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)
 
Lux Angel Eyes
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-06-2008, 09:43 PM   #287
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,068
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
I just provided stats from both manufacturers!!! You have no factual evidence to back up anything you say so you've resulted to calling Mercedes a liar. That's so incredibly weak. Have you ever written a research paper? You need sources to back up what you say. Otherwise, you're just running your mouth.
Skepticism is so unpopular, unfortunately. Again my point is that things are likely not apples to apples. No I've never written a research paper smart guy, my lowly three degrees never involved any writing nor research. Take it easy with the assumption, insults and insinuations. You OPINION is obviously contentious and up for some good healthy debate. Deal with it. Posting some links to worldcarfans does not make you unconditionally correct. Part of good research is healthy skepticism and common sense as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
Why can't BMW make their engines any displacement they want? How does the M3 having higher displacement mean it will cost more? So you're telling me that if BMW designed the M3 to have a 5.0 liter V8 that instead of its 4 liter version, that it would be priced at the same level as an M5, solely because of its displacement? I hope you never run a car company.
TAXES IN MANY COUNTRIES ARE BASED ON DISPLACEMENT. Look it up. I never said an M3 with a 5.0 l engine would cost the same as the M5. However, it would cost more than it does now in many countries. Try reading instead of assuming. Now and in the future many countries will adopt a taxation strategy based on CO2 emmissions, not displacement, but obviosuly correlated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
And you just admitted that you don't know anything about the classes or rules the M3 will race under, so all of your comments are without merit. When production based cars run in race series, they generally have restrictor plates which limit the amount of air the engine can draw in. If all engines can only breath the same amount of air, then they should be equally limited in the amount of power they produce. Oxygen is just as important as gasoline in the combustion cycle as it is the fuel for the gasoline.
If you say displacement means nothing for any race series based on production engines I'll take that at face value. Doesn't sound entirely plausible but definitely not an area where I have great knowledge. Perhaps some others can chime in and verify this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
How is the M3 more technologically advanced? How does it push the envelope further? You need to remember, that engines are built with more than just attaining 100+ hp/liter. So while this engine may be an excellent example of a high revving motor, it does not discount other engines because they were built with different goals in mind. I already said all of this to you before but nothing gets to you.
You already answerd some of this question yourself. Loads scale with rpm^2, high rpms = very high loads. To design something light and stiff and strong is a challenge. I've done lots of that myself. As well the challenges of wear, tribology, electronic controls, lubrication and balance all come into the to picture of the technology. Also, I firmly agree with footie as his post just above. Lower torque = lighter drivetrain and all of the benefits you get from that. Less stored energy in the drivetrain, better throttle response, lighter vehicle, etc. As well the incredibly broad and flat torque curve of the M3 is a result of it outstanding engineering.

I have never discounted the C63 AMG nor Z06 engines. They both are obviously filled with good technology in their own rights and clearly get the job done quite well. It is simply a preference as well for the thrill and emotional involvement of a high revving engine. Driving an M5 you obviously know something about this. It is more race like, period. You can talk all day (and I do...) about price to performance and absolute performance and which car is faster, but a huge factor in ALL of our own decisions about which cars we most admire and which we choose to buy is EMOTION.

Seriously, it is time to check the assumptions, attitude and insults at the door.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-06-2008, 09:52 PM   #288
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,870
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
Hmm, a quick look at this page (http://www.worldcarfans.com/2070322....gine-in-detail) would be enough to read "weight to BMW standard", so here I am and raise my hand. Hard to argue with that, isn't it?
Huh. Good stuff.

So you figure the M3 engine weighs more than 202 kg when weighed against the Euro standard? Less? The same?

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
BTW: I found an German Merc/AMG forum which seems to have quite knowledgable information and the common sense there is that the M156 engine comes in at 223kg (explicitly stated for the CLK version).
So what is the common sense? What does the weight include?

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
So we all still think the Merc engine is lighter?
Yes, but...

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-06-2008, 10:18 PM   #289
haen
Enlisted Member
 
haen's Avatar
 
Drives: e60 M5
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles

Posts: 38
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Of course it doesn't produce as much power for its weight, it has far less displacement, only logical. It produces proportional power to the motor it is based on, logical. It also makes more power per cubic inch, doesn't it?
What do you mean it produces proportional power to the motor it is based on? Proportional in what regard? More importantly, give the whole HP/liter concept a rest. You have failed to bring any new information to the discussion and constantly refer to this single aspect of engine design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You don't seem to get it. The M3 motor uses higher quality components and is more technologically advanced. If the parts are stronger, what makes you think they are more stressed? Once again, considering the E46 M3 could hit more than double the factory hp, seems to me the parts can handle 8k no problem. The Z06 is the one who's rods start to give out at <20% torque increase.
Why would BMW (or any manufacturer) put exotic, expensive, high strength components in an engine if they didn't have to? BMW is in the business of making money and no company gives stuff away for free.

You said "If the parts are stronger, what makes you think they are more stressed?". You have the concept backwards. The parts have to be stronger because of the increased stress placed on them from spinning at a higher RPM. Let's work with an example to make this clearer. Imagine one of the pistons in your M3. It is changing directions 6,000 times a minute when your engine is spinning at 3,000 RPM. When you raise the engine speed to 6,000 RPM, the piston is changing direction 12,000 times a minute. Does it not make sense to you that there is more stress on a piston changing directions 16,000 times a minute at 8,000 RPM than another piston changing direction only 12,000 times a minute at 6,000 RPM. If this concept doesn't make sense to you, you need to take high school physics again, pay extra attention to the chapter on reciprocating mass.
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti

haen is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-06-2008, 10:32 PM   #290
Sticky
Banned
 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu

Posts: 2,244
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
What do you mean it produces proportional power to the motor it is based on? Proportional in what regard? More importantly, give the whole HP/liter concept a rest. You have failed to bring any new information to the discussion and constantly refer to this single aspect of engine design.



Why would BMW (or any manufacturer) put exotic, expensive, high strength components in an engine if they didn't have to? BMW is in the business of making money and no company gives stuff away for free.

You said "If the parts are stronger, what makes you think they are more stressed?". You have the concept backwards. The parts have to be stronger because of the increased stress placed on them from spinning at a higher RPM. Let's work with an example to make this clearer. Imagine one of the pistons in your M3. It is changing directions 6,000 times a minute when your engine is spinning at 3,000 RPM. When you raise the engine speed to 6,000 RPM, the piston is changing direction 12,000 times a minute. Does it not make sense to you that there is more stress on a piston changing directions 16,000 times a minute at 8,000 RPM than another piston changing direction only 12,000 times a minute at 6,000 RPM. If this concept doesn't make sense to you, you need to take high school physics again, pay extra attention to the chapter on reciprocating mass.
Basic math escapes you, read over the past posts, if it still doesn't sink in, I am not surprised.

You have the concept backwards. I prefer a car built with the best materials available to set the highest standard. I'm not interested in a car that can get by with cheap cast internals just because it has the displacement and revs of a tractor. I'm exaggerating to get my point across, just in case that escapes you.

Let me make this example clear. The M3 with its 8k+ redline is formidable NA even with its smaller displacement. With a bit of boost, it is ridiculously powerful thanks to its forged internals and wide powerband. Essentially, you can get the best of both worlds. If you want more power or torque, you can get it. You don't need it to compete with what is already out there. BMW shows that they one of the best at building a motor, again and again.

Does it not make sense to you to have the highest quality parts in your motor? Not just what will get by because your motor is a large low tech piece of junk that barely spins and makes its power largely as a function of torque instead of high tech engineering (comparatively speaking)?

You may notice that companies like RUF tend to make their forced induction motors strong not by increasing boost but by making them more efficient, usually in the heads, sometimes going to something higher flowing designed for an NA car like the GT3 heads.

BMW could get rid of a lot of things and simplify the car, make it more fuel efficient, and more practical for people like yourself. Those of use that want the highest quality materials, most advanced transmissions, and engines built to the highest standard, are fine with paying for it and paying for the associated costs.

Why didn't Ferrari stick an LS1 in the 360 modena? Wouldn't the F430 be cheaper, easier, etc. with an LS7?

Formula 1 would be far more entertaining if the cars stuffed in carburated large cubic inch v8's right? I mean, the cars would be cheaper to run. They wouldn't need the same quality of internals, right? You will never understand, some things are just beyond the simple folk.
Sticky is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-06-2008, 10:40 PM   #291
haen
Enlisted Member
 
haen's Avatar
 
Drives: e60 M5
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles

Posts: 38
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Skepticism is so unpopular, unfortunately. Again my point is that things are likely not apples to apples. No I've never written a research paper smart guy, my lowly three degrees never involved any writing nor research. Take it easy with the assumption, insults and insinuations. You OPINION is obviously contentious and up for some good healthy debate. Deal with it. Posting some links to worldcarfans does not make you unconditionally correct. Part of good research is healthy skepticism and common sense as well.
I'm sorry for the tone in which you interpreted my response. It's a common problem with written dialogue. I do not have an opinion about the weight of these engines. What I have is facts. Worldcarfans did not make up those press releases. They are from BMW and Mercedes and you can find the exact same articles on other websites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
TAXES IN MANY COUNTRIES ARE BASED ON DISPLACEMENT. Look it up. I never said an M3 with a 5.0 l engine would cost the same as the M5. However, it would cost more than it does now in many countries. Try reading instead of assuming. Now and in the future many countries will adopt a taxation strategy based on CO2 emmissions, not displacement, but obviosuly correlated.
All I have are assumptions to go on because you were not clear enough in your post. How was I supposed to know that you were talking about taxes? You said "the displacement thing is absolutely a factor for the M3. If it was 4.0 liters or greater it would make the price significantly higher resulting in making it significantly less attractive and affordable." You never mentioned taxes. You need to be more specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
If you say displacement means nothing for any race series based on production engines I'll take that at face value. Doesn't sound entirely plausible but definitely not an area where I have great knowledge. Perhaps some others can chime in and verify this?
They do cap classes at certain engine sizes but BMW didn't build the M3 to go racing, they built it to sell to consumers. Don't confuse the E92 M3 with the E30 M3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
You already answerd some of this question yourself. Loads scale with rpm^2, high rpms = very high loads. To design something light and stiff and strong is a challenge. I've done lots of that myself. As well the challenges of wear, tribology, electronic controls, lubrication and balance all come into the to picture of the technology. Also, I firmly agree with footie as his post just above. Lower torque = lighter drivetrain and all of the benefits you get from that. Less stored energy in the drivetrain, better throttle response, lighter vehicle, etc. As well the incredibly broad and flat torque curve of the M3 is a result of it outstanding engineering.
Where did I say that the M3's V8 was poorly designed? Do you think the s65 is the only engine to use fancy materials?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I have never discounted the C63 AMG nor Z06 engines. They both are obviously filled with good technology in their own rights and clearly get the job done quite well. It is simply a preference as well for the thrill and emotional involvement of a high revving engine. Driving an M5 you obviously know something about this. It is more race like, period. You can talk all day (and I do...) about price to performance and absolute performance and which car is faster, but a huge factor in ALL of our own decisions about which cars we most admire and which we choose to buy is EMOTION.
I completely agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Seriously, it is time to check the assumptions, attitude and insults at the door.
Same to you
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti

haen is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-06-2008, 11:03 PM   #292
haen
Enlisted Member
 
haen's Avatar
 
Drives: e60 M5
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Los Angeles

Posts: 38
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Basic math escapes you, read over the past posts, if it still doesn't sink in, I am not surprised.
Show me where you used math or physics in any of your posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You have the concept backwards. I prefer a car built with the best materials available to set the highest standard. I'm not interested in a car that can get by with cheap cast internals just because it has the displacement and revs of a tractor. I'm exaggerating to get my point across, just in case that escapes you.
Everyone wants the best quality parts possible. The stronger internal components is analogous to the following question. Why didn't BMW give the M3 an aluminum chassis since it's lighter than steel?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Let me make this example clear. The M3 with its 8k+ redline is formidable NA even with its smaller displacement. With a bit of boost, it is ridiculously powerful thanks to its forged internals and wide powerband. Essentially, you can get the best of both worlds. If you want more power or torque, you can get it. You don't need it to compete with what is already out there. BMW shows that they one of the best at building a motor, again and again.
Boost? We're talking about the engine in stock form. There are too many factors in aftermarket tuning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Does it not make sense to you to have the highest quality parts in your motor? Not just what will get by because your motor is a large low tech piece of junk that barely spins and makes its power largely as a function of torque instead of high tech engineering (comparatively speaking)?
It makes sense to have the highest quality required for the task at hand. If I owned a shovel company and I could built the shovel out of steel for half the cost of a more exotic material and they both performed equally well, I would opt for the cheaper steel. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. BMW's V8 requires those exotic materials because of the extra stress it puts on its components relative to larger displacement, lower revving engines. That is a fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You may notice that companies like RUF tend to make their forced induction motors strong not by increasing boost but by making them more efficient, usually in the heads, sometimes going to something higher flowing designed for an NA car like the GT3 heads.
Don't kid yourself, they raise the boost along with new headers, software, pistons, cams and more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
BMW could get rid of a lot of things and simplify the car, make it more fuel efficient, and more practical for people like yourself. Those of use that want the highest quality materials, most advanced transmissions, and engines built to the highest standard, are fine with paying for it and paying for the associated costs.
Did you forget I own an M5? Why wouldn't you want your M3 to be more efficient? Do you enjoy getting 12 mpg? I guess I'm just more practical than you. I certainly wish my M5 got better gas milage while producing the same amount of power it currently does. Forced induction will result in engines with less fuel consumption while maintaining current power levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Why didn't Ferrari stick an LS1 in the 360 modena? Wouldn't the F430 be cheaper, easier, etc. with an LS7?
Ferrari uses high revving tech they develop F1. All of their cars are loaded with F1 tech. If F1 were to switch back to F1, so would Ferrari road cars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
Formula 1 would be far more entertaining if the cars stuffed in carburated large cubic inch v8's right? I mean, the cars would be cheaper to run. They wouldn't need the same quality of internals, right?
If F1 suddenly switched to soap box cars, I'm sure they would find a way to spend millions on development.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
You will never understand, some things are just beyond the simple folk.
You're an incredibly arrogant prick. Did you know that?
__________________
"If you feel in control, you're not going fast enough." -Mario Andretti

haen is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-07-2008, 12:22 AM   #293
1
Captain
 
Drives: 991TTs
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Earth

Posts: 976
iTrader: (0)

wow these multiple quotes in ever response is f*cking annoying
1 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-07-2008, 04:08 AM   #294
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,068
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
What I have is facts. Worldcarfans did not make up those press releases. They are from BMW and Mercedes and you can find the exact same articles on other websites.
Not sure how many times I have to say it specs are not specs. I believe these specs are not "apples to apples".

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
All I have are assumptions to go on because you were not clear enough in your post. How was I supposed to know that you were talking about taxes? You said "the displacement thing is absolutely a factor for the M3. If it was 4.0 liters or greater it would make the price significantly higher resulting in making it significantly less attractive and affordable." You never mentioned taxes. You need to be more specific.
Reading is key. I stated this explicity in my post #253. You just missed it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
They do cap classes at certain engine sizes but BMW didn't build the M3 to go racing, they built it to sell to consumers. Don't confuse the E92 M3 with the E30 M3.
OK let the back pedaling commence. Of course they did not build the M3 to race but it will make a darn fine race car. And we likely do not need to rehash the importance of a cars success on the race circuit in terms of it fostering a high sales volume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post
Where did I say that the M3's V8 was poorly designed? Do you think the s65 is the only engine to use fancy materials?
You didn't and I did not say you did. Ugh....

Lastly I am open to hearing about my attitude and insults. I haven't gone there. Perhaps you are confusing me and Sticky your new best friend?

Last edited by swamp2; 12-07-2008 at 07:54 PM. Reason: typos
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-07-2008, 04:54 AM   #295
footie
Major General
 
footie's Avatar
 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

Posts: 7,507
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
BTW: I found an German Merc/AMG forum which seems to have quite knowledgable information and the common sense there is that the M156 engine comes in at 223kg (explicitly stated for the CLK version).

So we all still think the Merc engine is lighter?


Best regards, south

Look at the S5 vs RS4 engine weights, here you see a difference of 20Kgs, so it's perfectly possible for two seemly identical engines to weigh differently.

Only a suggestion.

edit:
What does any of this back and forth debate got to do with the next M3 engine????????????????????

Serious guys, all the engines in this endless debate are brilliant, BMW have chose small capacity N/A, Mercedes have large capacity, some chose turbos, others chose superchargers, etc, etc, etc.

It's not what under the hood but the results that count, always remember that.
footie is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      12-07-2008, 05:09 AM   #296
Sticky
Banned
 
Drives: E92 Jerez DCT M3
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Anaheim Hills / Malibu

Posts: 2,244
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by haen View Post

You're an incredibly arrogant prick. Did you know that?
I did not read the rest of your post, as it was probably the same nonsense as usual (I may give it some time later). However, this is the best and most accurate statement you have made so far. It is a shame you can't reach the same level of deduction regarding the motors discussed.
Sticky is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-07-2008, 06:26 AM   #297
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
 
southlight's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

Posts: 6,747
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Look at the S5 vs RS4 engine weights, here you see a difference of 20Kgs, so it's perfectly possible for two seemly identical engines to weigh differently.

Only a suggestion.
Yes, I thought of that possibility. Anyway the 'famous' press release that states the M156 at 199kg was published before the announcement of any specific 63 AMG model. It was by no means a press release explicitly for the C63.


Quote:
edit:
What does any of this back and forth debate got to do with the next M3 engine????????????????????

Serious guys, all the engines in this endless debate are brilliant, BMW have chose small capacity N/A, Mercedes have large capacity, some chose turbos, others chose superchargers, etc, etc, etc.

It's not what under the hood but the results that count, always remember that.
+1 Couldn't agree more. Different strokes for different folks.


Best regards, south
__________________
Those forums...WHY NOT?


JOIN THE 6MT CLUB GROUP
southlight is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-07-2008, 11:00 AM   #298
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: IB/PS M-DCT E93 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,561
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericlikescars View Post
When do you guys feel this next generation M3 will be coming out? I want to pull the trigger on purchasing an M3 soon, and I don't want to purchase one when the next advancement is already going to be coming out!
E46 = MY2001 to MY2006 (in US)
E92 = MY2008 to MY20013 (in US).

Figure MY2015 for the F3x M3, plus or minus a year.
__________________
2008 Interlagos Blue E93 M3 - FOR SALE - Engine failure at 95k miles.
Best offer takes it: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...1#post16279561
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-07-2008, 11:06 PM   #299
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,870
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by southlight View Post
...So we all still think the Merc engine is lighter?
Y'know, now that I've had some time to consider this in a calm and rational manner, here what I've come up with:

WHAT THE HELL???

Is there anything else that BMW measures in their own unique way?

Horsepower? Vehicle length? Air quality? Dress sizes?

Y'think BMW includes the block and heads in their measurement, or just the effing throttle bodies!!! Are the water passages empty? Filled with champagne? Lead? Helium?

I apologize to all for my part in what turns out to be a ridiculous conversation/discussion/argument. Oh, and I hereby withdraw my third M3 brickbat (stated earlier) in regard to engine weights, and throw it at the collective heads of BMW marketing.

Anyway, Swamp, I have no idea what the parts weigh on these two engines, but a typical dual mass flywheel weighs in the vicinity of 40 pounds, while a flexplate for an auto will be nearer 10 pounds.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-07-2008, 11:31 PM   #300
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,870
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
I have no way of proving this but I reckon BMW have chosen to use high revving N/A engines of modest capacity to insure that the torque levels are only produced to the upper levels of the rev range. This means that gearbox, driveshaft, diff, etc., can be made as light as possible in comparison to the likes of the C63.

I guarantee that if the engine/drivetrain complete for both the M3 and the C63 were laid out in front of us and weighed, we would find that the M3 (even an M-DCT equipped one) would be much lighter. It's one of the reason for their remarkable low draintrain lose...
M marketeers here in the states make this point in articles and in person. It certainly makes sense up to a point - but only up to a point.

Let me contrast the BMW with the latest ZR1 Vette to show how limited the point can be.

At the transmission output in first gear, the 604 pound foot Vette is twisting the drive shaft to the tune of 1383 pound feet, which is of course a considerable amount. By contrast, the paltry 295 foot pound M3 is making 1197 foot pounds at that point - or nearly 87% of the Vette's number.

What?

At the rear half shafts, it's even closer, with the M3 at 4611 foot pounds, and the Vette at 4730. Hell, you could probably use the same half shafts with half a heat treat difference.

One would need to do a direct car to car comparison between the M3 and each of its competitors to see how much of a difference M philosophy might actually make. Still good, mind you, but not necessarily huge.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-08-2008, 01:39 AM   #301
Year's_End
RWD only.
 
Year's_End's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 E92 335i
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St. Pete, FL

Posts: 12,189
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1 View Post
wow these multiple quotes in ever response is f*cking annoying
you can skip them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticky View Post
I did not read the rest of your post, as it was probably the same nonsense as usual (I may give it some time later). However, this is the best and most accurate statement you have made so far. It is a shame you can't reach the same level of deduction regarding the motors discussed.
haen makes some good points.
__________________
E92 335i: Space Grey|Coral Red|Aluminum Trim

Future Ride: 2015 Mustang GT Premium |Guard|401A|PP|Recaros|6MT
Year's_End is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-08-2008, 01:40 PM   #302
enigma
Captain
 
Drives: E92 M3 and Elise
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Land of the Microchip

Posts: 689
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
It's not what under the hood but the results that count, always remember that.
For some its not the result that counts but the badge on the hood and trunk.

I'm very happy with my M3. I just recognize there are always trade offs. If BMW goes to turbos my next car likely won't be another BMW and I will finally buy that Aston Martin.
__________________
Manual gearboxes, the rotary dial of cars.
enigma is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-08-2008, 07:16 PM   #303
titannero
Registered
 
titannero's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Orlando, FL

Posts: 3
iTrader: (0)

I love my NA V8, I for sure will keep it and already called the guys at BMW to be the first on the list for a possible V8TT M3 which I'd love to have. Why not have a great road going car that will kill it on the highway like a Twin Turbo car can; but then again I'm a big turbo fan
titannero is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-08-2008, 07:51 PM   #304
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,068
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
M marketeers here in the states make this point in articles and in person. It certainly makes sense up to a point - but only up to a point.

Let me contrast the BMW with the latest ZR1 Vette to show how limited the point can be.

At the transmission output in first gear, the 604 pound foot Vette is twisting the drive shaft to the tune of 1383 pound feet, which is of course a considerable amount. By contrast, the paltry 295 foot pound M3 is making 1197 foot pounds at that point - or nearly 87% of the Vette's number.

What?

At the rear half shafts, it's even closer, with the M3 at 4611 foot pounds, and the Vette at 4730. Hell, you could probably use the same half shafts with half a heat treat difference.

One would need to do a direct car to car comparison between the M3 and each of its competitors to see how much of a difference M philosophy might actually make. Still good, mind you, but not necessarily huge.

Bruce
Good post Bruce, I would have never guessed the numbers could be that close to the might ZR1. It always helps to do some quick math. This really reduces the potential impact of a potentially lighter drivetrain. That being said it does seem that the M3 has a pretty efficient drivetrain.

What was the original topic of this darn thread?....
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      12-08-2008, 07:53 PM   #305
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,870
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by titannero View Post
I love my NA V8, I for sure will keep it and already called the guys at BMW to be the first on the list for a possible V8TT M3 which I'd love to have. Why not have a great road going car that will kill it on the highway like a Twin Turbo car can; but then again I'm a big turbo fan
There really is something to that old time religion of high-rpm horsepower combined with electric throttle response.

Tell you what, though. When the faithful first get their eyeballs shortened up by a diopter or two as that old wall of torque hits in the new one, they'll be joining the dark side soon enough.

Insert evil laugh here.

Bruce

Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 12-09-2008 at 09:33 AM. Reason: readability
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-10-2008, 09:58 AM   #306
KonigsTiger
Racying Dynamics
 
KonigsTiger's Avatar
 
Drives: E92M3 RS46 Club Sport, others
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dweller

Posts: 4,398
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
There really is something to that old time religion of high-rpm horsepower combined with electric throttle response.

Tell you what, though. When the faithful first get their eyeballs shortened up by a diopter or two as that old wall of torque hits in the new one, they'll be joining the dark side soon enough.

Insert evil laugh here.

Bruce
Yea, NA is a wonderful thing. I especially like the NA performance on track as turbos tend to bring too much torque and it is more difficult to control around curbs at the limit. I also love by turbo cars and agree that most will like it just fine. Including me!!! Haha!!
__________________
==================================================
KonigsTiger is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-10-2008, 02:37 PM   #307
chasem3
Second Lieutenant
 
chasem3's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: USA

Posts: 259
iTrader: (0)

I personally love turbo cars as they are much easier to tune and gain hp. I think this will def make the M cars at the same or better in power to the AMG cars.
chasem3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      12-10-2008, 02:40 PM   #308
Blake
Banned
 
Drives: Chevy Aveo
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Parent's Basement

Posts: 4,651
iTrader: (7)

Quote:
Originally Posted by chasem3 View Post
I personally love turbo cars as they are much easier to tune and gain hp.
and much easier to break.
Blake is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
m cars drop v8 and v10, m-i6, m-v6

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 06:48 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