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....
 
ESS Tuning
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-22-2007, 05:14 AM   #23
The CSL
For the love of ///M3
 
The CSL's Avatar
 
Drives: Peugeot 306 XSI 16v
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Plymouth, UK

Posts: 660
iTrader: (0)

I do. Forced induction is so well forced. With the M3 you're getting power through a megar-rev range whereas with FI, I can't see the Audi lump putting all its power through until 8250rpm as it currently does. Rats to torque as well. Diesels have a lot of torque but the equivalent petrol car is still quicker.
__________________
The CSL is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 07:45 AM   #24
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrottleJunkie View Post
All this for an MSRP of $53,000.


Yeah, maybe if it were 1990.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 07:50 AM   #25
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrottleJunkie View Post
- 4.2L Twin Turbo V8 putting out 450 horsepower and AT LEAST 500 ft/lbs of TQ
I know what the prevailing opinions say, but to me this is a backwards move. I am skeptical, and if it is true, then a bit disappointed.

Now, if they went with the 5.2L V10 instead, pumped to about 500hp (which is still less than it makes in the Gallardo) - that would be something to drool on!
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 07:57 AM   #26
sflemon
Registered
 
Drives: BMWETR
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 8URBMW

Posts: 3
iTrader: (0)

Pretty sad. I signed up for this forum just to reply to this.

I'm sick and tired of BMW driver's view of VW/Audi as the "other" German car company.

A lot of dubbers would much rather own an E30 M3 than their current car. But no BMW owner will ever admit the legacy of any of the Dubaudi group cars. Ever.

It comes down to a superiority complex.

Once it comes out, BMW drivers on the roads will bow to an AWE chipped S5, or stock one for that matter. The same way they bow to the older S4.

IMHO, RWD is the superior drivetrain. But AWD is a great compromise.

And to those saying BMW copying Audi............Audi was using turbos in the A4, S4, etc.......... long before BMW ever did for the 335.
sflemon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 08:14 AM   #27
E36325is
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 1M coupe
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 220
iTrader: (0)

The porky RS4 manages to expose its front tyre's steel belts after 5 laps round the track, the heavier RS5 (say 1,900 or 1950kg) will certainly worsen the situation.
E36325is is offline   Hong Kong
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 08:27 AM   #28
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sflemon View Post
Pretty sad. I signed up for this forum just to reply to this.

I'm sick and tired of BMW driver's view of VW/Audi as the "other" German car company.

...

Actually I think its mostly that BMWs have basically been the better drivers car by most professional accounts, and as verified by most who test drive them.

Well, that and the fact that you are on a BMW forum, where BMW's are naturally going to get more props.

Its not really that Audi makes bad cars. Far from it. But its no secret that they are chasing BMW in driving dynamics. The OP's comment about moving the engine back for better handling characteristics basically concedes this point.

Quote:
It comes down to a superiority complex.
I see your superiority complex, and raise you an inferiority complex.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 09:22 AM   #29
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sflemon View Post
Pretty sad. I signed up for this forum just to reply to this.

I'm sick and tired of BMW driver's view of VW/Audi as the "other" German car company.

A lot of dubbers would much rather own an E30 M3 than their current car. But no BMW owner will ever admit the legacy of any of the Dubaudi group cars. Ever.

It comes down to a superiority complex.

Once it comes out, BMW drivers on the roads will bow to an AWE chipped S5, or stock one for that matter. The same way they bow to the older S4.

IMHO, RWD is the superior drivetrain. But AWD is a great compromise.

And to those saying BMW copying Audi............Audi was using turbos in the A4, S4, etc.......... long before BMW ever did for the 335.
You signed up just to respond to this and put in the good word for Audi? You should be speaking of your own inferiority complex rather than bmw owners' superiority complex then!

Also, why do you think many neutral professional reviewers seem to repeatedly arrive at the conclusion that BMWs handle better than Audis on dry paved roads?
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 09:41 AM   #30
sflemon
Registered
 
Drives: BMWETR
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 8URBMW

Posts: 3
iTrader: (0)

Off topic anyway.

Back on.........

Why I think this car is better than the new M3? We can't really say until we see track/drag numbers and a true price.

Until then, for Audi fans, and M3 fans, all this is mental masturbation trying to justify or refute a car's status.

As for older models, the track times are all over the place depending on where you look. On topgear.com, there a LOT of BMW times on their charts and a few VW/Audi times. Comparing like for like competitors, the standard outgoing M3 came in at 1.31.8 and the S4 came in at 1.30.9
Seeing as these aren't done on identical days, let's chalk it flat for the .9 difference. The M3 edges the S4 in base trim by 7 seconds on the Nurburgring. Seeing the S4 in base trim has 265bhp vs. the M3's 333bhp, it was at an obvious disadvantage. The RS4, with 375bhp edges the M3 by 10 seconds.

So, it becomes difficult to compare on a trim vs. trim basis on cost and power. The trim levels are just so different as is the power at each trim. BMW at one trim romps the Audi, the Audi in a different trim romps the BMW.
sflemon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 09:47 AM   #31
The CSL
For the love of ///M3
 
The CSL's Avatar
 
Drives: Peugeot 306 XSI 16v
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Plymouth, UK

Posts: 660
iTrader: (0)

LMAO, Audi were using turbos long before BMW were using them for the 335i. Does the 2002 Turbo not predate the Quattro then?
__________________
The CSL is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 10:03 AM   #32
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sflemon View Post
As for older models, the track times are all over the place depending on where you look.
The thing is, I commute to work on public roads, not on a track - so I don't really care much about track times.

Ask the people who actually drove those cars while those times were recorded which car they would prefer to drive everyday. When it comes to sports coupes and sedans in the 30-60k price-range, its likely to be the BMW. If it weren't then when they sat down to write the reviews, they would not rank the BMW ahead of the Audi routinely. If it weren't then, like I said earlier, Audi (et. al.) would not be chasing BMW in driving dynamics, and they would not be boasting about the improved handling due to engine position and better weight distribution of their new chassis.

Its more than just a little ironic that Audi is essentially admitting that their cars have traditionally suffered in handling vs. their biggest competitor, but yet some Audi owners are simply not willing to acknowledge this. Personally I hope that the new Audis are excellent - more competition means better prices for everyone. Who would have guessed a few years ago that you'd soon be able tobuy a 300hp BMW sedan for under 40k starting price. We have competition (from the Japanese primarily) to thank for that.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 01:04 PM   #33
13eastie
Lieutenant
 
13eastie's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 E92 M3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London

Posts: 563
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CSL View Post
I do. Forced induction is so well forced. With the M3 you're getting power through a megar-rev range whereas with FI, I can't see the Audi lump putting all its power through until 8250rpm as it currently does. Rats to torque as well. Diesels have a lot of torque but the equivalent petrol car is still quicker.
It might serve you well to be a little more open minded. I don't have the reference (some kind soul might like to help me out), but I believe the 335i engine (twin turbo) was hailed as the best new engine of 2006, and I can't really say I've heard many complaints from F40 (also twin turbo) drivers!

Since power is merely a function of torque and revs, torque is a pretty crucial aspect of performance, and clever deployment of turbos can gain a wide-ranging boost in torque

Finally, I don't really understand how you would go about identifying an "equivalent" diesel engine...

I don't mean to get argumentative, but I just think it's always worthwhile considering all of the available options - none of us really want to miss out on something cool for the sake of a little blue and white badge do we?

Last edited by 13eastie; 05-22-2007 at 01:04 PM. Reason: typo
13eastie is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 02:19 PM   #34
Hans Delbruck
BMW & MB - friends in my garage
 
Hans Delbruck's Avatar
 
Drives: C63, 135i, 1959 BUICK
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Posts: 1,285
iTrader: (0)

uhoh..... here it comes.....

- VW is to Audi what Toyota is to Lexus. BMW stands on its own parts and engineering.

-If it were all about HP, we'd all be driving Vettes and Mustang GTs

-As much as I've always wanted to like Audi's because they seem well-made and have nice interiors... they just do not make sense to me. They don't necessarily accel at any one trait. Unless you live in the "snowbelt." I don't.

First time I ever sat in a new VW I said "Wow, this smells just like an Audi"
Hans Delbruck is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 02:34 PM   #35
Phoenix 21st
First Lieutenant
 
Phoenix 21st's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3 M-dct SG
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London

Posts: 325
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13eastie View Post
It might serve you well to be a little more open minded. I don't have the reference (some kind soul might like to help me out), but I believe the 335i engine (twin turbo) was hailed as the best new engine of 2006, and I can't really say I've heard many complaints from F40 (also twin turbo) drivers!

Since power is merely a function of torque and revs, torque is a pretty crucial aspect of performance, and clever deployment of turbos can gain a wide-ranging boost in torque

Finally, I don't really understand how you would go about identifying an "equivalent" diesel engine...

I don't mean to get argumentative, but I just think it's always worthwhile considering all of the available options - none of us really want to miss out on something cool for the sake of a little blue and white badge do we?

The reason i think its isnt the best topic / comprison, is because the two cars (rs5 & e92) are in two different classes, FI and NA.

why not compare other super cars that are bi-turboed?

If the rs5 is going to get 450 hp from 4.2 twin turbo, i think its a let down. Bigger engine, twin turbos and 30 odd hp more. Audi must be really pleased.
Phoenix 21st is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 03:20 PM   #36
Epacy
Reincarnated
 
Epacy's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL

Posts: 4,227
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I have heard it will not be in the US as well but certainly have not heard that officially. I hope we get it, a very nice feature - good for some definite hp to the wheels. So even though I have heard the rumor I am either assuming it is not true or just taking a best case scenario based on the features of the EU car (even if it is not the one I will get).

-Charcoal filter ~10 hp at the crank
-Regenerative braking ~5-10 hp at the wheels

We could be looking at about 20-25 less hp at the wheels for the US car, UGH! I suppose this is worst case scenario but since the rwhp is "hidden" and all BMW has to quote is crank hp it is just another way the US gets screwed and gets a slower car, double ugh.
Well the charcoal filter is easily fixable, so not too concerned with that. That leaves the Reg Braking and using your estimated levels, 5-10 hp isn't that awful.
I agree though, would love to have the Reg Braking come stateside.
__________________
Epacy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-22-2007, 05:11 PM   #37
The CSL
For the love of ///M3
 
The CSL's Avatar
 
Drives: Peugeot 306 XSI 16v
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Plymouth, UK

Posts: 660
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 13eastie View Post
It might serve you well to be a little more open minded. I don't have the reference (some kind soul might like to help me out), but I believe the 335i engine (twin turbo) was hailed as the best new engine of 2006, and I can't really say I've heard many complaints from F40 (also twin turbo) drivers!

Since power is merely a function of torque and revs, torque is a pretty crucial aspect of performance, and clever deployment of turbos can gain a wide-ranging boost in torque

Finally, I don't really understand how you would go about identifying an "equivalent" diesel engine...

I don't mean to get argumentative, but I just think it's always worthwhile considering all of the available options - none of us really want to miss out on something cool for the sake of a little blue and white badge do we?
Just look what Ferrari and Porsche can do without forced induction. I'd hardly call the 911 GT3/GT3 RS, Enzo, 599 and F430 slow and they rely on wide power bands. At least with na engines you have to stoke them to get their best, but once you do, you get a very useable powerband. OK, you say that FI suits road-driving better, but as long as you're in the right gear, any decent NA car will be quick enough to keep up with any traffic.
__________________
The CSL is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      05-23-2007, 01:27 AM   #38
GewoW
#thatsanicemovebro
 
GewoW's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3 LSB/Black 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada

Posts: 3,834
iTrader: (4)

Garage List
2011 BMW M3  [4.67]
Send a message via Skype™ to GewoW
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrottleJunkie View Post
Ok...enough of the RS4/M3 comparisons. The RS4 isn't the competition. If anyone has been keeping up on Audi news, they are going to release the RS5, based on the A5 coupe platform. THIS thing, will give the M3 some headaches.

Key specs:
- 4.2L Twin Turbo V8 putting out 450 horsepower and AT LEAST 500 ft/lbs of TQ
- front axle moved up 120 mm to allow the engine to be mounted further back thus reducing the horrible oversteer it had.
- 55:45 front-rear weight balance
- rear-biased Quattro system
- modified magnetic ride dampers lifted off of the TT
- carbon ceramic brakes lifted off the R8

Only rumored performance times are the 0-60 which is rated at "sub 4.5 seconds"

All this for an MSRP of $53,000. Possible M3 killer?

Linky: http://www.tuningnews.net/article.php?date=070512a
I Do believe you misread...it's 53000 pounds! not dollars...
http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/secret_...sid=701&page=2
GewoW is offline   Greece
0
Reply With Quote
      05-23-2007, 02:49 AM   #39
esquire
Colonel
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011.5 Dakar Yellow M3 Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California

Posts: 2,801
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The CSL View Post
LMAO, Audi were using turbos long before BMW were using them for the 335i. Does the 2002 Turbo not predate the Quattro then?
he probably thinks the 2002 turbo was made in 2002.
__________________

[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip]
[Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE]
esquire is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-23-2007, 04:52 AM   #40
13eastie
Lieutenant
 
13eastie's Avatar
 
Drives: 2007 E92 M3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London

Posts: 563
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CSL View Post
Just look what Ferrari and Porsche can do without forced induction. I'd hardly call the 911 GT3/GT3 RS, Enzo, 599 and F430 slow and they rely on wide power bands. At least with na engines you have to stoke them to get their best, but once you do, you get a very useable powerband. OK, you say that FI suits road-driving better, but as long as you're in the right gear, any decent NA car will be quick enough to keep up with any traffic.
I wouldn't call any of those cars slow either

I didn't actually suggest any kind of motor was intrinsically better for any particular type of driving. My point was simply that to dismiss ALL turbos out of hand is probably a misguided approach.

I'm on the waiting list for an M3, and if there were anything about which to be unsure, it would not be the NA motor
13eastie is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      05-23-2007, 06:20 AM   #41
mkoesel
Moderator
 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

Posts: 13,750
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyFavourite View Post
lol ur funny dude, the new interior of 335i / m3 is pretty sad most of us will admit that, if we dont were stubborn, i was in london recently and had the pleasure of an rs4 drive, you say that you dont care for track times, just road driving!!! well after seeing the euro rs4 interior , i know in fact we would and you mister would rather be sitting in the rs4//// you silly man
Right - and you know this because you own and drive one?

Not sure where you are coming from anyway, since I did not even bring up interiors - I was talking about drving dynamics. To me it has always been funny how much people care about interiors. I do admit I'm in the minority there, but really I never understood what all the fuss was about. From my perspective they are all pretty much functionally equivalent when it comes to thigs I actually use when driving - the steering wheel, guages, and pedals.

Aesthetically, the RS4 might be ahead (to be honest, I am not sure; to me its like being asked by a girl to tell her which dress I like better - i.e. beats the hell outta me. ) but interior aesthetics are way down on my list of concerns when buying a car. But hey, if you want to buy an RS4 because it looks pretty on the inside, that's certainly within your rights.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
mkoesel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      05-23-2007, 07:10 AM   #42
Garrett
Banned
 
Drives: 2004 330ci
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mich

Posts: 1,356
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The CSL View Post
LMAO, Audi were using turbos long before BMW were using them for the 335i. Does the 2002 Turbo not predate the Quattro then?

BMW's has been using turbos FOR YEARS ...! Look back 20 years..!
Garrett is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-23-2007, 07:59 AM   #43
sflemon
Registered
 
Drives: BMWETR
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 8URBMW

Posts: 3
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
he probably thinks the 2002 turbo was made in 2002.
Typical BMW fanboy speak. Di*& off.
sflemon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      05-23-2007, 08:46 AM   #44
carnuts3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2008 535i
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Connecticut

Posts: 408
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
another bulky heavy big ass Audi that will handle like a boat and won't amount to anything compared to the M3. don't pay too much attention to hp numbers and all that. there is no way that thing can handle like an M3 (unless BMW does something really wrong).
I think that you are right. However, I also think that the power of the RS5 (and C63) will speed up BMW's intro of an enhanced M3 - more hp and torque (in addition to the CSL).
carnuts3 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 12:22 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