|
|
01-15-2008, 03:34 PM | #23 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-15-2008, 04:52 PM | #25 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
I've had a deposit down since November (#4 on the list). As you know, 911S will not happen for me this time around. Now, this M-DCT business is confusing me. But one way or another, I am inclined to go with the earliest allocation unless it slips all the way in to June. I'll be gone for a couple of months in the summer, so what's the point of buying and garaging the car. I'm hoping I can get one in April.
Any progress on your order? Is it being built? |
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 07:32 AM | #26 |
Major
112
Rep 1,140
Posts |
@ Lucid:
I have never bought a car based on some graphs, statistics, or some scientific equation. I test drive them first. You apparently have a deposit down without ever having driven the E92 M3. That's entirely your right, but I feel somehow you're defending this car in this discussion based solely on numerical statistics ? As I said: "the M3 did *feel* slow in low revs, compared to 335i, especially in daily traffic" No need to argue about that with graphs or science. It's just my personal opinion. Cheers. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 07:42 AM | #27 | |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
Quote:
I will defend you, your statement that the M3 feels slower than the 335i is correct and anyone with a bit of common sense would know that. You aren't talking about outright acceleration, you are talking about part throttle at slower engine speeds, the very thing a turbo engine was designed for. In full on acceleration stock vs stock the M3 will destroy the 335i which I doubt any 335i owner would disagree with. The reason why I chose the M3 over the 335i was because when conditions do become slippy that lump of torque that the 335i has can become trickier to control unlike the M3 which is a pussy cat at slow speeds. It's BMW's best car/engine they have ever built. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 07:45 AM | #28 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
You are presenting your perceptions. I don't mean to personally attack or offend you. Just pointing out that your reported perceptions do not match the scientific facts and are therefore inaccurate. We are human; our interpretations of perceptions are often inaccurate. If you were to simply to say I like the way the 335 feels much better than the M3 feels, I would have nothing to say as that is a subjective call. But when you say the 335 has more low-end torque and therefore is faster at low speeds based on how you feel, that is false. Cheers. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 07:53 AM | #29 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
There is no torque advantage for the 335 above a certain low rpm (1500rpms for the 1st gear) as the data indicate. What part of that are you not getting? It's all in your head. If you look at the facts, it's as clear as day and night.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 08:29 AM | #30 |
Reincarnated
245
Rep 4,227
Posts |
I wouldn't bet the farm on that...
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 08:38 AM | #32 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
The M3 will be faster, but the meaning of "destroying" all depends on how long the race is. If it is a relatively short race, destruction would not apply in my book.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 09:01 AM | #33 |
Reincarnated
245
Rep 4,227
Posts |
I was talking about 335i owners admitting anything but a F-22 could beat their car.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 09:43 AM | #34 |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 10:00 AM | #35 |
Moderator / European Editor
1487
Rep 6,755
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 10:16 AM | #36 | |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
Quote:
Maybe the 335i is different than every other turbo car I have owned or driven but this is how each of them behave when it's slippy. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 10:54 AM | #37 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
As a side note, for dyno runs with acceleration, the Tq output should be lower, and the two engines might respond slightly differently than each other to those conditions, but the output drops should be fairly consistent. I don't have that data. Finally, let's not forget that others have commented on this claimed low-end torque issue on this forum, and have expressed opinions in the other direction, saying the M3 "feels" plenty fast at low rpms--as an M car should. I believe Steved was one of them, but I might be misremembering. I just re-read my posts on this thread, and realized that I might have worded my earlier response to you and my initial response to hwelvaar harshly. Sorry about that. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 11:12 AM | #39 | |
Colonel
755
Rep 2,736
Posts |
Quote:
I have become very interested in the M-DCT transmission. I am not obligated to buy my current build, although the car is promised to me. Now with BMW holding cars in port until the end of March, I'll have more time to consider a clutchless trans. Great choices, but nonetheless, stressful. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 11:15 AM | #40 |
Major General
1072
Rep 8,008
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
lucid,
No problem (I seem to be saying this a lot today). I can only speak of my brief spell in the new M3 and compared to the S5 it does feel weak below 4500rpm, this might be down to throttle response which is something the S5 feel very sharp with. In fact out of the two the M3 is the easier to drive smoothly around town, like I say it's a plus to me. On a different note, compared again to the S5 the M3 at low to medium revs sounds like a much smaller engine than the S5 which really sounds meaty, but all of this changes when you hit the higher revs, the M3 sounds incredible. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 11:28 AM | #41 | |
Expert Road Racer
59
Rep 1,329
Posts |
Quote:
I agree destruction is the word...just not sure you have the <> sign right. I know you mean stock-for-stock, but for much less than the price of M-DCT, enhanced audio, and even comfort access, the 335i can easily hang with and yes even beat the M3 in a test of straight line speed. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 11:29 AM | #42 | ||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
You don't know what the part-throttle characteristics of each engine are, and possibly even more important, you don't know what the rotational inertia effects are. Your quaint belief that a spreadsheet showing full-throttle torque at the drive wheels is hardly meaningful in this context, and your dismissal of the experiences of two (and possibly three) drivers in favor of a non-applicable spreadsheet really is arrogance. I haven't driven a new M3, but my experiences with a couple of 335s shows that they are typical of today's street turbo engines in that they deliver a non-linear boost map when driven at part throttle. That is to say, half throttle, for instance, delivers more than half the allowable boost, so the car feels very responsive because it''s putting out a larger percentage of its max torque under those conditions. There's also minor evidence that suggests the M3 is a little lazy at part throttle. I've read in a couple of comparison tests (in Car, and at least one other mag, the name of which escapes me), that the M3 is a little bit soft at low revs on the street compared to the RS4, yet in full-throttle roll-ons from low revs, the M3 is the quicker car, according to the acceleration results. As far as rotational inertia is concerned, the first point is that it goes up as the square of the gearing, and the second is that in a given gear, 100% of the rotational inertia is right there with you, whether you're at part thottle or at full throttle. Therefore, at part throttle, the effects of rotational inertia are more apparant than when you're seriously legging it. I'm willing to bet that because of gearing, the M3 has significantly more rotational inertia in first gear than the 335 does, and it's obviously more apparent at part throttle than at full throttle. It's also a bit heavier than the 335, which is another factor that's with you at 100%, all the time. I'm with hwelvaar, footie and termigni on this one. Lucid and Swamp, you need to reconsider your position. Bruce |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 11:58 AM | #43 | |
Reincarnated
245
Rep 4,227
Posts |
Quote:
It's always "if my car had this and this and this and this and this, then I would beat an M3. M3 is not worth the money suckas!!" That routine is getting old. Leave it to a 335 owner to turn a harmless joke into another M3 v 335 pissing contest.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-16-2008, 12:00 PM | #44 |
Reincarnated
245
Rep 4,227
Posts |
I thought all this bickering was supposed to stop when we finally had something to talk about like pricing.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|