BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
BPM Sport
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-07-2012, 12:09 PM   #67
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,902
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by klammer View Post
I don't
Coming from crotch rockets I love the high strung engine. This is why I bot THIS car and the distinguishing characteristic for me was its track prowess. I'll take high revs over high torque in that environment, but as always different strokes for different folks.
In that environment, neither revs nor torque is particularly important. It's power and weight that counts. Yeah, torque helps you sling out of corners more quickly, but ultimately, it matters less than how much average power you're making around a circuit, against how much weight it has to haul around.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-07-2012, 02:07 PM   #68
DylanMckay
Banned
 
Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: armpit of the USA

Posts: 122
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gthal View Post
Ok, now I need to use the dreaded "fanboy" term

Having a 400 ft/lbs torque M3 would NOT make it just another C63. Who said it couldn't still be a screamer? Also, presuming that the "character" of the M3 is somehow more special than other cars screams bias. Sure, the character may be something you like but who is to say the general population agree. There are lots of "special" cars out there with different character to the M3. Special is in the eye of the beholder.

To say the sales of an M3 with more torque would drop as the car somehow would become less special is wrong IMO. 95% of the buying public absolutlely like torque and don't give a rats ass about the "special" character of the M3. My guess is it would get even better reviews (if that's possible) and have higher sales. You forget that the group of hardcore, traditionalist M3 buyers is tiny compared to those buying M3s. The next gen M3 will have a VERY different character than the current and past M3s and I bet (economy aside) it will outsell the current generation in spite of the traditionalists (who represent a small, small portion of the M3 buying public) screaming murder.

Anyway, saying that more torque in the M3 would make if have less character and would be bad shouts bias and fanboyism. I can (and do) understand how many people would prefer the current M3 to other cars like the C63 but I saying that if you added more torque to the M3 it becomes less appealing is... well... silly I stand by my opinion that 98% of us would choose and M3 with more torque all else being equal. Wanting a car with lower torque may be true for a very, very, very small portion of M3 owners who are diehard traditionalists and for many of those folks, the E46 M3 is probably the better choice anyway (E92 is too soft). Remember when a V8 was considered blasphemy for the M3 because it was not in the "character" of the M3... well, it's funny how forward progress made most of the naysayers forgot all about their V8 concerns.

Anyway, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. We are all allowed to have our own opinion (even if mine is right j/k).
Problem with this logic is you really never can have your cake and eat it to so to speak. If you wanted the m3 to have 400 foot pounds of torque for example you would need to increase displacement by quite a bit and it would still be very hard to keep the power deliver to 8400 redline if not impossible without a huge engine. Increasing the displacement to that degree means its likely the stroke will be too long to handle revving to 8400 as well as it is just not possible to get low end torque and peak power at the top of the redline. You just cannot build those two characteristics into an engine.

With future development in tri-turbos and valvetronic it likely is more possible but for now it is not really the case. Ferrari does not tend to pick rather small displacements for their v8s for nothing and same goes with traditional M cars. They allow them to build the car for high rev horsepower.

Anyway I am just saying I agree that IF we had 400 foot pounds AND redline of 8400 with peak power at redline than sure it would be bliss but its really not possible.

I think this problem will be addressed with the new m3 and we will see how buyers react. I think it will not effect sales and if anything will improve them because more people do enjoy low end grunt.

I think I am in the minority because a ton of the enjoyment in daily driving the m3 is downshifting and upshifting to hear the lovely engine/intake and exhaust blipping and making noise. If we had a ton of torque than downshifting would be putting you outside the torque curve and you really would not get to enjoy the race-car like sounds of shifting in this car.

Both sound like great cars and both are great drivers but people just have to decide which characteristics they prefer. They are just different.
DylanMckay is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2012, 12:28 AM   #69
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,902
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DylanMckay View Post
Problem with this logic is you really never can have your cake and eat it to so to speak. If you wanted the m3 to have 400 foot pounds of torque for example you would need to increase displacement by quite a bit and it would still be very hard to keep the power deliver to 8400 redline if not impossible without a huge engine. Increasing the displacement to that degree means its likely the stroke will be too long to handle revving to 8400 as well as it is just not possible to get low end torque and peak power at the top of the redline. You just cannot build those two characteristics into an engine.

With future development in tri-turbos and valvetronic it likely is more possible but for now it is not really the case. Ferrari does not tend to pick rather small displacements for their v8s for nothing and same goes with traditional M cars. They allow them to build the car for high rev horsepower.

Anyway I am just saying I agree that IF we had 400 foot pounds AND redline of 8400 with peak power at redline than sure it would be bliss but its really not possible.

I think this problem will be addressed with the new m3 and we will see how buyers react. I think it will not effect sales and if anything will improve them because more people do enjoy low end grunt.

I think I am in the minority because a ton of the enjoyment in daily driving the m3 is downshifting and upshifting to hear the lovely engine/intake and exhaust blipping and making noise. If we had a ton of torque than downshifting would be putting you outside the torque curve and you really would not get to enjoy the race-car like sounds of shifting in this car.

Both sound like great cars and both are great drivers but people just have to decide which characteristics they prefer. They are just different.
400 pound feet of torque is an arbitrary number. The world does not solely consist of torque monsters and top-end screamers.

Think GTS. More torque, same terrific top end rush. No reason this engine couldn't have shown up right from the get-go in the current M3.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2012, 12:32 AM   #70
DylanMckay
Banned
 
Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: armpit of the USA

Posts: 122
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Think GTS. More torque, same terrific top end. No reason this engine couldn't have shown up right from the get-go in the current M3.

Bruce
GTS is a bigger engine as I said this is what it would take. However it still does not have much more torque down low and still makes its power up top. Gthal was talking about an extra 250-350 foot pounds. I understand it is possible to increase torque and keep a high revving engine but if you want 300 more foot pounds you would need to really increase the displacement of the engine (unless you use FI) and if you do want the torque available really low and in the middle than you need to tune the engine delivery for that and that would make it impossible to make peak power at such a high rpm.
DylanMckay is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2012, 11:23 AM   #71
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,902
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DylanMckay View Post
GTS is a bigger engine as I said this is what it would take. However it still does not have much more torque down low and still makes its power up top. Gthal was talking about an extra 250-350 foot pounds. I understand it is possible to increase torque and keep a high revving engine but if you want 300 more foot pounds you would need to really increase the displacement of the engine (unless you use FI) and if you do want the torque available really low and in the middle than you need to tune the engine delivery for that and that would make it impossible to make peak power at such a high rpm.
Really? The conversation was about an M3 with 550-600 pound feet of torque? Must've missed that.

The GTS makes about ten percent more torque than the standard M3, peaking at a slightly lower rpm. In my opinion, if this engine were in the M3 there would be no more talk about a soft low end.

Given the car's other attributes, the 4.4 liter power plant would address one of the car's (very minor, IMO) weaknesses. It would liven up the lower end considerably. It might even address the car's only other (more major) weakness, which is fuel economy. With more torque available, you could go for a more aggressive overdrive in top gear, as Porsche has recently done, and thus improve highway mileage thru reduced pumping losses and friction.

It's terrific now, but with the 4.4 and gearing changes it could in fact be the almost perfect car - closer than anyone has gotten before.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-08-2012, 09:47 PM   #72
DylanMckay
Banned
 
Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: armpit of the USA

Posts: 122
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Really? The conversation was about an M3 with 550-600 pound feet of torque? Must've missed that.

The GTS makes about ten percent more torque than the standard M3, peaking at a slightly lower rpm. In my opinion, if this engine were in the M3 there would be no more talk about a soft low end.

Given the car's other attributes, the 4.4 liter power plant would address one of the car's (very minor, IMO) weaknesses. It would liven up the lower end considerably. It might even address the car's only other (more major) weakness, which is fuel economy. With more torque available, you could go for a more aggressive overdrive in top gear, as Porsche has recently done, and thus improve highway mileage thru reduced pumping losses and friction.

It's terrific now, but with the 4.4 and gearing changes it could in fact be the almost perfect car - closer than anyone has gotten before.

Bruce
I agree and thanks for the info! I had just commented on another thread but I really would have enjoyed watching bmw take the s65 another step and take the gts engine and add direct inject, which would allow a bit higher compression ratio and improve power and fuel efficiency. A bump to 8700 rpms to top it off. All those changes would have easily netted 475 hp and 340is foot pounds and therefore address lower end torque that people want, efficiency people want and still keep the nice linear top end screamer we all enjoy.

Really bugs me since they have the gts engine made. Shoot even if they did not make a single change and just offer the gts engine in the f30 m3 as an optional engine. Would make so many people happy and still allow those who would prefer TT and efficiency happy.

You think we could all put a crapload of small letters together and send them to bmw M? Seriously...giving them more of an idea that the following is here and to make the gts engine available for the f30 as a different option, even though its more work for them to get it approved and modified to meet carb standards, would really please a very important enthusiast group! We should do it!
DylanMckay is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 10:44 AM   #73
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,902
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DylanMckay View Post
...Really bugs me since they have the gts engine made. Shoot even if they did not make a single change and just offer the gts engine in the f30 m3 as an optional engine. Would make so many people happy and still allow those who would prefer TT and efficiency happy.

You think we could all put a crapload of small letters together and send them to bmw M? Seriously...giving them more of an idea that the following is here and to make the gts engine available for the f30 as a different option, even though its more work for them to get it approved and modified to meet carb standards, would really please a very important enthusiast group! We should do it!
Sadly, I believe that ship has sailed. Take heart, however. The M3 V8 essentially dates from the late 2004 release of the M5 V10 (in the 2005 model), on which the four-liter is based. More than seven years is a hell of a long time in the auto business, and trust me, BMW has learned a lot, engineering-wise, since that 2004 release. Hell, by the time the new one comes out there will be closer to ten years of additional knowledge and development that will apply.

The new one will make more power, more torque, be cleaner emissions-wise, and get much better fuel mileage.

And, with the probability that the new model will also weigh less than the current car, everybody's gonna be grinnin'. Even me, who's bitched forever about how each new M is bigger and heavier and less fun to drive.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 10:50 AM   #74
clar
Captain
 
clar's Avatar
 
Drives: M5
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Singapore

Posts: 942
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DylanMckay View Post
I agree and thanks for the info! I had just commented on another thread but I really would have enjoyed watching bmw take the s65 another step and take the gts engine and add direct inject, which would allow a bit higher compression ratio and improve power and fuel efficiency. A bump to 8700 rpms to top it off. All those changes would have easily netted 475 hp and 340is foot pounds and therefore address lower end torque that people want, efficiency people want and still keep the nice linear top end screamer we all enjoy.

Really bugs me since they have the gts engine made. Shoot even if they did not make a single change and just offer the gts engine in the f30 m3 as an optional engine. Would make so many people happy and still allow those who would prefer TT and efficiency happy.

You think we could all put a crapload of small letters together and send them to bmw M? Seriously...giving them more of an idea that the following is here and to make the gts engine available for the f30 as a different option, even though its more work for them to get it approved and modified to meet carb standards, would really please a very important enthusiast group! We should do it!
They should put the 4.4 litre into a new Z4M Couple, give it the 1M's steering rack, M3 suspensions, and CF roof and it will be my ultimate BMW wet dream. I have always lust after the prev Z4M Couple, but couldn't afford it then
__________________

- Frozen Grey F10 M5 DCT
- Rosso Corsa 458 Speciale
- Frozen Grey E92 M3 Sold
clar is offline   Singapore
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 11:21 AM   #75
KennyPowers
Brigadier General
 
Drives: .....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gulf Coast

Posts: 4,283
iTrader: (13)

Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Sadly, I believe that ship has sailed. Take heart, however. The M3 V8 essentially dates from the late 2004 release of the M5 V10 (in the 2005 model), on which the four-liter is based. More than seven years is a hell of a long time in the auto business, and trust me, BMW has learned a lot, engineering-wise, since that 2004 release. Hell, by the time the new one comes out there will be closer to ten years of additional knowledge and development that will apply.

The new one will make more power, more torque, be cleaner emissions-wise, and get much better fuel mileage.

And, with the probability that the new model will also weigh less than the current car, everybody's gonna be grinnin'. Even me, who's bitched forever about how each new M is bigger and heavier and less fun to drive.

Bruce
exactly. id expect the new m3 engine to blow everyones mind in terms of balance between power and fuel economy.

id estimate 450 hp / 450tq and about 19 city and 25 hwy mpg. add a tune on to that and you will have an incredible performer.

i probably will get a new m3 once they have been out for a year or two. a good FI engine in this car would be incredible imo.
__________________
PCD 10/10 on 2015 M3 : MW / SB Full Leather / HK audio / Adaptive Suspension / Silver 19s / 6MT / CF Roof
KennyPowers is online now  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 12:52 PM   #76
DiscoZ
Second Lieutenant
 
DiscoZ's Avatar
 
Drives: C63 AMG PP, F25 X3
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: T.Dot

Posts: 273
iTrader: (0)

Love the C63 defensiveness that comes out. Owners know what the car is, yet feel the need to defend it's weaknesses.

I'll bite, I've driven both.

- M3 has better steering feel.
- M3 has a better balance of chassis, steering feel in sport, throttle response, torque curve (yes, it is optimal for the track, IMO) and handling.
- The M3's motor sounds more exotic, a high revving 4.0ltr V8.
- Those who keep harping on the "lack of" torque really have no idea what they are talking about, I've driven some very torquey cars and I drove the M3 right after the C63 and the extra mountains of torque in the C63 --with it's monster torque that could stop the earth's rotation, hand-crafted by the Führer himself in hell-- didn't really stand out to me.

- The C63 has a nicer interior IMO.
- The C63 needs more rubber.
- I don't think it feels as heavy as some say, but it does feel heavier than the M3 with EDC on sport and sport mode on - at the expense of a ghey comment - it doesn't dance at your fingertips like a M3 does.
- It does sound insane, but a different type of sound. I describe it as "God's hammer".
- It is quite torquey.
- I would love to get one in addition to my M3.
__________________
Current: 2012 C63 AMG PP | 2012 F25 X3
Past: 2008 E92 M3 | 2009 E90 335i | 2007 Z4MC | 2002 GTI 1.8T | 2000 Celica GT-S | 1999 328i | 1990 Corrado G60
DiscoZ is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 01:24 PM   #77
stefan
Colonel
 
stefan's Avatar
 
Drives: E92M3
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Calgary

Posts: 2,147
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
1999 VF BMW M3  [5.00]
2001 BMW M5  [0.00]
2008 135i  [5.00]
2003 M3  [3.10]
2011.75 BMW M3  [4.17]
2009 STi  [3.83]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoZ View Post
- Those who keep harping on the "lack of" torque really have no idea what they are talking about, I've driven some very torquey cars and I drove the M3 right after the C63 and the extra mountains of torque in the C63 --with it's monster torque that could stop the earth's rotation, hand-crafted by the Führer himself in hell-- didn't really stand out to me.
Amazing. And agreed. I think if people want that feeling of all of their engine's work being done in a shorter time (aka the experience of torque) they should look at turbocharged options.
__________________
///M Power - 2011.75 LMB M3 6MT (fuelly)
stefan is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 03:44 PM   #78
HotIce
Banned
 
Drives: 2013 BMW M3
Join Date: May 2010
Location: I'm not telling some creeper where I live!

Posts: 445
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan View Post
Amazing. And agreed. I think if people want that feeling of all of their engine's work being done in a shorter time (aka the experience of torque) they should look at turbocharged options.
That's just a silly thing to say. Some people want the responsiveness of a NA engine and the M156 delivers just that. Gobs of power...now and in a balanced manner.
HotIce is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 03:55 PM   #79
stefan
Colonel
 
stefan's Avatar
 
Drives: E92M3
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Calgary

Posts: 2,147
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
1999 VF BMW M3  [5.00]
2001 BMW M5  [0.00]
2008 135i  [5.00]
2003 M3  [3.10]
2011.75 BMW M3  [4.17]
2009 STi  [3.83]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rated ///M View Post
That's just a silly thing to say. Some people want the responsiveness of a NA engine and the M156 delivers just that. Gobs of power...now and in a balanced manner.
I respect your throttle response argument, but silly? Really? If people are going over to vehicle for reasons of torque as fun-factor, don't you think a small turbo will do the trick? If it's all about in-gear acceleration and the "fun" of being pushed into your seat.. turbo. I for one am not a fan, but hey.
__________________
///M Power - 2011.75 LMB M3 6MT (fuelly)
stefan is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 04:28 PM   #80
KennyPowers
Brigadier General
 
Drives: .....
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Gulf Coast

Posts: 4,283
iTrader: (13)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan View Post
I respect your throttle response argument, but silly? Really? If people are going over to vehicle for reasons of torque as fun-factor, don't you think a small turbo will do the trick? If it's all about in-gear acceleration and the "fun" of being pushed into your seat.. turbo. I for one am not a fan, but hey.
There are plenty of ways to make turbo engines that provide good low end and top end.

No one complains about the turbo v6 in the gtr, the 911 turbo, new m5 etc.

This board for some reason hates an engine which hasn't even come out yet. I am a believer and think it will be a great balance. Each m3 engine has been better than the kne before, no reason to think that trend will change
__________________
PCD 10/10 on 2015 M3 : MW / SB Full Leather / HK audio / Adaptive Suspension / Silver 19s / 6MT / CF Roof
KennyPowers is online now  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 05:32 PM   #81
DylanMckay
Banned
 
Drives: e92 m3
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: armpit of the USA

Posts: 122
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KennyPowers View Post
There are plenty of ways to make turbo engines that provide good low end and top end.

No one complains about the turbo v6 in the gtr, the 911 turbo, new m5 etc.

This board for some reason hates an engine which hasn't even come out yet. I am a believer and think it will be a great balance. Each m3 engine has been better than the kne before, no reason to think that trend will change
Depends on how you define better. Historically the m3 engines were apples to apples comparisons. Low displacement, relatively high revving NA engines with increasing hp/litre with each increasing generation. Also improved torque, horsepower, delivery of power, torque flatness etc. So it was easy to say each m3 engine was better.

However the new engine will be an apples to oranges comparison given what standard do you use to compare to totally different engines? If its simply more power and more torque than of course FI will always win. If its hp/litre than FI will always destroy a NA engine. If its tunability than Fi again will destroy. Unfortunately there is no objective measure of an engine's "feel" , sound or character in regards to the delivery of power.

So I am not sure what better means when comparing two different animals alltogether. One delivers power in a vastly different way than the other and if you prefer the delivery of top end high hp/low displacement engines than the new FI engine will not be "better" even though it may have all the objective measures of being better.

All I am saying is this will create a situation where comparing the new engines with m-engines past will make it impossible to really directly compare them.
DylanMckay is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 06:18 PM   #82
HotIce
Banned
 
Drives: 2013 BMW M3
Join Date: May 2010
Location: I'm not telling some creeper where I live!

Posts: 445
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan View Post
I respect your throttle response argument, but silly? Really? If people are going over to vehicle for reasons of torque as fun-factor, don't you think a small turbo will do the trick? If it's all about in-gear acceleration and the "fun" of being pushed into your seat.. turbo. I for one am not a fan, but hey.
But why go turbo when an NA engine already offers all the characteristics of a turbo engine without the turbo? There is no turbo lag to deal with and I don't care how well you make an turbo engine, turbo lag will be there. The C63 AMG gives you instant response now. Would I trade in my M3 for one? Never. It's not my type of car.Different strokes for different folks.
HotIce is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-09-2012, 06:27 PM   #83
Z K
Colonel
 
Z K's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Francisco

Posts: 2,113
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rated ///M View Post
But why go turbo when an NA engine already offers all the characteristics of a turbo engine without the turbo? There is no turbo lag to deal with and I don't care how well you make an turbo engine, turbo lag will be there. The C63 AMG gives you instant response now. Would I trade in my M3 for one? Never. It's not my type of car.Different strokes for different folks.
Another aspect of turbocharging is the ease of adding power. With a turbocharged M3, it means you'll see 500+hp M3s by just plugging in a laptop and downloading a flash update. That's $500 vs $10K for a supercharger add on. NA is hard to build power unless you got some monstrous huge motor like the Vettes.
Z K is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2012, 12:08 AM   #84
DiscoZ
Second Lieutenant
 
DiscoZ's Avatar
 
Drives: C63 AMG PP, F25 X3
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: T.Dot

Posts: 273
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KennyPowers View Post
Each m3 engine has been better than the kne before, no reason to think that trend will change
Think some --if not many-- would argue the E46 was not much of an improvement over the European E36 M3 with 321hp. Both from a motor and a chassis perspective. The E92 is a big leap over the E46 from at least a chassis perspective and definitely from a motor perspective, although a bit lacking in steering feel and heavier... and we can only see what the new motor will be.

I am sure the new M3 will be faster around a track. Will I get one, let's see. Will I keep my high-revving V8 M3, probably. It's like having an air-cooled Porsche for purity, yet no denying the 991 3.8ltr motor with 400hp is the shiznit.
__________________
Current: 2012 C63 AMG PP | 2012 F25 X3
Past: 2008 E92 M3 | 2009 E90 335i | 2007 Z4MC | 2002 GTI 1.8T | 2000 Celica GT-S | 1999 328i | 1990 Corrado G60
DiscoZ is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2012, 01:39 AM   #85
HotIce
Banned
 
Drives: 2013 BMW M3
Join Date: May 2010
Location: I'm not telling some creeper where I live!

Posts: 445
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Z K View Post
Another aspect of turbocharging is the ease of adding power. With a turbocharged M3, it means you'll see 500+hp M3s by just plugging in a laptop and downloading a flash update. That's $500 vs $10K for a supercharger add on. NA is hard to build power unless you got some monstrous huge motor like the Vettes.
Yes, FI engines usually are good for tuning, but that's about it. That is the only advantage they have.
HotIce is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2012, 12:31 PM   #86
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,902
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rated ///M View Post
Yes, FI engines usually are good for tuning, but that's about it. That is the only advantage they have.
How about:

- more power at a given engine weight (including intercooler paraphernalia)
- an infinitely tunable torque curve (great for coming off corners)
- better mileage

Bruce

PS - Anecdotally, my old SRT4 (bone stock except for track sneakers and pads) would give E46 M3s all they could handle around a given track, except on a long straight. It was well down on power to weight (230 HP, 2920 pounds full of gas), but it would come out of corners like a striped ape while riding the boost.

E36s were for breakfast.

I'm really looking forward to the new M3.
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2012, 08:49 PM   #87
KKM3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: E92 m3 + r8 v10
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Los Angeles

Posts: 504
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
How about:

- more power at a given engine weight (including intercooler paraphernalia)
- an infinitely tunable torque curve (great for coming off corners)
- better mileage

Bruce

PS - Anecdotally, my old SRT4 (bone stock except for track sneakers and pads) would give E46 M3s all they could handle around a given track, except on a long straight. It was well down on power to weight (230 HP, 2920 pounds full of gas), but it would come out of corners like a striped ape while riding the boost.

E36s were for breakfast.

I'm really looking forward to the new M3.
I highly doubt your dodge neon ate e36 m3's for breakfast, especially since the e36 can keep up with the e46 on most tracks.
KKM3 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-10-2012, 11:54 PM   #88
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,902
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by KKM3 View Post
I highly doubt your dodge neon ate e36 m3's for breakfast, especially since the e36 can keep up with the e46 on most tracks.
At New Hampshire, it was almost two seconds quicker than my E36 M3, as one example. The only E36s that could consistently get around me were a couple of 325s.

Turner Motorsports cars.

I think you're sort of, kind of, almost correct about E46s vs E36s. In my experience, very close except for almost any straight that wasn't a mere short chute.

Our E46 saw just one track day. Although it was a bit quicker than our E36 had been, I pretty much hated it because of more understeer - plus the stupid rasp of the exhaust which didn't sound anything like a proper BMW from my point of view.
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:56 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST