BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

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


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > E90/E92 M3 Technical Topics > Engine, Transmission, Exhaust, Drivetrain, ECU Software Modifications
 
GT Haus
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-14-2009, 07:32 PM   #23
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,907
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by vulcan747 View Post
into the M3? With 444 ft/lbs it should be the answer to all the torque complaints. I know they have a bundle of R&D in the high RPM stock engine and may not want to lose face with such a quick switch but it sounds super and with direct injection we could see a needed improvement in mileage to boot.
I don't know if it would fit or not - but why bother? At a guess, the M3 V8 is substantially lighter than the 4.4 unit (which was never noted for being especially light), and if you think the M3 needs more power (even though it's pretty much traction limited in first, and often dicey in second on cool days), why not turbocharge the unit that's in there now?

You'll also lose throttle response with the turbos.

If you're trying to solve the low-rpm "softness" problem, it simply doesn't exist when you're running through the gears. The only time it seems as if it's lacking a bit is in high gear from medium speeds. Even then, the M3 is very quick (note Car & Driver's 50-70 high gear time of 5.9 seconds, which is nothing less than excellent), but anybody driving one of these cars knows that nirvana is three or four gears lower at that point, so they just naturally want more out of top gear.

The solution is either a steeper rear gear or the 4.6 stroker kit. Either of these is a bunch less expensive and challenging than an engine swap, and from a personal point of view, the gearing solution is the preferred way to go. It's less expensive, and I personally wonder how much of that zingy, rev-happy feel that the 4.0 exhibits will be lost in everyday driving because of the inevitable increase in rotational inertia with the stroker kit.

Gas mileage? Direct inject the 4.0 that's in there. Now that Audi has shown the way, BMW can certainly do it too.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2009, 01:49 AM   #24
guarnibl
Private First Class
4
Rep
155
Posts

 
Drives: Depends on the day.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
The solution is either a steeper rear gear or the 4.6 stroker kit. Either of these is a bunch less expensive and challenging than an engine swap, and from a personal point of view, the gearing solution is the preferred way to go. It's less expensive, and I personally wonder how much of that zingy, rev-happy feel that the 4.0 exhibits will be lost in everyday driving because of the inevitable increase in rotational inertia with the stroker kit.
^^

There's not much left to say besides -- BMW got it right The car's power output is perfect - down low, and up top. I don't think I have ever driven a car with a more finely tuned N/A engine than my E93.

I've been driving my Mustang around all motor here for a few months trying to work out some weird electrical issues (mostly battery getting eaten by something, I assume a lose ground somewhere). I had it re-tuned and dyno'd and with all motor it put out around 375 HP and 380 TQ -- and even with 4.10 gears, it STILL doesn't feel anywhere as quick as the M3 does, and it weighs 1000 lb less. Granted, suspension sort of sucks on it, but eh... there's just something about that RIDICULOUS level of power you feel when you're going from 4k-8400.

Oh, did I also mention that my Mustang gets 7-8 mpg in the city and the M gets 11-12 Damn conservative tunes.

I'm waiting for the day I see an E9X M3 with a roots style blower on it... (probably won't happen, but I will shit myself if I ever get to experience that). I personally the only thing lacking from the M3 is the engine sound, but that can be easily fixed
__________________
2014 F12 M6 Cabrio (stock for now)
2013 Boss 302 Mustang - Whipple - 600 rwhp
2014 Ram 2500 Diesel - Edge Tuned on 37's
2009 Jeep Wrangler on 42's, LS7, Custom Baja Cage
2014 Grand Cherokee (wife's dd)
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2009, 03:07 AM   #25
Robert
Major General
116
Rep
6,902
Posts

 
Drives: 135i, current is350
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Socal

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3XTR3M3 View Post
If I was given a choice between a 420hp/295lb.ft. V8 and a 550hp/447lb.ft. Twin Turbo V8, take a wild guess which one I would be smoking you in, on a track or a straight

Well, apparently they can get 485hp with 368lb torque out of the V8 without going turbo.

Weight: 2,535 lbs./1150 kg

Tank capacity: 29 gallons/110 Liters

M3 GTR. Try smoking that in a regular M3 shoe horned with a V8TT

http://www.rsportscars.com/bmw/2009-...-race-version/
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2009, 03:22 AM   #26
guarnibl
Private First Class
4
Rep
155
Posts

 
Drives: Depends on the day.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Well, apparently they can get 485hp with 368lb torque out of the V8 without going turbo.

Weight: 2,535 lbs./1150 kg

Tank capacity: 29 gallons/110 Liters

M3 GTR. Try smoking that in a regular M3 shoe horned with a V8TT

http://www.rsportscars.com/bmw/2009-...-race-version/
I wonder what engine adjustments (non-software) were made besides tuning. That thing has to have some crazy head/cam setup and the obvious race gas... I can see it pushing that.
__________________
2014 F12 M6 Cabrio (stock for now)
2013 Boss 302 Mustang - Whipple - 600 rwhp
2014 Ram 2500 Diesel - Edge Tuned on 37's
2009 Jeep Wrangler on 42's, LS7, Custom Baja Cage
2014 Grand Cherokee (wife's dd)
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2009, 10:55 AM   #27
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,907
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Well, apparently they can get 485hp with 368lb torque out of the V8 without going turbo.

Weight: 2,535 lbs./1150 kg

Tank capacity: 29 gallons/110 Liters

M3 GTR. Try smoking that in a regular M3 shoe horned with a V8TT

http://www.rsportscars.com/bmw/2009-...-race-version/
Different scenario. If we're talking race cars and race motors, a 4.4 twin turbo would smoke the 4.0 NA race motor without raising a sweat.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2009, 01:37 PM   #28
3XTR3M3
Lieutenant Colonel
3XTR3M3's Avatar
United_States
43
Rep
1,580
Posts

 
Drives: E92 AW M3 6MT
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: LA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Well, apparently they can get 485hp with 368lb torque out of the V8 without going turbo.

Weight: 2,535 lbs./1150 kg

Tank capacity: 29 gallons/110 Liters

M3 GTR. Try smoking that in a regular M3 shoe horned with a V8TT

http://www.rsportscars.com/bmw/2009-...-race-version/


Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Different scenario. If we're talking race cars and race motors, a 4.4 twin turbo would smoke the 4.0 NA race motor without raising a sweat.

Bruce


__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2009, 02:08 PM   #29
M3-DCT
Private
0
Rep
70
Posts

 
Drives: Toyota Corolla
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Different scenario. If we're talking race cars and race motors, a 4.4 twin turbo would smoke the 4.0 NA race motor without raising a sweat.

Bruce
Are you kidding ... a race with how many laps ... 1 .. ?? The TT motor (in stock form) will overheat and run into limp mode (prob. melt) on a hot day at the race track within 10 laps of harsh race driving. You'll need a tow truck if you want to complete the course.

Which is why the X5/X6 M makes many modifications to the base power plant (different engine exhaust management, exhaust flow, manifold dimensions, intercoolers, piston connecting rods, twin scroll garett turbochargers with higher operating PSI, etc.). You then have to match the drivetrain .. you're prob. going to need a different transmission .. else that poor thing will be spitting up blood with all the heat from the engine and high rpm downshifts.

Change that all ... and well .. you've screwed up your entire power-to-weight ratio (if you're thinking of mounting that setup in the existing //M3 ) and you're going to need chassis and brake modifications to compensate as well as some more lightweight material to take out some of the added weight the new setup introduced!

Now if the //M folks perfect the existing X5/X6 //M platform, FI management and turbo charging technology for true race engines (lightweight, high rpm, variable compression, cooling) and build it for a lightweight/high-strength/heat-resistant F1 block ... THEN .. we're talking. But taking a a torque monster that is supposed to be in an executive car (7-series) and think it can race ... YOU WISH.
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2009, 04:47 PM   #30
3XTR3M3
Lieutenant Colonel
3XTR3M3's Avatar
United_States
43
Rep
1,580
Posts

 
Drives: E92 AW M3 6MT
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: LA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by M3-DCT View Post
Are you kidding ... a race with how many laps ... 1 .. ?? The TT motor (in stock form) will overheat and run into limp mode (prob. melt) on a hot day at the race track within 10 laps of harsh race driving. You'll need a tow truck if you want to complete the course.

Which is why the X5/X6 M makes many modifications to the base power plant (different engine exhaust management, exhaust flow, manifold dimensions, intercoolers, piston connecting rods, twin scroll garett turbochargers with higher operating PSI, etc.). You then have to match the drivetrain .. you're prob. going to need a different transmission .. else that poor thing will be spitting up blood with all the heat from the engine and high rpm downshifts.

Change that all ... and well .. you've screwed up your entire power-to-weight ratio (if you're thinking of mounting that setup in the existing //M3 ) and you're going to need chassis and brake modifications to compensate as well as some more lightweight material to take out some of the added weight the new setup introduced!

Now if the //M folks perfect the existing X5/X6 //M platform, FI management and turbo charging technology for true race engines (lightweight, high rpm, variable compression, cooling) and build it for a lightweight/high-strength/heat-resistant F1 block ... THEN .. we're talking. But taking a a torque monster that is supposed to be in an executive car (7-series) and think it can race ... YOU WISH.

you're taking what he said out of context. He was responding to a post which said a race car can beat a street car with a 4.4 in it. Thats true but, no one was talking about race cars.


Even if it comes down to race cars, a race car with a racing NA V8 and a race car with a racing TT V8... all the melting and crazy shit youre talking about wouldnt happen cus they are both race cars.


what derailed this convo was someone comparing a race car to a street car and visa versa.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2009, 06:16 PM   #31
M3-DCT
Private
0
Rep
70
Posts

 
Drives: Toyota Corolla
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3XTR3M3 View Post
you're taking what he said out of context. He was responding to a post which said a race car can beat a street car with a 4.4 in it. Thats true but, no one was talking about race cars.


Even if it comes down to race cars, a race car with a racing NA V8 and a race car with a racing TT V8... all the melting and crazy shit youre talking about wouldnt happen cus they are both race cars.


what derailed this convo was someone comparing a race car to a street car and visa versa.
My bad ... I did misunderstand ... read it a bit too fast I guess ! bruce .. my apologies there.

Of course you wouldn't even need a TT V8 for that ... porsche 911 gt2 anyone ... ?? ... and with what that engine is going to end up costing .. it better LAP the NA V8
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2009, 08:36 AM   #32
kbk_75
Lieutenant
India
7
Rep
404
Posts

 
Drives: Alpine White E92 M3
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Bombay, India

iTrader: (0)

I'm sure the 4.4TT engine from the X6 would mess-up the M3's balance, but I played with an X6 and my M3 the other day. All I can say is all that torque + 4wd + huge tyres = great standing start acceleration, especially for a car that weighs 500 odd kilos more than the M3! Here in Bombay we have slippery concrete roads and there was no way I could launch the M3 hard enough to keep up with the X6 (up to 100 Km/h), after that it was all over!

So, sorry this doesn't answer your question, but that X6 is not a bad car. Can only imagine what the X6M will be like!
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2009, 11:39 PM   #33
yaymitch
Private First Class
yaymitch's Avatar
United_States
1
Rep
197
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 135is 6MT & CTS-V Wagon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Houston

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Send a message via AIM to yaymitch Send a message via Yahoo to yaymitch
I wish BMW would have put more power in the new M3. I owned the E36 and E46 and loved them both and the E46 was a major improvement over the E36. But the new version is very disappointing to me. Not much of an improvement over the E46 IMO. Since they were putting a V8 in the car it should have been more powerful. The TQ improvement is almost nothing compared to the E46. Put a more powerful V8 either N/A or Turbo, something. Until then I will continue to enjoy my powerful 500+ HP and 480+ TQ C63, which BTW handles almost as well as the M3, speaking from experience.
Appreciate 0
      04-19-2009, 12:14 AM   #34
KonigsTiger
Racying Dynamics
KonigsTiger's Avatar
66
Rep
4,398
Posts

 
Drives: E92M3 RS46 Club Sport, others
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dweller

iTrader: (0)

Hmmm, why not a 6.0L twin turbo V12, why limit it to only 8 cylinders? Or maybe even a W16 with 4 turbos.
__________________
==================================================

Last edited by KonigsTiger; 04-22-2009 at 10:16 PM.
Appreciate 0
      04-22-2009, 07:12 PM   #35
3XTR3M3
Lieutenant Colonel
3XTR3M3's Avatar
United_States
43
Rep
1,580
Posts

 
Drives: E92 AW M3 6MT
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: LA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by yaymitch View Post
I wish BMW would have put more power in the new M3. I owned the E36 and E46 and loved them both and the E46 was a major improvement over the E36. But the new version is very disappointing to me. Not much of an improvement over the E46 IMO. Since they were putting a V8 in the car it should have been more powerful. The TQ improvement is almost nothing compared to the E46. Put a more powerful V8 either N/A or Turbo, something. Until then I will continue to enjoy my powerful 500+ HP and 480+ TQ C63, which BTW handles almost as well as the M3, speaking from experience.

The torque improvement between a E92 and a E46 is greater then the improvement between a E46 and a E36 which you loved and considered a major improvement.

The E46 gained 26 lb.ft. of torque over the E36

The E92 gained 33 lb.ft. of torque over the E46



I agree that more power would be better, of course. But I dont think its the power between the E46 and the E92 that you are disappointed in, I think its just the overall feel of the car. That and you're driving a 3.3 second car lol
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-22-2009, 10:24 PM   #36
KonigsTiger
Racying Dynamics
KonigsTiger's Avatar
66
Rep
4,398
Posts

 
Drives: E92M3 RS46 Club Sport, others
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dweller

iTrader: (0)

Now this is torque!!! And no BS!!!
Attached Images
 
__________________
==================================================
Appreciate 0
      04-23-2009, 07:48 AM   #37
dawgdog
Colonel
dawgdog's Avatar
28
Rep
2,177
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 Porsche GT3RS
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle, Wa.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by yaymitch View Post
I wish BMW would have put more power in the new M3. I owned the E36 and E46 and loved them both and the E46 was a major improvement over the E36. But the new version is very disappointing to me. Not much of an improvement over the E46 IMO. Since they were putting a V8 in the car it should have been more powerful. The TQ improvement is almost nothing compared to the E46. Put a more powerful V8 either N/A or Turbo, something. Until then I will continue to enjoy my powerful 500+ HP and 480+ TQ C63, which BTW handles almost as well as the M3, speaking from experience.
I'd have to disagree with this statement. I owned an e46 M3 for 3 years and feel the e92 is a huge improvement.
__________________
2015 f80 M3, 2010 GR3RS
Appreciate 0
      04-23-2009, 10:37 AM   #38
FStop7
I like cars
FStop7's Avatar
Vatican City State
95
Rep
5,059
Posts

 
Drives: M6
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Newbury Park, CA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Not much of an improvement over the E46 IMO.
O RLY?

__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-29-2009, 04:11 PM   #39
CSanto
Lieutenant Colonel
35
Rep
1,895
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 E92 M3
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York

iTrader: (2)

That e92 probably isn't stock, neither is the e46, unless they are both factory freaks.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
s63

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 01:08 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