M3 Vs Volvo XC-90

[kmarei]

ok this is a theoretical thread
i was having dinner with the family
and i was telling them that i got some winter tires for my M3
and i said my car will be unbeatable in the snow
my wife giggled
so i told her you will appreciate them when your volvo XC-90 gets stuck, and i have to pull you out, she laughed even more
then the kids asked which car would win a tug of war contest
i said probably in the snow the volvo would win as its AWD and can put down its power more effectivley
so even though it only has 208hp it can probably put down all those 208hp
mine has 414 but the rear tires would probably start spinning and i can't use those 414hp.
i said in the dry i would whip the volvo
the M3 weighs 3704lb with winter tires the volvo 4450lb with almost worn all seasons
am i correct?
that the m3 would lose in light snow
but would win in the dry?
or is it not about power but more about weight?

[consolidated]

There's only one way to know for certain, video or ban!

[Ronin13]

Comment just on winter tires and drive wheels. For the most part winter tires alone make a world of difference. Here's a C&D article on the topic with summary comment.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/performance_files_tested_by_c_d/winter_traction_test_what_price_traction_feature/(page)/1

"So What's the Bottom Line?
Four-wheel drive helps get cars going. When it comes time to brake or change direction on low-traction surfaces, the extra mass of the driveline becomes more of a detriment. Folks who live in hilly places that get snow may need the climbing capability of four-wheel drive. If it snows a lot in those hilly places, they should probably invest in winter tires, too. Even flat-landers who happen to have steep driveways may wish to consider a four-wheel-driver.
Almost everyone else will most likely be better served by using winter tires. Acceleration takes longer, but in an emergency, the handling behavior and improved lateral grip of two-wheel drive and winter tires -- in the slippery stuff -- are the safer bets."

[kmax1980]

if you want bragging rights in the snow, this is the only way to go....

[09E92M34ME]

Originally Posted by kmax1980

if you want bragging rights in the snow, this is the only way to go....

[Year's_End]

torque?

[footie]

Power has little to do with it, it's all down to weight and contact patch to the road surface. As the Volvo has similar torque and weighs more and has more contact patch (4 driven wheels) it will win.

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by footie

Power has little to do with it, it's all down to weight and contact patch to the road surface. As the Volvo has similar torque and weighs more and has more contact patch (4 driven wheels) it will win.

torque the volvo has 236lb/ft the M3 has 295
keep in mind the volvo is normally fwd until the front wheels start slipping then power is applied to the rear
the volvo has 235/65 17" tires all around
the M3 has 245/40 and 265/40 18"

[CodeRed]

This actually very funny as my wife and I both drive the same exact cars...maybe I should chip the Volvo..I wish she would let me drive the M!!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by kmarei

torque the volvo has 236lb/ft the M3 has 295
keep in mind the volvo is normally fwd until the front wheels start slipping then power is applied to the rear
the volvo has 235/65 17" tires all around
the M3 has 245/40 and 265/40 18"

It's weight. The Volvo has over 4000 pounds of weight on its drive wheels, and the bimmer has, what, 1800 pounds? Even considering a 1.2 coefficient of friction for the PS2s vs, say, 1.0 for the less aggressive sneakers on the Volvo, it's still no contest. The M3 will be drawn backward through a cloud of its own tire smoke.

Bruce

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

It's weight. The Volvo has over 4000 pounds of weight on its drive wheels, and the bimmer has, what, 1800 pounds? Even considering a 1.2 coefficient of friction for the PS2s vs, say, 1.0 for the less aggressive sneakers on the Volvo, it's still no contest. The M3 will be drawn backward through a cloud of its own tire smoke.

Bruce

why did you put 4000 lbs for the volvo and only 1800 for the M3?
the total weight for the volvo was 4450 and the M3 was 3704
you think the back wheels of the volvo only have 450 lbs
so it would be 2225 Vs 1852 in a perfect 50/50 balance
i know the M3 is close to that
i doubt the XC-90 is

[Richie18]

Originally Posted by kmarei

why did you put 4000 lbs for the volvo and only 1800 for the M3?
the total weight for the volvo was 4450 and the M3 was 3704
you think the back wheels of the volvo only have 450 lbs
so it would be 2225 Vs 1852 in a perfect 50/50 balance
i know the M3 is close to that
i doubt the XC-90 is

The Volvo has AWD thus the reason why he said some 4000 lbs would be on the drive wheels.

On dry pavement even though the Volvo would have more friction, whether it would be able to take advantage of that extra available friction depends. While some posted the torque numbers for both cars, the true number would come down to the final gearing of both cars. Between the M3's sticky tires, higher torque numbers, and possibly lower gearing, it might be enough to win a tug of war.

If the M3 could use launch control i think it would definitely win.

[footie]

OK, you doubters that the Volvo wouldn't win. Lets change the vehicles, say a Merc SL65 vs a humble tractor.

The Merc has far more power and torque compared to the tractor, which would win?

In fact take it a stage further, the Merc against 8 mens. Still think the car would win?

It's all about weight/traction and Bruce is correct, the M3 only has half of it's weight over the driven wheels where as the Volvo has all it's weight as both axles are being driven.

P.S.

Not an XC90 vs M3 but you get the point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/ep...episode7.shtml

[Richie18]

Originally Posted by footie

OK, you doubters that the Volvo wouldn't win. Lets change the vehicles, say a Merc SL65 vs a humble tractor.

The Merc has far more power and torque compared to the tractor, which would win?

In fact take it a stage further, the Merc against 8 mens. Still think the car would win?

It's all about weight/traction and Bruce is correct, the M3 only has half of it's weight over the driven wheels where as the Volvo has all it's weight as both axles are being driven.

P.S.

Not an XC90 vs M3 but you get the point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/topgear/show/ep...episode7.shtml

Not a fair comparison because the chevy was only using one tire. With the LSD on the M3 it would be better. Still shows that its not about power, its about friction.

Also as long as the M3 had MDM enabled it wouldn't allow the wheels to spin, still keeping the higher static friction coefficient. Once the chevy started spinning the wheels he was done for. The M3 would put up a much bigger fight than that.

[kmarei]

i guess there is only way to decide this
just have to convince the wife that it won't hurt the volvo

i still think other factors are involved
her tires are almost worn out
my tires have less than 2800 miles on them

and i am betting on my rear tires (powered ones) have 265/40 rubber
her front ones (initial powered ones till they slip) have 235/65 tires
so initialy i should have more friction, bigger contact patch
when her front tires start to spin when i overpower them
then the drive starts getting diverted to the rear of the volvo
by then, once here fronts are spinning
i would have started to pull away

[footie]

Originally Posted by Richie18

Not a fair comparison because the chevy was only using one tire. With the LSD on the M3 it would be better. Still shows that its not about power, its about friction.

Also as long as the M3 had MDM enabled it wouldn't allow the wheels to spin, still keeping the higher static friction coefficient. Once the chevy started spinning the wheels he was done for. The M3 would put up a much bigger fight than that.

Tell me, how many wheels do you think the SUV drives at any one time?

It's solely a contest of weight and friction, though it more to do with weight than anything else.

[kmarei]

that's the thing though
the SUV in this case is not 4wd, its AWD
normally its always front wheel drive
till it detects slipping in the front wheels
so it starts diverting up to 65% of the power to the rear wheels
if it was full time 4wd it would be no contest

my guess is if i can overpower the front wheels and they start to slip
once the power is diverted to the rear the front wheels are already slipping and the back wheels will not have enough traction of the car is being pulled backwards and they too will start to spin

[footie]

Originally Posted by kmarei

that's the thing though
the SUV in this case is not 4wd, its AWD
normally its always front wheel drive
till it detects slipping in the front wheels
so it starts diverting up to 65% of the power to the rear wheels
if it was full time 4wd it would be no contest

Not what I meant.

According to a Landrover mechanic I spoke to all AWD SUVs are only two wheel drive, meaning one wheel at the front and one at the rear, only diff lock locks in the drives together. What he meant by this I haven't a clue, like everyone else here I assumed AWD meant all wheels driving all of the time but apparently not.

Originally Posted by kmarei

my guess is if i can overpower the front wheels and they start to slip
once the power is diverted to the rear the front wheels are already slipping and the back wheels will not have enough traction of the car is being pulled backwards and they too will start to spin

I don't think this is the case, the diverting of the power at the front will regain grip but to be honest the XC90 will never lose the grip in the first place because in such a situation all wheels will be driving within a few milliseconds.

[lincoln]

This went from a funny thread to a physics course.... yawn. I still say +1 for the video! Hahaha.