were really production based. The M3 used a regular street-derived chassis. If you have ever seen the inside of one of the PTG cars, you will see the stock dashboard shell, steel unit body tub, etc. The CTS-V, like the current "Pontiac" GTOs was a true tube-framed, purpose-built, racer with a silhouette body shell.

Even Porsche is finding it a challenge to compete with the tube frame cars. They really do not belong in the same class with cars based on production vehicles.

Fair enough.

I have since found a Nordschliefe time of 8:19 for the current CTS-V, which is faster than the time for the e46 M3.

So, yes, bottom line, I believe the next gen CTS-V is fully capable of running with and probably humiliating the next gen M3 on a track due to its huge HP advantage.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by derryck

No I'm not...my 335 will easily be over 400RWHP once my FMIC and exhaust are finished and my coilovers are sitting in my garage waiting on the other stuff to be finished. I have my LSD on order and after complete my 335 will easily put a beating on a E90 M3. My E46 M3 has full exhaust, intake, software, coilovers and is about 250 lbs. than stock and I'm betting it would be a handful for the new M3. I understand the new M3 is a track bred car and the 335 is not but most of us drive on the streets not on the track. I just sold my E60 M5 and the 335 was pretty close to the M5 up to about 80mph so I'm guessing that losing 2 cylinders won't make it faster in the upcoming M3.

But you'll still be driving a 335

[judec]

really noone able to scan/photo the article and post it? We, EU guys, have no chance to get it other way.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Fair enough.

I have since found a Nordschliefe time of 8:19 for the current CTS-V, which is faster than the time for the e46 M3.

So, yes, bottom line, I believe the next gen CTS-V is fully capable of running with and probably humiliating the next gen M3 on a track due to its huge HP advantage.

Come on....your sig says you are an expert road racer.... you ought to know HP is just one of many variables for getting around a track quickly. The handling on all Caddys is atrocious....they under like pigs and snap oversteer....try laying down the power in a slush box....

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Fair enough.

I have since found a Nordschliefe time of 8:19 for the current CTS-V, which is faster than the time for the e46 M3.

So, yes, bottom line, I believe the next gen CTS-V is fully capable of running with and probably humiliating the next gen M3 on a track due to its huge HP advantage.

We'll have to see about that. Whether the actual CTS-V time is faster or not, I doubt "humiliation" will apply given the apparent HP difference.

By the way, what is the source for the 8:19 time you found? That is pretty quick!

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Come on....your sig says you are an expert road racer.... you ought to know HP is just one of many variables for getting around a track quickly. The handling on all Caddys is atrocious....they under like pigs and snap oversteer....try laying down the power in a slush box....

You have obviously not driven the CTS-V. If it had not had a cheesy dash, I would have bought it. And the current CTS-V is only available in a manual.

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by ILC32

By the way, what is the source for the 8:19 time you found? That is pretty quick!

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2

So its an unverified time that the guy at GM who developed the car said he acheived. I put that in the same category at the Audi guy Stippler's comment that 7:58 is "no problem" in the current RS4.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

You have obviously not driven the CTS-V. If it had not had a cheesy dash, I would have bought it. And the current CTS-V is only available in a manual.

I have driven one understeering pig with snap oversteer on throttle tip in.

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by 2m3

I agree completely with swamp2.

On S54: I heard many horror stories about the weak engine from my friends working at BMW service dept., plus no way a high rev M engine has an over bore configuration (long stroke engine???)

S54 has 91mm bore x 87mm stroke, so oversquare by a factor of 1.05:1. The S65 is 92 x 75.2, or a ratio of 1.22:1, so much more oversquare.