4 1/2 mths in and getting tired of 8300rpms.

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by matt beard

Why does everyone talk about the M's low end torque problem. It has 300lb/pounds that is available on a broad curve for crying out loud. People make it sound like it's a Prius. And as for the OP, why on earth do you need more than 5000 rpm for daily driving. If you wanted a whole shot dragster, you bought the wrong car.

I own several sports cars and the M3 has the lowest torque of all of them by a lot!!! Even lower than a 335 etc... I´m just pointing out one of the issues that I perceive but I ask no one to agree with it. It is just my opinion. I honestly like to see the good and bad in all my cars, and the M3 has many "goods" so to speak, but torque IMO is not one of them.

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Maybe you need one of these

Hahaha!!

[Mr. 5]

This was what came to mind when I test drove the e90 M3.
I started a thread on it and people were trying to rip me for it.

To me, a tuned 335 is much more of a daily driver than an M3.
Take it on the track and you'll have another story.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Maybe you need one of these

Of all the people I would have expected this from was Bruce. It might just be the best option of engine to have in an M3 but then you might have to equip the M3 with Quattro to control all that extra torque.

In other words, spent a fortune on three sportscars to build the perfect one.

[Robin_NL]

I somewhat understand how you feel footy. I came from a 335i.

But with the 'winterblues' here as well, I sometimes take my car for a spin just for nothing. The roads here are rather slick at the moment which means DSC OFF and ram it!
Even between 3000-6000 rpm you can get perfect drifts going easily sideways in any turn. Great fun.

DISCLAIMER: FIRST GO PRACTICE ON A CLOSED PARKING LOT IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET/KEEP IT/IN/OUT OF A SIDEWAYS SITUATION.

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by footie

Of all the people I would have expected this from was Bruce. It might just be the best option of engine to have in an M3 but then you might have to equip the M3 with Quattro to control all that extra torque.

In other words, spent a fortune on three sportscars to build the perfect one.

Car may end up being too heavy, just get a stoker kit, save weight and gain the necessary power and torque while retaining, or perhaps improving, the cars balance.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by BMW-M-Mexico

Car may end up being too heavy, just get a stoker kit, save weight and gain the necessary power and torque while retaining, or perhaps improving, the cars balance.

Actually I think the the LS7 is pretty close in weight to the S65 engine.The LS series of engines are quite a compact engine also,but only a fool would replace an S65 with a LS series engine.So when are you doing it Footie?

[graider]

Originally Posted by footie

I might get flamed for this but I am finding the excessive rev range that the new M3 has to be really tiring and harder to use in day to day driving.

Maybe I am more use to it's power now but I feel unless you are wringing it's neck the performance is pretty average and in most situations it's hard to get to that final 1300revs which unlocks all that true potential. It might be the weather causing the roads to be excessively greasy but I am finding it hard to see the point in a 8300rpm red line.

I know it's sure to be great on the track but as these cars are used 99.5% of the time on the road I just find it a hindrance. Does anyone else feel the same way.

no, it is just you . I found even the e46 m3 has plenty of power for the street, let alone the new m3. i think you are more of a torque person, so maybe a z06 or viper would fit you better.

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Actually I think the the LS7 is pretty close in weight to the S65 engine.The LS series of engines are quite a compact engine also,but only a fool would replace an S65 with a LS series engine.So when are you doing it Footie?

Have no clue how much the LS engine weighs, but the materials used in the S65 are pretty light. In any event, a stroker kit for the S65 will lower its weight by about 30 pounds and obviously increase power to well over 530bhp and lots and lots of additional torque. SC may also be an option!

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by Ironring Racing

Sorry to say, but I agree; you bought the wrong car.

Coming from racing superbikes for 8 years (14,000rpm), then karts (12,000rpm), and my first car was the last gen RSX with a similiar 8k redline, I like high reving engines and never "tired" of V-tec, whether on the road or the track, quite the opposite-it charged me up!

But if you find 8300rpm "tiring", if you feel you're "wringing it's neck"; you bought the wrong car. Whether you'd be happier with a 335 or C63 or whatever, it sounds like you're not even in the 0.05% track time category, where the M really shines.

No biggie, hey live and learn. I'm sure not everyone who dated Heather Locklear liked her after a few thousand miles either! ;-)

Second that, especially since Heather REALLY likes high reving engines!!!

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by BMW-M-Mexico

Have no clue how much the LS engine weighs, but the materials used in the S65 are pretty light. In any event, a stroker kit for the S65 will lower its weight by about 30 pounds and obviously increase power to well over 530bhp and lots and lots of additional torque. SC may also be an option!

According to the info that I found the LS7 weighs 458 lbs dressed for the car were the S65 weighs 445 lbs without accesories.I can also buy a A crate LS7 for under $14000 USD which I plan to do if I build the play car that I want to build

[footie]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Actually I think the the LS7 is pretty close in weight to the S65 engine.The LS series of engines are quite a compact engine also,but only a fool would replace an S65 with a LS series engine.So when are you doing it Footie?

I would have classed you as a mate but you hurt my feelings calling me a fool. Only joking.

No seriously I am surprised that more don't see where I am coming from on this. And in no way does this reflect on the brilliant job BMW have done, it more likely that I prefer it dig you get from a FI engine.

There just seems to be no real kick from the engine other than what happens over 6800~7000rpms at which point the car goes ballistic, but unlike almost everything else I have driven as a daily drive this car requires you to use the gearbox to the full and always drop that gear instead on flexing your foot that bit more.

The rest of the package is damn near perfect, it rides well, steering well and with the exception of the small issues we all are having with the gearbox it's perfect too. It's so close to being the perfect daily drive but for the excessive hunger for revs.

I just can't wait till the next M3 comes along with it's forced engine, then it WILL be perfect.............for me at least.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by BMW-M-Mexico

Have no clue how much the LS engine weighs, but the materials used in the S65 are pretty light. In any event, a stroker kit for the S65 will lower its weight by about 30 pounds and obviously increase power to well over 530bhp and lots and lots of additional torque. SC may also be an option!

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

According to the info that I found the LS7 weighs 458 lbs dressed for the car were the S65 weighs 445 lbs without accesories.I can also buy a A crate LS7 for under $14000 USD which I plan to do if I build the play car that I want to build

Gearhead is bang on. The LS7's pushrod big displacement technology might be old school for us BMW people but it works.

The pushrod technology allows for lower weight heads and a small package. It is similar to size to most I4 or V6 engines.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by footie

I would have classed you as a mate but you hurt my feelings calling me a fool. Only joking.

No seriously I am surprised that more don't see where I am coming from on this. And in no way does this reflect on the brilliant job BMW have done, it more likely that I prefer it dig you get from a FI engine.

There just seems to be no real kick from the engine other than what happens over 6800~7000rpms at which point the car goes ballistic, but unlike almost everything else I have driven as a daily drive this car requires you to use the gearbox to the full and always drop that gear instead on flexing your foot that bit more.

The rest of the package is damn near perfect, it rides well, steering well and with the exception of the small issues we all are having with the gearbox it's perfect too. It's so close to being the perfect daily drive but for the excessive hunger for revs.

I just can't wait till the next M3 comes along with it's forced engine, then it WILL be perfect.............for me at least.

I basically feel the same way the same way that you do for around town use that you really need to wale(sp) on it to get get good aceleration.I am fortunate that I also have a Ford F150 as my company vehicle,so the M3 is parked till the end of March and at that time the M will appear to be a rocket under all conditions at least till I am used to it once again.I find that if I am using the M3 everday I usually get smoked off lights by everything on 4 wheels,unless I decide to really go for it.it really reminds me driving of a S2000 with zero torque and you had to drive it like you were mad at it in order to go anyplace quick.But that being said I am OK with the S65 for my driving,but I am not looking forward to a turbo M3 as I love a proper n/a engine over a F/i engine anytime.

[pepper]

you might want a 911 turbo then

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

According to the info that I found the LS7 weighs 458 lbs dressed for the car were the S65 weighs 445 lbs without accesories.I can also buy a A crate LS7 for under $14000 USD which I plan to do if I build the play car that I want to build

Wow, that is surprising to me especially since the S65 is lighter than even the prior M3 6 cylinder. Amazing then that a 7.0 liter V8 that produces 505bhp and a huge 470 pounds feet of torque weighs less than the E46 M3 5 cylinder engine. Plus, $14,000 for a forged internals and all aluminum block is not too shabby at all in my book. I´d think however that you would end up spending at least twice that much more in adapting engine to the E92 engine bay, ECU programing and harness, transmission etc... plus gotta check if it even fits into the engine bay as mounts etc... have got to be entirely in a different place.

As for me, I´d rather retain the M engine but with a few changes - not unlike those made on the LS2 to make it an LS7 - that include pistons, rods, crank, valves, intake and exhaust to make 530 hp albeit with less torque than the LS7 (as a side note I´m not sure LS7 torque is desirable given the transmission we have and certainly not for the DCT).

Would be a great project though. I say go for it.

[newtom3]

well I am not a mechanical engineer, but experience seems to indicate you either get high revving, pulling hard all the way to redline, or you get torquey down low and both torque and HP fall off as you pass 60% of redline... is there an automobile engine in production that delivers both? I don't recall so.

The high revving F cars I have driven also seemed rather lackluster off the line until built revs up.

If one has to make a choice between torquey fun off the line and high revving, I can see both choices being fun, maybe torquey off the line better if you live in the city. But you can buy a Ford pickup truck and get that... the M3 is pretty exclusive in giving you F and F1 like experiences in a sub $100K car... I'll keep the M3.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by BMW-M-Mexico

Wow, that is surprising to me especially since the S65 is lighter than even the prior M3 6 cylinder. Amazing then that a 7.0 liter V8 that produces 505bhp and a huge 470 pounds feet of torque weighs less than the E46 M3 5 cylinder engine. Plus, $14,000 for a forged internals and all aluminum block is not too shabby at all in my book. I´d think however that you would end up spending at least twice that much more in adapting engine to the E92 engine bay, ECU programing and harness, transmission etc... plus gotta check if it even fits into the engine bay as mounts etc... have got to be entirely in a different place.

As for me, I´d rather retain the M engine but with a few changes - not unlike those made on the LS2 to make it an LS7 - that include pistons, rods, crank, valves, intake and exhaust to make 530 hp albeit with less torque than the LS7 (as a side note I´m not sure LS7 torque is desirable given the transmission we have and certainly not for the DCT).

Would be a great project though. I say go for it.

It will not be going into a Bimmer,probally a fully caged older style Camaro for a lapping & solo car.This assumes that I actually have the cash to do it

[KonigsTiger]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

It will not be going into a Bimmer,probally a fully caged older style Camaro for a lapping & solo car.This assumes that I actually have the cash to do it

Hahaha!! Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Best of luck and would love to learn from your project if you decide to pursue it.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by newtom3

well I am not a mechanical engineer, but experience seems to indicate you either get high revving, pulling hard all the way to redline, or you get torquey down low and both torque and HP fall off as you pass 60% of redline... is there an automobile engine in production that delivers both? I don't recall so.

The high revving F cars I have driven also seemed rather lackluster off the line until built revs up.

If one has to make a choice between torquey fun off the line and high revving, I can see both choices being fun, maybe torquey off the line better if you live in the city. But you can buy a Ford pickup truck and get that... the M3 is pretty exclusive in giving you F and F1 like experiences in a sub $100K car... I'll keep the M3.

That is absolutely the case. You get to pick where in the rev range you want the engine to achieve its max volumetric efficiency (the ability to suck in air). Your variables (for a given displacement) include bore & stroke, cam profile & timing and runner length.

Engines like the S85 V10 achieve peak breathing abilities (ability to generate torque) very high in the rpm band >6000 rpm. This design choice means it can't breath as well down low (and the inablity to generate torque down low). This means the M5 / M6s suck fuel during highway cruising, since it needs to rev higher to generate the power to keep the car rolling.

The S65 V8, has a slightly different profile even though it is based on the V10. The S65 has a much flatter torque curve (i.e. it breathes better in low and mid rpm) than the S85. But the compromise is the S65's ability to generate power near the redline is not as good as the S85.

Engines like the LS7 generates good power down low due to the large capacity and is able to still rev high (it is an oversquare design). Chevy masks the LS7's tune for higher rpm by having big displacement.

The question that I would like answered is on full song (i.e. racing), which is more efficient the S85 V10 or the LS7. No one has this answer, AFAIK. While the LS7 gets 24-28 mpg, it doesn't breathe as well as the S85 in high rpm. The engine is always in high rpm for tracking / racing.

Stuff like VTEC and VANOs only help a little bit to flatten out the torque curve.

Just as a datapoint.....

At VIR, I burned through 1/2 tank of gas in 40 miles in the M5 and M6s.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by BMW-M-Mexico

Hahaha!! Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Best of luck and would love to learn from your project if you decide to pursue it.

This would be along the lines of what I would like to do.Not a cheap project to undertake!

http://www.lateral-g.net/g69/

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by T Bone

That is absolutely the case. You get to pick where in the rev range you want the engine to achieve its max volumetric efficiency (the ability to suck in air). Your variables (for a given displacement) include bore & stroke, cam profile & timing and runner length.

Engines like the S85 V10 achieve peak breathing abilities (ability to generate torque) very high in the rpm band >6000 rpm. This design choice means it can't breath as well down low (and the inablity to generate torque down low). This means the M5 / M6s suck fuel during highway cruising, since it needs to rev higher to generate the power to keep the car rolling.

The S65 V8, has a slightly different profile even though it is based on the V10. The S65 has a much flatter torque curve (i.e. it breathes better in low and mid rpm) than the S85. But the compromise is the S65's ability to generate power near the redline is not as good as the S85.

Engines like the LS7 generates good power down low due to the large capacity and is able to still rev high (it is an oversquare design). Chevy masks the LS7's tune for higher rpm by having big displacement.

The question that I would like answered is on full song (i.e. racing), which is more efficient the S85 V10 or the LS7. No one has this answer, AFAIK. While the LS7 gets 24-28 mpg, it doesn't breathe as well as the S85 in high rpm. The engine is always in high rpm for tracking / racing.

Stuff like VTEC and VANOs only help a little bit to flatten out the torque curve.

Just as a datapoint.....

At VIR, I burned through 1/2 tank of gas in 40 miles in the M5 and M6s.

Fuel milege on track is usually more a funtion of the horsepower used rather than the engine design & power curves.