The advantages of a NA engine?

[ManAndMachine]

Originally Posted by GhostRideTheWhip

The M3 isn't a dedicated track car. It's a car with a couple track days in mind. The reason the M3 can get around faster is because it's got more horses which will pull it away on a straight. The Cayman is light, nimble and so easy to use. Cayman S weights in at just 3100 pounds. The M3 weights in at 3600 pounds. The Mid-engine layout on the Cayman also helps keep the handling crisp.

"Adding power makes you faster on the straights, while subtracting weight makes you faster everywhere."

~Colin Champman.

P.S. If you guys want torque, get a C63 AMG.

We have 8300rpm and spot on gearing so no need for crazy TQ.Keep the engine on boil and enjoy

[Dodge2Dub]

Originally Posted by GhostRideTheWhip

The M3 isn't a dedicated track car. It's a car with a couple track days in mind. Cayman S weights in at just 3100 pounds. The M3 weights in at 3600 pounds. The Mid-engine layout on the Cayman also helps keep the handling crisp.

LOL! The same argument exists for the Cayman. It's a car that's built with a couple of track days in mind, but it too is not a dedicated track car.

Are both of these vehicles very capable track cars...yes...can either of these vehicles be turned into a dedicated track car...yes....are either vehicles dedicated track cars off of the lot...no.

[Dodge2Dub]

Originally Posted by crackberry

lol, did you not see the car DIRECTLY above the m3 lap time? its the cayman s with a time of 8:04.

Shut up! That hurts my argument. LOL!

Well, that Cayman has ceramics, which are an option, albeit an $8K option. So, yes, you can get it from the dealer with them installed, but I have to wonder what the M would do with ceramics (of course, then it's modified - I'm killing my argument).

All I'm saying is that you can't say that the M isn't a track car (better yet, a car designed with tracking in mind) and then right afterward say that the Cayman S is a track car. Of course the M weighs more, but honestly, I personally believe that it disguises that weight quite well at speed and turn-in due to its weight distribution and gutteral high RPM speed.

[ManAndMachine]

Originally Posted by persian54

I would love to drive a lotus around the track

I drove a couple in the canyons... and my god it's sex

M3 is fun on the track but it's not dedicated track car.

Spend 8K and get a top shelf shifter cart.Take up to the streets of willow for a track day and you'll never think about a lotus again LoL.

[ManAndMachine]

Originally Posted by Dodge2Dub

LOL! The same argument exists for the Cayman. It's a car that's built with a couple of track days in mind, but it too is not a dedicated track car.

Are both of these vehicles very capable track cars...yes...can either of these vehicles be turned into a dedicated track car...yes....are either vehicles dedicated track cars off of the lot...no.

Well said,the Cayman is no more of a track car than an M3.Caymen R is,just like the GTS.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

However, and without rancor, I tend to disagree on a number of your pluses and minuses. I'll post in red.

Good comments/additions.

-As to the flatness of a turbo torque curve - sure it can be tailored to be flat but it seem often in practice it is not achieved.

-mpg: Turbos of the same peak power level, all else being equal will be better than NA. In general lower torque, high redline NA engines are accompanied by gearing that has relatively high rpm/mph at cruise this contributes to poor mpg. The S2000 has good mpg compared to what. Certainly its weight and aero contribute to it OK mpg. The E46 M3 mpg is not very good either, not far from the E92. It is even worse when considering its displacement.

-Redline: For BMW their turbos are limited by their use of valvetronic. Its response time can not support high redline. valvetronic help reduce turbo lag but also hinders in other ways. The typical strong midrange and weak top end is typical in turbos and that gives a car a much more GT feel and less of the race bred feel.

-Reliability: I'd like to look at some long term large reliability data sets. I'm sure there is a pretty clear answer on relative reliability there. My suspicion is that overall one would find less reliability in street cars with turbos. Of course that is not an intrinsic weakness (think large freight trucks and off road heavy equipment) but a real, in practice one.

Clutched blowers is a cool concept, what cars use/have used it. Did they offer good fuel efficiency?

[Dodge2Dub]

Originally Posted by GhostRideTheWhip

I'll respectfully disagree and say the Cayman is a yes. I'm not dissing the M3. Saying it's a "track car" is absurd. It's too heavy. Also, why are you using the Cayman and not the Cayman S? The Cayman S comes in at 8:04.

Cayman S = 8:16
Cayman S + Ceramics = 8:04

Many automotive journalists and articles that I have read disagree with your sentiments. They claim that the M is a track car with everyday utilities.

For arguments sake: The Cayman S is not a track car; it weighs 3,100 pounds. The Lotus Exige S IS a track car at 2,061 pounds....or screw it all...none of them are track vehicles when compared to my Ducati, which weighs in at 368 pounds with 170 Hp.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by KTM505SX

Spend 8K and get a top shelf shifter cart.Take up to the streets of willow for a track day and you'll never think about a lotus again LoL.

Hell even a cheap beat up non-shifter at any tight cart track is a whole other world compared to any street car.

[crackberry]

Originally Posted by Dodge2Dub

Many automotive journalists and articles that I have read disagree with your sentiments. They claim that the M is a track car with everyday utilities.

thats true, but many reviewers use the term "track car" very very loosely.

[Dodge2Dub]

Originally Posted by GhostRideTheWhip

My ZX-6R isn't a slouch either.


Sidenote: Do you DD your Ducati? I was looking at a 848 Evo, but from everything I have heard, Ducati's aren't comfy for day to day use.

I met "My" very loosely. My actual Ducati puts down ~110 Hp/100 Tq with the same weight as mentioned above. It's a stoplight king, not a track star.

From everything that I've read, plus what I've heard from my riding group, the Ducati Superbikes are horrible as DD's. If you plan on doing quite a bit of tracking/hard canyon riding...go for it...if not, there are more comfortable options (your bike for instance).

Okay....much apologies OP!

[crackberry]

Originally Posted by Dodge2Dub

Shut up! That hurts my argument. LOL!

Well, that Cayman has ceramics, which are an option, albeit an $8K option. So, yes, you can get it from the dealer with them installed, but I have to wonder what the M would do with ceramics (of course, then it's modified - I'm killing my argument).

All I'm saying is that you can't say that the M isn't a track car (better yet, a car designed with tracking in mind) and then right afterward say that the Cayman S is a track car. Of course the M weighs more, but honestly, I personally believe that it disguises that weight quite well at speed and turn-in due to its weight distribution and gutteral high RPM speed.

i was so hard when i first saw you comparing the cs and m3 times. just wondering, how did you miss the cs's time of 8:04 when it was literally directly on top of the m3?

[Dodge2Dub]

Originally Posted by crackberry

i was so hard when i first saw you comparing the cs and m3 times. just wondering, how did you miss the cs's time of 8:04 when it was literally directly on top of the m3?

Was comparing the pics of NA vs. FI and became disoriented...it happens to the best of us!

[persian54]

fi vs na

then m3 is a track car vs isn't a track car

and m3 vs cayman s

then cayman s vs cayman s with ceramic brakes

lol

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by scalbert

It was once stated on a Corvette Listserv (of all places) years ago and it was point on, quoted:

That's a quote from me, and it exists in this forum as well.

[scalbert]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

That's a quote from me, and it exists in this forum as well.

Good to know and thanks. I have referred many to that post for well over a decade now.

And now that I look back at the article, I do see your name on it.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'd like a precise definition of low-end grunt.

I'd like a lot of things, but I usually start off the request with please.

Grunt (non-qualified) is the character of the engine at low rpms under liberal throttle. So "good" low-end grunt is the character of an engine to produce strong pulling power even at lower rpms in a gear taller than optimal for generating the most force given the current vehicle speed and engine rpm. To use torque in place of low-end grunt is to suggest the character of the engine is biased toward the lower end. A Ducati 4V (per head) V-twin is an example of an engine with strong low-end grunt and an equally strong midrange and upper end punch. Although some would say its main character is low-end grunt, which simply isn't true.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I disagree. SC benefits do increase with rpm but I would not at all characterize them as having only a little additional power at mid rpms. Both turbo and supercharges effects asymptotically go to near zero power benefit at idle. I've seen plenty of M3 turbo dynos that show smaller benefits than a supercharger at low rpm.

If you have a turbo, don't really care which one, and you don't feel any lag at all then I must accuse you of not being perceptive enough.

You should drive some. A centrifugal supercharger has very little additional power at low rpm and only modest additional power at mid rpm. How can it have significant additional power at mid rpm when it adds so little boost at mid rpm? Take a 9 psi centrifugal -- it will have about 3 psi at half peak rpm. If 3 psi makes big power to you, then you don't have much experience with power. I ran one for years on my E36 M3, at anywhere from 6 psi to 16 psi of boost. Sure, turbos make no power before they spool, but a reasonably sized one will spool fully by half peak rpm. I have one on my E36 M3 and it spools so fast that I have no complaints about lag.

I suppose you could define lag many ways. I could say that the S65 in my E90 M3 has lag because I feel significant power only at high rpm. I could say the N54 in my E61 535 has no lag because I feel significant power anytime I put my foot down. I have owned and driven them all -- centrifugal supercharger, turbocharger, and high revving naturally aspirated. The one with the power curve I like most is my turbo E36 M3.

I am well versed in lag, having owned turbo cars since 1988 and driven hundreds of thousands of miles in them, with a variety of stock and aftermarket turbo. You don't see much of it with today's turbos. The old "wait for the boost" days have long passed. There are a lot of impressive turbo engines out there and the N54 is definitely one of them. Grassroots Motorsports took a 335i and made minor engine and suspension mods and equaled an E90 M3 around a road course, with James Clay driving both. Clay commented that the 335i pulled harder out of the corners than the M3. He had no complaints about lag.

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by GhostRideTheWhip

The M3 isn't a track car, but it can be tracked every once in awhile. You want a track car, get a Cayman S.

Neither of them were designed with a track first street second philosophy.

If slower around the track is what one wants, the Cayman S is the ticket rather than the M3.


Lap Times (24)
Track Cayman S M3 (E92)

Nordschleife 8:11.00 8:05.00
Tsukuba 1:13.50 vw 1:05.70
Hockenheim Short 1:15.50 1:14.00
Vairano Handling Course 1:23.45 1:20.10
Bedford Autodrome West Circuit (2004 - 06/2008) 1:26.85 1:26.60
Oschersleben 1:47.90 1:47.20
Laguna Seca 1:47.58 1:42.96
Virginia International Raceway 3:09.50 3:05.40
Zolder 1:52.82 1:49.31
Autozeitung test track 1:41.20 1:40.10
Balocco 2:55.09 2:55.22
Bedford Autodrome East Circuit 1:08.10 1:07.10
Contidrom 1:37.55 1:35.11
SportAuto wet handling test 1:29.10 1:32.40
Bedford aut.wet handling test 0:55.35 0:54.50
Serres Racing Circuit 1:35.25 1:33.05
Willow Springs - Streets of Willow 1:28.91 1:27.67
Inta 1:12.02 1:12.36
Autocar Wet Handling Track 1:12.10 1:16.90
Anglesey National 1:04.30 1:03.90
Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours Club 1:28.35 w 1:27.40
Gotland Ring (Northern Loop) 1:36.80 1:36.30
Ring Knutstrop (Conf 2) 1:16.00 1:15.60
ADM Miachkovo 1:59.15 1:56.27

Specs
Max speed 275 kph 280 kph
0 - 100 kph 5.1 s 4.3 s
0 - 100 mph 11.6 s 9.4 s
0 - 200 kph 18.8 s 15.2 s
1/4 mile 13.2 s @ 106 mph 12.4 s @ 114 mph
1/8 mile (est) 8.9 s @ 87 mph 8.4 s @ 93 mph
Power/weight ratio 207 bhp/tonne 256 bhp/tonne

Summary
Discipline Cayman S M3 (E92)
Track Performance 43 points 229 points
Straight line speed 227 points 260 points
Total 270 489

The verdictBMW M3 (E92) is noticeably faster.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/compariso...mw_m3_e92.html

[mylydiamy]

I can not believe that most people keep mentioning how good NA M3 engine is on track. I bet my next 1 year pay check that 90% M3 owners have never been to track in their life time. Also most of M3 success at the track is due to its handling, not because it has teh greatest engine in the world.

Can anyone argue that M3 with C63 engine would be ten times better car at track and in DD than normal M3???

Who cares how it behaves on track if yon't track it, or track it once or twice a year. Most of us use our cars as DD.

Argument should be which engine is better on aggressive daily driving. Just my 0.2c...

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

Neither of them were designed with a track first street second philosophy.

If slower around the track is what one wants, the Cayman S is the ticket rather than the M3.


Lap Times (24)
Track Cayman S M3 (E92)

Nordschleife 8:11.00 8:05.00
Tsukuba 1:13.50 vw 1:05.70
Hockenheim Short 1:15.50 1:14.00
Vairano Handling Course 1:23.45 1:20.10
Bedford Autodrome West Circuit (2004 - 06/2008) 1:26.85 1:26.60
Oschersleben 1:47.90 1:47.20
Laguna Seca 1:47.58 1:42.96
Virginia International Raceway 3:09.50 3:05.40
Zolder 1:52.82 1:49.31
Autozeitung test track 1:41.20 1:40.10
Balocco 2:55.09 2:55.22
Bedford Autodrome East Circuit 1:08.10 1:07.10
Contidrom 1:37.55 1:35.11
SportAuto wet handling test 1:29.10 1:32.40
Bedford aut.wet handling test 0:55.35 0:54.50
Serres Racing Circuit 1:35.25 1:33.05
Willow Springs - Streets of Willow 1:28.91 1:27.67
Inta 1:12.02 1:12.36
Autocar Wet Handling Track 1:12.10 1:16.90
Anglesey National 1:04.30 1:03.90
Circuit de Nevers Magny-Cours Club 1:28.35 w 1:27.40
Gotland Ring (Northern Loop) 1:36.80 1:36.30
Ring Knutstrop (Conf 2) 1:16.00 1:15.60
ADM Miachkovo 1:59.15 1:56.27

Specs
Max speed 275 kph 280 kph
0 - 100 kph 5.1 s 4.3 s
0 - 100 mph 11.6 s 9.4 s
0 - 200 kph 18.8 s 15.2 s
1/4 mile 13.2 s @ 106 mph 12.4 s @ 114 mph
1/8 mile (est) 8.9 s @ 87 mph 8.4 s @ 93 mph
Power/weight ratio 207 bhp/tonne 256 bhp/tonne

Summary
Discipline Cayman S M3 (E92)
Track Performance 43 points 229 points
Straight line speed 227 points 260 points
Total 270 489

The verdictBMW M3 (E92) is noticeably faster.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/compariso...mw_m3_e92.html

I'd like to see apex speed comparisons between those 2 cars at a given course (various apexes). As an example, the now defunct 250GP class bikes would maintain higher corner speeds than the 500GP and later MotoGP bikes, but slower lap times. You're not going to beat an appreciable power advantage in the end. The faster lap time isn't always the definition of the most fun either. I believe a Cayman S would be more enjoyable a track drive than the quicker M3 (as your lap times suggest). Cayman R even more so.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by crazybimmer

NA vs FI, this same thing over and over and over again.... Some facts:

1) This is an M3 (E9X to be exact!) forum. 99% of the people here own M3s. They have spent a considerable amount of money for this car (on average 70k) and given the fact that they are members of an "M3 forum" its obvious they love their car and think (and will always think) it is the best choice (if not then there would be a serious problem). So there is absolutely no way to have equal sides to this na vs fi debate from among M3 owners.

2) Funny thing, most of those people I mentioned in #1 will be posting pictures of their F3X M3 when its released and will be arguing how its lagless turbo is so much better than the old sluggish 295 lb/ft torqueless one. It is unseen and unheard of for a new M car to be not better than the old one in all aspects especially handling.

From outside it just looks so funny. Its like going to republicans and asking about health care reform or asking democrats about tax cuts. Its a lost cause.

To me my 335 is the best balance between speed, comfort, looks, price, maintainability, commitment. Afterall its just "a" car. To you your M3 is one of world's wonders, the greatest engineering piece of work never to be beaten by any other car. To the average joe, its a production 3 series bmw with bigger wheels and 4 exhausts. The fact is none of this matters, because this is an M3 forum.

Why did you even bother?

[330CIZHP]

Look at my signature. Lamborghini said it all. Nothing else to say.