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) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
Race Precision Motorsport
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-20-2013, 12:16 AM   #1
car_fan
Captain
 
car_fan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 F12 650cic / 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoFla

Posts: 812
iTrader: (0)

S65 vs. S62

I've come across some interesting discussions on various forums about how the S65 stacks up to the S62 4.9L V8 (E39-M5 & E52 Z8). We all know that the E39 M5 was considered a game changer in its time for sports sedans, relatively high revving V8 400hp @ 6600 with 7k redline and decent torque, 369 lb/ft @ 3800 rpm. As we know the 4.0L S65 puts out 414 hp @ 8300 rpm and 295 lb/ft @ 3900 rpm. It appears that some of the e39 boys feel the S65 is a let down performance wise due to the torque deficit and "slow" rev characteristics, albeit the real world performance specs show the E9X's ///M3(s) to be faster, the overall delivery of the S62 being preferred by "them" due to the torque output of the S62. On the other hand it's also been stated that the S62 wasn't a "true" ///M engine as it wasn't significantly different from 540i/740i M62 V8. But some say the S62 is more reliable. What's the consensus here?

BTW: I did a search and didn't see any threads in this section that put the two engines head to head.
__________________
2012 650cic Space Gray/Vermillon Red/Blk.Top(retired)
2011 MINI CooperS BRGII/Lounge Green/Sport/Prem/Connect/Black Xenon/Black Conical Spokes/ACS springs/ACS exhaust/Alta Shorty/Continental Extreme DW
2012 M3 AW/FR NDH2/2MK/ZPP/ZCP/ZCW/752/6NR/OEM CF splitters/OEM CF Mirror caps
2012 X3 35i Titanium Silver/Black ZAP/ZPP/TECH/APPS/Breyton GTS/Continental Extreme DW
car_fan is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 12:37 AM   #2
averrec6262
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: 2008 BMW M3 e90
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: philadelphia

Posts: 46
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 e90 BMW M3  [0.00]
The only reason the s62 has that much more torque is because of the bigger engine displacement it has. this motor is a lot of fun with the high revving but I do wish the s65 had a bigger displacement and more torque like an LS motor or the c63 motor
averrec6262 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 01:55 AM   #3
car_fan
Captain
 
car_fan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 F12 650cic / 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoFla

Posts: 812
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by averrec6262 View Post
The only reason the s62 has that much more torque is because of the bigger engine displacement it has. this motor is a lot of fun with the high revving but I do wish the s65 had a bigger displacement and more torque like an LS motor or the c63 motor
I like the high strung nature of the S65, the rawness makes it fun in my book. I hear you re: Displacement/Torque, coming from 3 prior N63's one DINAN flashed (claimed 573 ft/lbs) the luxury of having torque down low is a great thing - but I feel the S65 does very well with 295ft/lbs especially when coupled with DCT.

Given the choice I wonder if anyone here would swap the S65 with an S62 in their in E9x - personally I would roll with the S65
__________________
2012 650cic Space Gray/Vermillon Red/Blk.Top(retired)
2011 MINI CooperS BRGII/Lounge Green/Sport/Prem/Connect/Black Xenon/Black Conical Spokes/ACS springs/ACS exhaust/Alta Shorty/Continental Extreme DW
2012 M3 AW/FR NDH2/2MK/ZPP/ZCP/ZCW/752/6NR/OEM CF splitters/OEM CF Mirror caps
2012 X3 35i Titanium Silver/Black ZAP/ZPP/TECH/APPS/Breyton GTS/Continental Extreme DW
car_fan is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 08:28 AM   #4
Eau Rouge
Captain
 
Eau Rouge's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast

Posts: 940
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 BMW E92 M3  [4.50]
Quote:
Originally Posted by car_fan View Post
Given the choice I wonder if anyone here would swap the S65 with an S62 in their in E9x - personally I would roll with the S65
Never.

It is going to be at least a decade before ///M Division has another naturally aspirated engine gracing the engine bay of one of its production models, and it will likely be much longer, if ever, until there's enthusiast consensus that ///M Division has finally built a naturally aspirated engine that is superior to the S65.
__________________
Eau Rouge is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 02:31 PM   #5
Superfly_M3
Captain
 
Drives: 2011 M3
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Toronto

Posts: 964
iTrader: (0)

It would be nice to have the increase in displacement for more tq. But then again thats what SCing is for.
Superfly_M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 02:45 PM   #6
Munit
Banned
 
Drives: m3
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: CA

Posts: 220
iTrader: (0)

The problem is people often want it both ways. Many people critisize the M division for caving to the masses with their new stuff and the turbo's etc to essentially address the low torque issue coupled with some gas mileage but real world shows that too be disapointing in terms of mileage.

These same "purists" often complain at the lack of torque for the m3-which first off 99 percent of people do not properly label it as a deficit of engine torque which equates to a deficit of wheel torque down low in the RPM band.

These are the drivers who should not really be in the e9x because if you are not wanting and willing to keep the revs above 5500 when you want to have fun in the car than you bought the wrong car as at 6k and above the wheel torque is superior and as good as the s62 or whatever else.

The same can be sead for the S54 and the S85-the last decade and more the M department did focus on a "purist" car who valued track performance and race technology that could be enjoyed on the road and track.

So those that complain about the low torque then go complain M is moving away from being a purist when in reality they were not content when M was serviing their dedicated purpose driven cars and purists.

The whole torque thing is just so misunderstood. Someone needs to find a better way to present numbers and have no clue why they dont replace maximum Wheel torque as a number rather than engine torque.

Give a wheel torque or thrust is even better at the wheels and a horsepower measurment-than every single car would be truly represented to the naive people who don't understand what engine torque is and how it relates to thrust
Munit is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 02:48 PM   #7
Mr.Metak2you
Brigadier General
 
Mr.Metak2you's Avatar
 
Drives: LEXUS LS(DailyDriver)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Astral Projecting: ∞ 23.516 -122 02.625 0242.101 ĕv'rē-hwr'

Posts: 4,747
iTrader: (15)

Garage List
What is the weight comparison, S65 vs S62? I'm always amazed how much lighter the S65 is than even the I6 S54.
__________________
Mr.Metak2you is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 02:55 PM   #8
1MOREMOD
2014 Track Days - 10|Ridge 1:52:24|Pacific 1:35:72
 
1MOREMOD's Avatar
 
Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

Posts: 12,191
iTrader: (5)

i thought there was more options to build a s62 for racing applications without spending 50k
__________________

02 Tiag e46 M3|6MT|GC plates|MCS c.o.|GC bars|GC race control arms|GC bushings|BW eng. & tran. mounts|subframe kit|BW race shifter|BW Jaffster|Euro header|BW exhaust|K&N c.a.i.|Epic race tune|Rouge pulleys|Seibon CF hood|CSL bumper|ST-40|XR-2|SS lines|half cage|Recaro profi|Profi 2 harness|BMWpedals|BW studs|
1MOREMOD is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 03:09 PM   #9
Munit
Banned
 
Drives: m3
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: CA

Posts: 220
iTrader: (0)

think its been around longer for starters so more race applications.

Given 10 years and the s65 will likely replace it in all race applications which would have included s62
Munit is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 05:25 PM   #10
ONEOF40 FS M3
FROZEN SILVER
 
ONEOF40 FS M3's Avatar
 
Drives: '12 E92 M3 FS EDITION
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Florida

Posts: 366
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
I currently own an e92 M3 and have owned an e39 M5; both cars and their respective engines are automotive masterpieces.

IMO there is no let down in neither one, it is not just the engine, it is about complete package.

Bulletproof engine, instant torque feel, smooth highway cruiser = S62 . e39

High rpm strung engine, more flexible, pure driving excitement at all times = S65 . e92 / FEI - there is plenty of torque available in the
S65 engine, just have to drive the car like it is meant to be driven...


If you really like driving you would enjoy both with its own characteristics.

CURRENT RIDES
12 FROZEN SILVER E92 M3
03 GP WHITE S2K AP1

ORDERED
13 MONTECARLO BLUE F10 M5

PREVIOUS M CARS
02 LEMANS BLUE E39 M5
06 SAPPHIRE BLACK E60 M5
ONEOF40 FS M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 05:28 PM   #11
ONEOF40 FS M3
FROZEN SILVER
 
ONEOF40 FS M3's Avatar
 
Drives: '12 E92 M3 FS EDITION
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Florida

Posts: 366
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munit View Post
The problem is people often want it both ways. Many people critisize the M division for caving to the masses with their new stuff and the turbo's etc to essentially address the low torque issue coupled with some gas mileage but real world shows that too be disapointing in terms of mileage.

These same "purists" often complain at the lack of torque for the m3-which first off 99 percent of people do not properly label it as a deficit of engine torque which equates to a deficit of wheel torque down low in the RPM band.

These are the drivers who should not really be in the e9x because if you are not wanting and willing to keep the revs above 5500 when you want to have fun in the car than you bought the wrong car as at 6k and above the wheel torque is superior and as good as the s62 or whatever else.

The same can be sead for the S54 and the S85-the last decade and more the M department did focus on a "purist" car who valued track performance and race technology that could be enjoyed on the road and track.

So those that complain about the low torque then go complain M is moving away from being a purist when in reality they were not content when M was serviing their dedicated purpose driven cars and purists.

The whole torque thing is just so misunderstood. Someone needs to find a better way to present numbers and have no clue why they dont replace maximum Wheel torque as a number rather than engine torque.

Give a wheel torque or thrust is even better at the wheels and a horsepower measurment-than every single car would be truly represented to the naive people who don't understand what engine torque is and how it relates to thrust


CURRENT RIDES
12 FROZEN SILVER E92 M3
03 GP WHITE S2K AP1

ORDERED
13 MONTECARLO BLUE F10 M5

PREVIOUS M CARS
02 LEMANS BLUE E39 M5
06 SAPPHIRE BLACK E60 M5
ONEOF40 FS M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 06:05 PM   #12
pbonsalb
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: 08 E90 M3, 99 E36 M3 Turbo
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Concord, NH

Posts: 1,610
iTrader: (3)

BMW went with more displacement for more torque and horsepower with the 4.4L S65 in the M3 GTS.
pbonsalb is online now  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 06:39 PM   #13
meyergru
No military grade
 
meyergru's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3 DCT
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Munich, Germany

Posts: 544
iTrader: (0)

But you can only go so far with a flat-plane V8. 4.4l are about as high as you can go (maybe 4.6l). And even then, the percentage of gain is lower than the displacement increase would suggest.

You have to make a choice: high revs with a flat-plane race engine like the S65 or arbitrary displacement (and thus, horsepower and torque) with a cross-plane like the S62.

It is not a coincidence that the M3 and the Ferraris use cross-plane engines. If you want torque, buy a C63 AMG.
__________________
meyergru is offline   Germany
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 07:04 PM   #14
car_fan
Captain
 
car_fan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 F12 650cic / 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoFla

Posts: 812
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ONEOF40 FS M3 View Post
I currently own an e92 M3 and have owned an e39 M5; both cars and their respective engines are automotive masterpieces.

IMO there is no let down in neither one, it is not just the engine, it is about complete package.

Bulletproof engine, instant torque feel, smooth highway cruiser = S62 . e39

High rpm strung engine, more flexible, pure driving excitement at all times = S65 . e92 / FEI - there is plenty of torque available in the
S65 engine, just have to drive the car like it is meant to be driven...


If you really like driving you would enjoy both with its own characteristics.

CURRENT RIDES
12 FROZEN SILVER E92 M3
03 GP WHITE S2K AP1

ORDERED
13 MONTECARLO BLUE F10 M5

PREVIOUS M CARS
02 LEMANS BLUE E39 M5
06 SAPPHIRE BLACK E60 M5
Thank you for the unbiased reply. Respectively the S65 and S62 were obviously designed for 2 different market segments. Both are great engines but, as you stated the S65 isn't about lazy speed - you have to wring its neck. Perhaps that the overall misconception for those who drive the S65 and end up with larger displacement V8's. As is often discussed on this board many would do better with a 335. Perhaps thats why those of us who enjoy the character of the S65 are of less concern in the overall focus for the future of ///M. Ironically the folks in ingolstadt have decided to give it a go
__________________
2012 650cic Space Gray/Vermillon Red/Blk.Top(retired)
2011 MINI CooperS BRGII/Lounge Green/Sport/Prem/Connect/Black Xenon/Black Conical Spokes/ACS springs/ACS exhaust/Alta Shorty/Continental Extreme DW
2012 M3 AW/FR NDH2/2MK/ZPP/ZCP/ZCW/752/6NR/OEM CF splitters/OEM CF Mirror caps
2012 X3 35i Titanium Silver/Black ZAP/ZPP/TECH/APPS/Breyton GTS/Continental Extreme DW

Last edited by car_fan; 01-20-2013 at 07:11 PM.
car_fan is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 07:11 PM   #15
sensi09
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: .
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: socal

Posts: 1,765
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by meyergru View Post
But you can only go so far with a flat-plane V8. 4.4l are about as high as you can go (maybe 4.6l). And even then, the percentage of gain is lower than the displacement increase would suggest.

You have to make a choice: high revs with a flat-plane race engine like the S65 or arbitrary displacement (and thus, horsepower and torque) with a cross-plane like the S62.

It is not a coincidence that the M3 and the Ferraris use cross-plane engines. If you want torque, buy a C63 AMG.
The S65 has a cross plane crank.

The P65 in the M3 GT race cars have a flat-plane crank
sensi09 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 07:18 PM   #16
ONEOF40 FS M3
FROZEN SILVER
 
ONEOF40 FS M3's Avatar
 
Drives: '12 E92 M3 FS EDITION
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South Florida

Posts: 366
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by car_fan View Post
Thank you for the unbiased reply. Respectively the S65 and S62 were obviously designed for 2 different market segments. Both are great engines but, as you stated the S65 isn't about lazy speed - you have to wring its neck. Perhaps that the overall misconception for those who drive the S65 and end up with larger displacement V8's. As is often discussed on this board many would do better with a 335. Perhaps thats why those of us who enjoy the character of the S65 are of less concern in the overall focus for the future of ///M. Ironically the folks in ingolstadt have decided to give it a go


CURRENT RIDES
12 FROZEN SILVER E92 M3
03 GP WHITE S2K AP1

ORDERED
13 MONTECARLO BLUE F10 M5

PREVIOUS M CARS
02 LEMANS BLUE E39 M5
06 SAPPHIRE BLACK E60 M5
ONEOF40 FS M3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 07:26 PM   #17
car_fan
Captain
 
car_fan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 F12 650cic / 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoFla

Posts: 812
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munit View Post
The problem is people often want it both ways. Many people critisize the M division for caving to the masses with their new stuff and the turbo's etc to essentially address the low torque issue coupled with some gas mileage but real world shows that too be disapointing in terms of mileage.

These same "purists" often complain at the lack of torque for the m3-which first off 99 percent of people do not properly label it as a deficit of engine torque which equates to a deficit of wheel torque down low in the RPM band.

These are the drivers who should not really be in the e9x because if you are not wanting and willing to keep the revs above 5500 when you want to have fun in the car than you bought the wrong car as at 6k and above the wheel torque is superior and as good as the s62 or whatever else.

The same can be sead for the S54 and the S85-the last decade and more the M department did focus on a "purist" car who valued track performance and race technology that could be enjoyed on the road and track.

So those that complain about the low torque then go complain M is moving away from being a purist when in reality they were not content when M was serviing their dedicated purpose driven cars and purists.

The whole torque thing is just so misunderstood. Someone needs to find a better way to present numbers and have no clue why they dont replace maximum Wheel torque as a number rather than engine torque.

Give a wheel torque or thrust is even better at the wheels and a horsepower measurment-than every single car would be truly represented to the naive people who don't understand what engine torque is and how it relates to thrust
+1
__________________
2012 650cic Space Gray/Vermillon Red/Blk.Top(retired)
2011 MINI CooperS BRGII/Lounge Green/Sport/Prem/Connect/Black Xenon/Black Conical Spokes/ACS springs/ACS exhaust/Alta Shorty/Continental Extreme DW
2012 M3 AW/FR NDH2/2MK/ZPP/ZCP/ZCW/752/6NR/OEM CF splitters/OEM CF Mirror caps
2012 X3 35i Titanium Silver/Black ZAP/ZPP/TECH/APPS/Breyton GTS/Continental Extreme DW
car_fan is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 10:53 PM   #18
FormulaMMM
Major
 
FormulaMMM's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Midwest

Posts: 1,347
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by car_fan View Post
I like the high strung nature of the S65, the rawness makes it fun in my book. I hear you re: Displacement/Torque, coming from 3 prior N63's one DINAN flashed (claimed 573 ft/lbs) the luxury of having torque down low is a great thing - but I feel the S65 does very well with 295ft/lbs especially when coupled with DCT.

Given the choice I wonder if anyone here would swap the S65 with an S62 in their in E9x - personally I would roll with the S65
I personally would not do that swap. There is some precedent for running the S62 in the E9x platform though. Turner does it in their Rolex M3s -- http://www.turnermotorsport.com/race-cars.aspx

I owned an E39 M5 for 3 years, and had both my M5 and E90 M3 for a few months.

Fundamentally different engine characteristics, both awesome. I can see having a preference for either.

Gun to my head I'll take the S65 because of the excitement factor. Nothing the S62 delivers can match the thrill of power building to 8400 rpm, IMO.

On a side note, I've never experienced an engine that loved the cold like the S62. Felt closer to 500 hp than 400 in freezing temps and below.

As far as reliability, in my experience both are bulletproof. (My M5 was a 4/03 build.)
__________________
DCT E90 M3: Akrapovic Slip-On, Stoptech ST-40 Front + Pagid RS29 | Stock Rear + Stoptech SP, Apex EC-7 18x10 ET25 + Nitto NT01 275/35/18 (for track), tbd...
Past: Velos Designwerks Tune, Megan Racing Catback then Akrapovic Evolution, Macht Schnell Filter
FormulaMMM is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 11:20 PM   #19
MilehighM3
Colonel
 
MilehighM3's Avatar
 
Drives: E90 M3
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Colorado Springs

Posts: 2,066
iTrader: (9)

Quote:
Originally Posted by car_fan
relatively high revving V8 400hp @ 6600 with 7k redline and decent torque, 369 lb/ft @ 3800 rpm. As we know the 4.0L S65 puts out 414 hp @ 8300 rpm and 295 lb/ft @ 3900 rpm.
The S62 also produces about 90% of its torque at about 1700RPM. That's the best part about that engine. That often gets over looked. The delta on the S62 is much larger than an S65. Thus far the S62 is far more popular for racing applications. The Dinan version of that engine is race trim is fantastic. There are also a number of companies that use it in off road racing as well. In the end, both engines are great in their own ways.
MilehighM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 11:32 PM   #20
car_fan
Captain
 
car_fan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 F12 650cic / 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoFla

Posts: 812
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaMMM View Post
I personally would not do that swap. There is some precedent for running the S62 in the E9x platform though. Turner does it in their Rolex M3s -- http://www.turnermotorsport.com/race-cars.aspx

I owned an E39 M5 for 3 years, and had both my M5 and E90 M3 for a few months.

Fundamentally different engine characteristics, both awesome. I can see having a preference for either.

Gun to my head I'll take the S65 because of the excitement factor. Nothing the S62 delivers can match the thrill of power building to 8400 rpm, IMO.

On a side note, I've never experienced an engine that loved the cold like the S62. Felt closer to 500 hp than 400 in freezing temps and below.

As far as reliability, in my experience both are bulletproof. (My M5 was a 4/03 build.)
Thanks for the response, again I was curious because these are the only 2 n/a production ///M V8's thus far... So its cool to see objective feedback, as opposed to the hate I was reading. A simple google search will return the the results of what I am speaking of. Also know that I have alot of respect for the E39 in general. I actually bought a new E39 528i Sport in 1998, so I am aware of the inherent goodness of the platform. Even today, I wouldn't mind owning an E39 M5 - in addition - to an E92 M3.
__________________
2012 650cic Space Gray/Vermillon Red/Blk.Top(retired)
2011 MINI CooperS BRGII/Lounge Green/Sport/Prem/Connect/Black Xenon/Black Conical Spokes/ACS springs/ACS exhaust/Alta Shorty/Continental Extreme DW
2012 M3 AW/FR NDH2/2MK/ZPP/ZCP/ZCW/752/6NR/OEM CF splitters/OEM CF Mirror caps
2012 X3 35i Titanium Silver/Black ZAP/ZPP/TECH/APPS/Breyton GTS/Continental Extreme DW
car_fan is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      01-20-2013, 11:57 PM   #21
clar
Captain
 
clar's Avatar
 
Drives: M5
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Singapore

Posts: 872
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munit View Post
The problem is people often want it both ways. Many people critisize the M division for caving to the masses with their new stuff and the turbo's etc to essentially address the low torque issue coupled with some gas mileage but real world shows that too be disapointing in terms of mileage.

These same "purists" often complain at the lack of torque for the m3-which first off 99 percent of people do not properly label it as a deficit of engine torque which equates to a deficit of wheel torque down low in the RPM band.

These are the drivers who should not really be in the e9x because if you are not wanting and willing to keep the revs above 5500 when you want to have fun in the car than you bought the wrong car as at 6k and above the wheel torque is superior and as good as the s62 or whatever else.

The same can be sead for the S54 and the S85-the last decade and more the M department did focus on a "purist" car who valued track performance and race technology that could be enjoyed on the road and track.

So those that complain about the low torque then go complain M is moving away from being a purist when in reality they were not content when M was serviing their dedicated purpose driven cars and purists.

The whole torque thing is just so misunderstood. Someone needs to find a better way to present numbers and have no clue why they dont replace maximum Wheel torque as a number rather than engine torque.

Give a wheel torque or thrust is even better at the wheels and a horsepower measurment-than every single car would be truly represented to the naive people who don't understand what engine torque is and how it relates to thrust
There is no misunderstanding i think. People who complain abt lack of torque are referring to the day to day city driving. The S65 in low rpm and cruising gear is not much to speak of in terms of acceleration. Torque only becomes noticeable when the the needle is racing thru the tacho. For all out balls to the wall driving, torque is no issue as one would be hitting the red line anyway. I love the S65 to death, but for lazy city driving, it's not as effortless as a turbo charged torque monster, which seems to be in its power band at any gear and any rev.
__________________

Current Rides:
Frozen Grey F10 M5 DCT
Rosso Corsa 458 Speciale
Frozen Grey E92 M3 Sold
clar is offline   Singapore
0
Reply With Quote
      01-21-2013, 12:05 AM   #22
Munit
Banned
 
Drives: m3
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: CA

Posts: 220
iTrader: (0)

well your post shows exactly the misunderstanding you and people have. You said torque is not relevent when you are taking to redline?

That makes zero sense. Wheel torque aka thrust is at its peak at redline. Engine torque is also near flat and the same at redline as it is throughout the band. The difference is the combination of the effect of the revs coupled with the gearing which DRASTICALLY changes what is measured at the engine.

Wheel torque is ultimately taking an engine making X amount of ability to drive an axle (torque). Then to translate into what actually gets the wheels you need to factor in the revs which obviously are not even part of an engine torque number, then as important or more is the effect of gearing which drastically varies depending on the type of engine. After that and you subtract the parastici losses, you get how much power the wheels are turning at or wheel torque/thrust. This last piece is all that matters.

So yes at very low rpms the m3 has no wheel torque, but given the design, it also is very easy to get into 5500 plus powerband and at that point the wheel torque is more than a 335.

So really it comes down to lazy drivers who for some reason want to be able to accelerate on the freeway in 6th or 7th without shifting vs someone who shifts to 3rd or 4th and takes a bit of effort.

I totally understand if you are a lazy driver as that is what cruising is about-but in that case I really feel people bought the wrong car if they chose an m3.
An m3 is designed as something assumed will be driven for performance. When driving it for performance, the needle stays above 6k and you are paddling/rowing gears and low end torque is irrelevent.

ANyway what does it matter lol
Munit 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 03:25 PM.




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