|
|
07-26-2012, 05:59 PM | #89 |
Brigadier General
97
Rep 3,246
Posts |
To get back on topic a bit I have gears on my 3.45 and the simulations and arguments put forth by swamp a few years back are what led me to the gears. I already had the only real bolt on that matters (exhaust+tune) and wanted a bit of in gear snappiness for city driving. The ability to wind the engine up quicker in city conditions has great appeal for me as you rarely if ever need to change gears. This same principle came into play as I started to track the car more as well as allowing me to stay in the higher gear as I got faster (but this is specific to certain tracks and wouldn't be universally applied). On the track, and in the city, I want the "quicker", not necessarily "faster" car, one that is more responsive. This is where I find "value" in the FD mod as well as add that personal touch to MY car that others don't. I'll never argue the math as that's the point of it (not really debate able) just giving my personal take. I've spent way too much money and time in this car to be considered rational on the subject but as I've said before and I'll say it again, it's all relative. One mans trash is another mans treasure
__________________
mods: track ready stuff
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 08:53 AM | #91 | |
Lieutenant General
5211
Rep 10,584
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 10:16 AM | #92 |
Grease Monkey
293
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Hello All, I have to post here again because these threads relating to the M3's S65 and it's lack of torque really irritate me. Let me explain why:
For a "Naturally Aspirated" engine with 4.0 liters of displacement the M3's S65 does indeed have good low end torque. The S65 is making 80% of peak torque from 2000 RPM to 8000 RPM and 85% of peak torque from 2000 RPM to 6500 RPM. The flat torque curve and correspondingly broad powerband of the S65 is what makes it seem so torqueless on the bottom....... The 295 Lb/Ft peak is in fact quite good and makes for 73.75 Lb/Ft per liter, which makes it above average for torque density for naturally aspirated engines! Let's look at torque density of other Naturally Aspirated engines in performance cars. Dodge viper (8.4 liter): 66.6 Lb/Ft / liter C6 ZO6: 67.15 Lb/Ft / Liter C63 AMG: 73.6 Lb/Ft / Liter E90/92/93 M3: 73.75 Lb/Ft Liter Lexus IS-F: 74.2 Lb/Ft / Liter Audi RS4/5/R8: 76.5 Lb/Ft / Liter E46 M3: 80.8 Lb/Ft / Liter E46 M3 CSL: 84.1 Lb/Ft / Liter So as you all can see, even some of the engines that most people consider torquey, actually put down low numbers for torque density. These engines just have large displacement on their side. No engine on the list with the exception of the RS4/5/R8 and engines come anywhere close to having a torque curve that is as broad and usable as the M3's V8 and. Even the S54's torque curve while having the highest torque density of the bunch (and one of the highest NA torque densities in the world, second only to the 4.5 V8 in the ferrari 458 Italia: 89.96 Lb/Ft / Liter) is as broad and flat as the V8 in our M3's. Basically what all of this means is even if you had the same torque density of the CSL's S54 we would still have only have 336.6 Lb/Ft out of the S65. Anyone who thinks the S65 is lacking torque never did their homework very well when buying their car. 4 Liters is 4 Liters no matter how how you slice it. People need to realize the achievement that was made with the S65 and how it makes so much torque and horsepower out of such a small package. Really if you compare it, the Dodge Viper and ZO6 Vette engines lower than average torque density however due to their size they have lots of torque. Personally, I will take a high revving low displacement engine over a large displacement lazy one anyway of the week, shifting at 8400 is something I love!!! |
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 10:53 AM | #93 | |
Major
68
Rep 1,359
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2014 E63 AMG-S
2012 C63 AMG (P31) - gone 2011 E90 M3 FBO - gone |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 12:09 PM | #96 | |
Banned
4
Rep 130
Posts |
Quote:
991 Carrera 84.70 lb/ft per liter RS 4.0 84.75 lb/ft per liter 991 Carrera S 85.52 lb/ft per liter But also dont forget that gearing still plays a huge role in torque as it is applied through each gear and the final gear ratio, which, is far more important than looking at only the tq the engine produces. Last edited by PaneristiDriver; 07-27-2012 at 12:15 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 12:13 PM | #97 | ||
Grease Monkey
293
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 12:22 PM | #98 |
Banned
39
Rep 1,590
Posts |
it's where the torque is made, irrelevant of "density".. Think about it, a 4.6 liter mustang makes torque under 3k, .. Every M car is about high HP at the cost of not making lots of low end torque. It is what it is, but you cannot compare an M car torque to anything else. torque gets you moving and HP wins races. It is the torque though that makes the car feel a little sluggish at times unless it's revved out.
If that's the case, I had a 2.0 liter that made 300 lb ft of torque at 3200, and it was much faster than my m |
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 12:41 PM | #99 | |
General
21114
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
The reason it is best to use a 1:1 ratio, is that on most gearboxes, this ratio is a direct drive (doesn't go through gears), so there is less drivtrain loss due to loaded gear meshing. Last edited by CanAutM3; 07-27-2012 at 01:59 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 01:23 PM | #100 | |
Grease Monkey
293
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
The S65 has 85% (251 Lb/Ft) of peak torque available at 2000 RPM. The highest torque rating of any 4.6 liter mustang I could find was 325 Lb/Ft from the 2010 3V engine and that peak is at 4250. I doubt they make a boat load more torque below 3000 than the S65. I would welcome you to give me more info on the torque curve though! P.S.: The whole torque gets you moving and horsepower wins races crap is just that.... CRAP! You can't have horsepower without torque. Horsepower is just math to express force (i.e.: TORQUE) delivered over time. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 01:32 PM | #101 | |
General
21114
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
I had the same argument in a different thread. PS. Although, to be more precise, power is force on a distance over time. Last edited by CanAutM3; 07-27-2012 at 02:12 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 01:53 PM | #102 |
General
21114
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
This thread has been a very interesting read. I will fuel the fire by adding my 2 cents .
Professionally coming from an experimental test background, I would always tease the analytical guys by saying that their models were only good at predicting anything only after they were calibrated with real world data . However Swamp is right in saying that there are a lot of variables to control in the real world. Experimental data needs to be statistically averaged to have any significant meaning. In other words, you cannot rely on a single run/test to prove or invalidate a theory. Good calibrated models are extremely useful in developing almost any product. They have significantly reduced the cost and lead-time to develop products by reducing the required quantity of testing and trial and error aspect of it. I also partially agree with Swamp that relatively small changes in gearing do not have significant impact on the total spectrum of the performance envelope. However, if one wants to improve performance in a specific range, gearing can have an important impact. Any racing team can attest to that, where they will pick optimal gearing for every single track. Most often, simulation models are used to figure out that optimal gearing (analytical models are useful ) If gear ratios would have no impact on performance, why would we even bother having multiple ratio gearboxes, we could simply go with a direct drive from engine to wheel and reduce drivetrain loss . Last edited by CanAutM3; 07-27-2012 at 02:10 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 02:02 PM | #103 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
I do hope others with little or no such great testing background that you have understand some of the basics about variation and uncertainty in real world testing. One of my favorite expressions about test vs. simulation is, "No one believes the simulation except the guy who ran it but everyone believes the test except the guy who ran it". The veracity of that it certainly changing over the years but there is still truth in it because anyone who believes simulation is junk and testing is absolute simply understands neither. As to your last point I've never said gear ratios are unimportant. The combination of the ratios and the FD must be matched to the engines characteristics, primarily just torque and redline. Once that is done and done well, for many street cars, there is very little overall benefit to a FD modification. Some isolated benefits may happen and some contests may be harmed rather than helped.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 02:04 PM | #104 |
General
21114
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 02:14 PM | #105 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Crap expressions such as this typically contain a shred of truth but also serve to foster an incorrect/incomplete view of a technical/engineering/physics topic.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 02:15 PM | #106 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Use it all the time in my profession (which by the way is in physics based simulation...)
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 02:29 PM | #107 |
General
21114
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 03:42 PM | #108 | |
Grease Monkey
293
Rep 2,646
Posts
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
|
Quote:
Swamp, you and I have had some good banter on here, and I respect your posts highly since you are one of the few that actually add value to the forums. In the statement you make above saying that their is some benefit to high crank torque at lower speeds I totally agree. What we need to reinforce to the forums is that unless you have power (i.e. BHP, KW, PS, etc) torque is indeed meaningless. Torque (Force) can in-fact be exerted with no power developed but power can not be developed without torque (force). Obviously gearing does play a big factor as you mentioned as well, although the gearing does not effect crank numbers what so ever. The reason FD gearing has little effect on the M3's performance is the fact that the torque curve is so broad and flat that it just makes you shift more with little benefit. On an engine with a narrower torque curve the FD makes more difference by allowing the engine to spend more time in the area where torque (and hence horsepower) is higher. Please corroborate the message that I am trying to deliver by reiterating the statement of mine that horsepower can't exist without torque. They are one and the same, the only difference is that an engine that delivers more torque in the lower RPM is going to be making more horsepower earlier in the rev range. High low end torque is great however an engine with higher average torque will be desirable to the one that makes a more low end torque but falls off quickly as the revs climb. This exact reason is why Diesels feel so unsporting (And I do know a thing or two about Diesels). Boatloads of low end torque but the lack of torque as the revs climb makes them feel slow and boring to drive even though sometimes the numbers are more than the feel would lead you to believe. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 04:12 PM | #109 |
General
21114
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-27-2012, 04:42 PM | #110 | |
General
21114
Rep 20,741
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|