|
|
08-13-2008, 06:36 PM | #89 | |
Major
122
Rep 1,401
Posts
Drives: 2003 HPF 2.5, 2008 M3 (Sold)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pearl District, OR
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-13-2008, 07:41 PM | #90 |
Captain
15
Rep 645
Posts |
ditto that. I may not always agree with him, but Bruce always adds something interesting to this forum.
__________________
2013 Audi S6, Ibis White
2008 E90 M3, Jerez Black, Black Nappa, Brushed Aluminium, 6-speed, Premium, Tech, Cold Weather *sold* |
Appreciate
0
|
08-13-2008, 08:54 PM | #91 | ||
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
You simply choose to blindly believe a spec (that in all due respect is based on accepted standards) that is in clear contradiction with basic logic, math and even physics. If I was trying to compare an I6 vs. a V8 or an OHC vs. pushrod engine you indeed could not use the logic I am applying here. However, the AMG and M3 plants are the same basic design and configuration; high performance, high revving, DOHC, bedplate, 90 degree, Al-Si block, V8s. I choose to remain skeptical and hence undecided. Although I do lean toward the belief that the M engine is lighter on a absolutely apples to apples basis. The more you recall my favorite Sagan quote the better off your critical thinking will be. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
08-13-2008, 09:38 PM | #92 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
You just think they've lied in public. Or do you think they've gotten their sums wrong, or forgotten how to weigh an engine? Critical thinking? I've forgotten your favorite Sagan quote, and I suppose I will again if you tell me again. Maybe if you tell me ten times I'll remember it. I believe your often flawless critical thinking has some neurons that refuse to fire when the M3 is on your mind. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-13-2008, 10:51 PM | #93 | |||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Closer gear spacing is better for acceleration, obviously. Different discussion. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When you said your E92 weighs exactly what your E46 weighed, I asked if that number was 3400 pounds, because that's what our E46 weighed. If the E92 does in fact weigh 3400 pounds I stand corrected on the weight problem. In point of fact, however, I think pretty almost every production car being made nowadays weighs more than it should. Bruce |
|||||
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 01:21 AM | #94 | |
Banned
78
Rep 2,244
Posts |
Quote:
So now the M3 makes a lot of power? Before it was the LS3 was a better motor for it, then it was a motor that made a lot of power, next post it will be a great motor for the car. Figure out where you stand, then let me know. What was originally stated about the gearing stands, I don't see where we differ other than you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You talk about power, what is power? Power is torque, multiplied by the RPM, divided by 5250. If you make only a couple hundred pound feet, if you maintain it and rev to the moon, you will eventually make more POWER than a more torquey motor. Power is a function of the torque, multiplied by the revs. Gearing is what allows one to take advantage of their powerband. As far as the S2k, I wrote about what I knew from personal experience. I have read much on the forums when the switch happened and everyone was not as happy as you. As I said, it is a subjective point, but hey, whatever YOU WANT TO READ. I never mentioned 3400 pounds, YOU DID. Refrain from telling others to work on their reading comprehension, when you are forgetting who said what. What I am referring to is this thread: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150435 By the way (get the pun?) the car weighed is a DCT. Weight with no fuel: 3513 , hmm I don't see the much heavier than the E46. As I said, this is about the same an E46 M3 SMG weighed in at, mine with (I don't remember how much fuel) put in somewhere above 3500 at the weigh station at the dump. That was 6 years ago... but if the E92 weighs too much than the E46 weighed too much. Considering all they added, if a max 100 pound weight gain (which it does not even appear to be this much for the DCT vs. SMG) with the manual tranny is to be had, they should be commended not chastized. A 3.2 liter six cylinder was ok for the 3400-3500 pound E46 but a 4.0 liter v8 is not enough for the marginally heavier E92? I think you are really reaching. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 02:28 AM | #95 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Based on some simple reasoning and facts about their engines I do not believe specifications can be truly apples to apples and at the same time conclude that the C63 AMG engine is the same weight or lighter than the M3 engine. PERIOD. PERIOD. PERIOD. I am sorry of my view on this does not fit some nice little one word description such as party A lied. Sarcasm won't go far with me when it disguises an insult. I don't think it will take you far with others herein either. Perhaps rather than sarcasm you can attack my argument or my "critical thinking" as I very carefully and rigorously laid it out just above in my post #90? Please counter my argument, please. You quickly resort to ad hominem when confronted with solid reasoning. Great, immature, avoidance and sarcasm. Powerful tools in the wild west of automotive forums. This only goes to further evidence of a recurring theme. You do not understand anything about me nor my opinions. Am I a huge M fan, yes. Are facts, logic and science infinitely more important to me than dedication to a brand? "Yes" is my resounding answer, over and over and over again. I tire with the repetition you require on this point. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 03:56 AM | #96 | |
Banned
4143
Rep 6,926
Posts |
Quote:
After all, the M3 V8 is 33lbs lighter than the previous E46 M3 straight six engine. How hard is if to find the numbers, they have to be out there somewhere. Hell, that 6.2 liter is in almost all of their AMG models. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 04:15 AM | #97 |
Captain
50
Rep 783
Posts |
The M3 engine on paper is a better engine than the C63. It makes just as much peak torque per cubic centimetre than the C63 but sustains torque for much longer than the C63.
And for all those bemoaning the lack of torque in the M3, well it all comes down to basic engine design. Making the decision to extract higher power at high RPMs means torque will be sacrificed at low RPMs - although variable cam timing helps. And to the guy who said gear multiplication doesn't matter - torque to the wheels is what accelerates a car - not power. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 09:40 AM | #98 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Sniff; sniff. Listen guy, it's not that I don't enjoy reading Swamp's Sanctimonious Sermon more and more, every time I read it, but hey, I'm double parked. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 09:44 AM | #99 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 09:51 AM | #100 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 12:24 PM | #101 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
I see you keep strategically avoiding a direct argument against my position and reasoning. That is good enough for me to call case closed. Yawn... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 12:33 PM | #102 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 12:46 PM | #103 |
Conspicuous consumption
99
Rep 1,183
Posts |
Because of brutal torque and horsepower figures strapped to a chassis that is brutality mean and scary fast on the streets. M3ers do not want to see torque monsters lurking behind their neighbor's picket fences.
Last edited by ruff; 08-14-2008 at 04:29 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 02:11 PM | #104 |
First Lieutenant
31
Rep 308
Posts |
Think S2000. The 2.2 was a better engine in that car than the 2.0, even though it made the same power. The increased low and mid range torque made for a more responsive drive.
sorry OS. if i recall correctly from the s2ki board and from all the dynos back in the days. stock for stock the 2.2L put out 12hp - 15hp more than the 2.0L. oh by the way the 2.0L are more exciting to drive
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 03:48 PM | #105 | |
Major General
531
Rep 5,498
Posts |
Quote:
I have spent quite a lot of my spare time dreaming about cool car projects to soak up my spare time. One thing I would like to do one day is to put a LS? into a cheap but well designed and balanced chasis. I rescently attended a local Euro show and saw a beautiful third gen RX-7 (why is what a Euro show, I dont know) sitting in a showcase with its hood open for all to see the Corvette engine it had hiding inside. The owner started it up for everyone and oh what a mean sound. Probably not how I would want it to sound (I like stealth). Anyone who has been around Japanese sports cars would know right away this was no rotory under the hood. Anyhoo, gorgeous install and awesome car. The 3rd gen RX-7 is a gorgeous sports car that has been tainted with years of finicky rotory engine gripes. The Vette engine solved that problem and upped the performance at the same time. While, I have no love or attachment to high performance Mazda's I naturally hope to one day have something similar in my garage to call my pride and joy. However, I dont think I could do that to my BMW. My love for the M3 (all gens) includes the metallic gruff sound of german engineering, the sometimes finicky electronics, and even the head aches associated with owning a European car. I love the good and bad.... I am sure the Jag owner you referred to in your story probably felt the same way about his finicky Brithish GT. I dont think I would go Ape Sh*t if I saw a E92 M3 pull up with a Vette engine. In fact I would probably ask for a ride. I just do not think I could do that to my precious german piece of of art. I dig the story though.... Jason
__________________
Instagram: jellismotorwerks |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 08:36 PM | #107 |
Major
75
Rep 1,288
Posts |
MB-AMG is working on direct injection for the 6.2l
Autoweek reports the DI version will have 580-600 HP
__________________
2009 135i 6MT Euro Delivery 9/5/09
BMW Performance Power Kit - Exhaust - Short Shifter - Suspension |
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 10:02 PM | #108 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
My customers were routinely happier with the 2.2, but I know what you mean about driving excitement. I always thought our '95 M3 was more fun to drive than than the subsequent 3.2 E36s, simply because the 3.2s filled in that torque valley below 3500 rpm that existed in the 3 liter car. The 3.2 was clearly better, but there was no rush at 3500, and it felt a little less responsive as a result. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 10:48 PM | #109 | |||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
It would also be a better car with an LS3 under the hood, because that engine makes more power with no weight penalty, and it carries its weight lower, allowing for a lower cg. Got it? Quote:
Quote:
This is completely unrelated to the LS3 issue. It's just me bitchin' about how cars keep getting bigger and heavier, inevitably subtracting something from the driving experience. I will have to reiterate, however, that this is the first M3 to reverse the "little M" trend since the first one of being better cars, but less fun to drive. You can feel the extra weight in this one alright, but the engine more than makes up for it compared with that raspy, tinny-sounding E46. Bruce |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
08-14-2008, 11:07 PM | #110 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
I believe both engines weigh what the manufacturers say they weigh, and I believe they're both weighed against a European standard, much like our U.S.-centric SAE standard for engine weights. I just don't know what that standard is, or how it may affect the results, if at all. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|