M3 vs C6?

[SS32]

10 pages worth
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105678

[Zervos4]

Honesty, I don't know why this is even a comparison....you should compare the vette to a mustang gt500 or something along those lines, and keep the M3 in the realm that it is already in....

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

have you seen the size of biting surface area? it is VERY small!

And your point would be? More on brakes below.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

wide panel are the epitome of cheapness, regardless of intentions.

Ah. Looks cheap. OK, we know a little more about your priorities.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

macpherson is front. compare apple for apple. multilink>any leaf spring. fact that GMs truck line uses the same suspension (oh, wait it is transverse boo hoo) bothers me, even though c6 does well on the track. i will not go into jarring ride and boat feeling. It is incomparable(as in worse) to multilink in terms of off-track handling.

So, you're saying MacPherson struts are OK, but leaf springs bother you? Huh.

I personally think the new Z51s ride quite well, but can't compare them to a new M3, since I haven't sampled one. My guess is that with adjustable shocks, the M3 will have a more supple ride when set on soft, but judging only by our E46 M3, the standard suspension on the new one will ride no better than a Vette.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

I concur. Whats questionable to me is GM's dedication in building a purpose build performance car. C6 is a a sports car by definition, M3 is not, yet by offering chrome bling on such car speaks volume of company's dedication to performance. Corvette is not chevy's bread and butter, so why are they trying to reach population that is not in performance.

I don't get the chrome wheel option as being a downer on the car at all, but hey, you feel the way you feel.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

Vette chassis is attractive (minus panel gaps), but M3 looks and feels like money from outside and inside. Vette has grown, but it is still playing catchup. It is difficult to discuss taste, but mine is obviously on M3 side.

Really? Who woulda thunk it?

I personally think the optional Vette interior is nicer than the M3 interior, but hey, it's not as if either of them challenge Audi.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

How does Z51 have better brakes than M3? M3 stops in shorter distance while carrying some 400lb more? I also like pretty brakes.

Z51 brakes are better because the pedal doesn't go to the floor after a couple of laps. Better sneakers on the M3 contribute to shorter stopping distances.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

I drive an M3 and will continue to drive one, not because it is the fastest or best looking car, but because it is the best jack of all trades. The fact that it almost beats a so-called purpose built car such as corvette at its own game is just another plus. Corvette is marginally better on track in terms of time, but vastly inferior in terms of feel and driver's comfort near and at limit. Stuff the same 305 (or whatever it is now) under M3, make it lose some weight and it will be just as competitive if not more.

To each his own, but unless you've got serious track experience in both a new Vette and a new M3, you're just blowing smoke. Corvettes are bona fide track rats that are pretty easy to drive at nine to ten tenths, and from what I read, so is the new M3 (except for the brakes, perhaps).

Originally Posted by malter2.0

Judging by extrovertness of vette's look and the size of the engine, I think the low self-esteem guy will pick a vette on any given day. In comparison to vette, M3 is humble car by any definition.

So you're back on image? Jeez.

Look, from my point of view, both of these cars are truly excellent machines. Since I am a badge whore for pretty much all of the manufacturers (seen the new Hyundai coupe yet?), I get a little hot under the collar when somebody trashes a truly fine offering - from anybody. It doesn't matter to me whether that trash talk is generated out of ignorance, or in your case, it seems mostly on image grounds.

Talk up the M3 all you want. It deserves praise, from my perspective.

- But so does the Vette. It is clearly not your cup of tea, but measured against other offerings worldwide, it is a hell of a fine car.

Bruce

[malter2.0]

And your point would be? More on brakes below.

Point is despite 13" rotor size, the length between inner and outer rotor diameter is small, thus brake pad bite surface area is small.

Ah. Looks cheap. OK, we know a little more about your priorities.

Point out where I stated it is a priority for me? It is quite noticeable so I commented on it. It looks cheap and unrefined.

I don't get the chrome wheel option as being a downer on the car at all, but hey, you feel the way you fee

It's not a downer on the car, but it is on the company that is offering bling on the purpose built sports car.

Z51 brakes are better because the pedal doesn't go to the floor after a couple of laps. Better sneakers on the M3 contribute to shorter stopping distances.

Probably because M3 brakes have better cold bite as the car is intended for street as well. Put better sneakers on the vette and track pads on M3 and story will be the same. 400lb difference is still there. Interestingly, you mentioned M3 has better sneakers, but forgot to mention it has skinnier tires both front and rear, none of it which helps with braking. Difference would be even bigger with fatter tires.

To each his own, but unless you've got serious track experience in both a new Vette and a new M3, you're just blowing smoke. Corvettes are bona fide track rats that are pretty easy to drive at nine to ten tenths, and from what I read, so is the new M3 (except for the brakes, perhaps).

To a seasoned vette tracker who knows the car, of course it will be easy to drive at the limit, but judging from reviews and from friends who have C6, car is considerably more difficult to drive at the limit. Car isn't exactly a scalpel or known by wonderful communicative steering.

Look, from my point of view, both of these cars are truly excellent machines. Since I am a badge whore for pretty much all of the manufacturers (seen the new Hyundai coupe yet?), I get a little hot under the collar when somebody trashes a truly fine offering - from anybody. It doesn't matter to me whether that trash talk is generated out of ignorance, or in your case, it seems mostly on image grounds.

Talk up the M3 all you want. It deserves praise, from my perspective.

- But so does the Vette. It is clearly not your cup of tea, but measured against other offerings worldwide, it is a hell of a fine car.

I respect corvette for what it is - cheap GREAT performance car. End justifies the means, so how that performance is generated is irrelevant to masses. I personally tend to appreciate finer things in life and BMW is finer and more sophisticated car in just about every regard, while still having a great performance.

I consider it an accomplishment to rev a V8 to 8400rpm. Extracting 436 hp from 6.2 L is not an accomplishment on N/A car (forget performance for a moment). Pushrod is not an accomplishment. Leaf springs are old technology, regardless of position. Chassis is still a boat. Interior is disastrous, look at the new malibu, grandprix, G6...same green dials, same gray LCD, same plumbing grade PVC for buttons. GM is not stupid, there is a reason why you can get a non Z51 '08 vette out the door for $40k. Fancier plastic, vinyl, paint, rubber all costs a pretty penny.

I do like to pick on vette's image, but don't take it to heart. For every image flaw vette has, BMW has one too. I just prefer BMWs. I would love to own a vette, but for $40k I would get rather get a 335i.

[m3lkr]

I do not intend to drag this out further, but I have to point out two things:

1) The M3 brakes that had heavy fade were from a car driven in a track overseas with race pads in place. That's why the writer was so perplexed.

2) I don't see the problem with a sports car have an OPTION for chrome wheels. Personally I like the polished look, but they're hard to keep nice even when clear coated. Chromes does not take away performance.

I do agree that the Vette can be harsh. Kind of like using a sledge hammer to get the job done, while the M3 uses a finely sharpened knife. Some like one and some like the other.

Talk about using a sledge hammer to get it done, the 60's A/C Cobra (Shelby, not Mustang)did just that and beat the Ferrari at it's own game and have go on to become a legend.

[1.8t]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

Point is despite 13" rotor size, the length between inner and outer rotor diameter is small, thus brake pad bite surface area is small.

You have got to be kidding me. Please tell me you understand basic physics.

As for everything else, stick to bench racing the mag times. Any real world experience would obviously have no relevance.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

...To a seasoned vette tracker who knows the car, of course it will be easy to drive at the limit, but judging from reviews and from friends who have C6, car is considerably more difficult to drive at the limit. Car isn't exactly a scalpel or known by wonderful communicative steering.

I personally believe that the new M3 will be easier to drive at the limit than almost anything else - because in my experience that's a BMW trait, going back to my early track experiences with our '95 M3. As a novice, 911s were pretty easy to pass on track, but as an instructor, they are formidable adversaries. (I should say were formidable adversaries, since I've gotten out of instructing.)

Trust me that Vettes are a ton more benign than Porsches at or near the limit, and are in fact not much more difficult to go fast in than a BMW.

This is one of those opinion things, and clearly you think that a car which is easier to take to its limits is better than one which is more difficult in that venue. But part of the Porsche mystique is that in order to go really fast, you've got to know what you're doing, and if you do, the car is rewarding in ways that pretty much can't be matched by anything else. To you, Porsches have a shortcoming compared to BMWs, but to others, they are immensely rewarding machines.

Vettes are fast as hell when being driven well, and it's easier to drive one well than a Porsche.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

I respect corvette for what it is - cheap GREAT performance car. End justifies the means, so how that performance is generated is irrelevant to masses. I personally tend to appreciate finer things in life and BMW is finer and more sophisticated car in just about every regard, while still having a great performance.

Ah, an elitest. You enjoy the finer things in life, so you don't mind getting exhaust blown in your grille as long as you're in something the proles can look up to.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

I consider it an accomplishment to rev a V8 to 8400rpm. Extracting 436 hp from 6.2 L is not an accomplishment on N/A car (forget performance for a moment). Pushrod is not an accomplishment. Leaf springs are old technology, regardless of position. Chassis is still a boat. Interior is disastrous, look at the new malibu, grandprix, G6...same green dials, same gray LCD, same plumbing grade PVC for buttons. GM is not stupid, there is a reason why you can get a non Z51 '08 vette out the door for $40k. Fancier plastic, vinyl, paint, rubber all costs a pretty penny.

Disagree on some things. Chassis is far from boatlike, optional interior is better than on the bimmer, coil springs are as old as leaf springs, etc. - but mostly it's around your pushrod vs 8400 rpm logic.

The extension of this logic is that you would turn your nose up at the M3 if it had the LS3 motor in it, even though it would be faster at the limit, handle a little better, be a ton faster in everyday driving and definitely get better mileage. You're clearly an intelligent person - but in this area (and from this prole's perspective), if you got any dumber they'd have to water you twice a week.

I just want to know how it goes, stops, handles and sounds, and I don't give a damn if it's steam powered.

Bruce

[m3lkr]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

I consider it an accomplishment to rev a V8 to 8400rpm. Extracting 436 hp from 6.2 L is not an accomplishment on N/A car (forget performance for a moment). Pushrod is not an accomplishment.

hhhmmmm. 6.2L 436HP, 424 ft-lb of torque AND 28 MPG on highway vs. 4.0L 414HP and 295 ft-lb of torque and 20 MPG on highway.

modern?? I would venture to say that the BIGGER, more economical, and fastly more powerful (torque) engine is more modern.

[RandyB]

The cars are as different as their engines. Two different ways to go fast. I respect the C6 because it is a great car but it just is not for me. It doesn't bother me in the least that it is the faster car in the same way as the Z06 and GT-R. I like the approach BMW has taken with their M cars even though most would argue that they are not as pure as they used to be because they are heavier and ride better.

I enjoy cars based entirely on the experience and my purchases will never be tied to any set of performance numbers. I would say the same thing even if the M3 won every performance category against every competitor and was cheaper to boot. It just doesn't matter if the car isn't enjoyable to drive from my perspective. I would hope it would be the same for all of those people who are lining up for the new GT-R. I'm sure it's an incredible experience in it's own right, albeit a different one same as the Corvettes.

Buy the one you enjoy the most. So far for me, that is the M3.

[m3lkr]

Originally Posted by RandyB

The cars are as different as their engines. Two different ways to go fast. I respect the C6 because it is a great car but it just is not for me. It doesn't bother me in the least that it is the faster car in the same way as the Z06 and GT-R. I like the approach BMW has taken with their M cars even though most would argue that they are not as pure as they used to be because they are heavier and ride better.

I enjoy cars based entirely on the experience and my purchases will never be tied to any set of performance numbers. I would say the same thing even if the M3 won every performance category against every competitor and was cheaper to boot. It just doesn't matter if the car isn't enjoyable to drive from my perspective. I would hope it would be the same for all of those people who are lining up for the new GT-R. I'm sure it's an incredible experience in it's own right, albeit a different one same as the Corvettes.

Buy the one you enjoy the most. So far for me, that is the M3.

That's a great point. I am a Vette guy that is seriously consider moving to an M3 due to the above. I feel it has enough performance for me, but has better quality over all and has room for my family, so we can all have fun, not just two at a time. . .

[malter2.0]

I personally believe that the new M3 will be easier to drive at the limit than almost anything else

So if you are acknowledging this, why are you pushing vette as being some omnipotent track car? We clearly agree that M3 is superior at the limit and as such a better engineered track car in that aspect.

This is one of those opinion things, and clearly you think that a car which is easier to take to its limits is better than one which is more difficult in that venue.

It is not an opinion, but a fact. Confidence inspiring car is deemed more successful by any standard, not just mine. As an engineering project M3 is successful because among other things it is safe when pushed or at least safer than competitors.

Porsche mystique is that in order to go really fast, you've got to know what you're doing, and if you do, the car is rewarding in ways that pretty much can't be matched by anything else. To you, Porsches have a shortcoming compared to BMWs, but to others, they are immensely rewarding machines. Vettes are fast as hell when being driven well, and it's easier to drive one well than a Porsche.

That's strawman argument because I never used a Porsche as an example. You are simply drawing a parallel and knocking down a caricature to advance your line of thought.

Using the same fallacy, I could say that Ford F350 dually is difficult to drive at the limit so, therefore it must be immensely rewarding, and as such, be a better track vehicle, all of which is absurd.

But to address your Porsche example - limits on rear engine car are inherently higher in comparison to equivalent front engine/RWD configuration, that in comparison, Porsche will feel faster because it really is. This is the prime reason why it is rewarding - you can go 8/10 and be content.

Ah, an elitest. You enjoy the finer things in life, so you don't mind getting exhaust blown in your grille as long as you're in something the proles can look up to.

Irrespective of your qualification of me, fact remains that M3 is all that I have mentioned.

Disagree on some things. Chassis is far from boatlike, optional interior is better than on the bimmer, coil springs are as old as leaf springs, etc. - but mostly it's around your pushrod vs 8400 rpm logic.

Unless you think that cheaper, uglier and obviously less luxurious interior is better, than so be it. 5-link rear is not as old as leaf springs and corvette chassis is like a boat. Visibility is piss poor and ride is less sophisticated, latter which you acknowledging twice.

The extension of this logic is that you would turn your nose up at the M3 if it had the LS3 motor in it, even though it would be faster at the limit, handle a little better, be a ton faster in everyday driving and definitely get better mileage.

LS3 motor is not superior to M3s V8 in any shape or form, INCLUDING ECONOMY. M3 is dragging extra 400lb and it is expected to have worse gas mileage. This has all to do with weight and nothing to do with motor. Look at the GTO to really see what LSX gulps down. It would not sit at lower center of gravity than german V8 and it is marginally lighter if any.

Still a pushrod.

I just want to know how it goes, stops, handles and sounds, and I don't give a damn if it's steam powered.

Stops worse, handles worse (on and off track, lower skidpad, WITH far wider tires), sounds like any other truck and is as quick and fast as M3. 4.1 to 60mph, traps 115mph are the numbers for M3 and vette is in the same ballpark. I am not going to, but I could also tell you're an elitist because you enjoy cars which handle, stop and sound good. It's a two way street. I am not knocking down vette for it is, but rather for what it isn't.

[swamp2]

Guys, good discussion as usual with the "heat" that many of us are known for. My only comments are these:

1. I know you are going to get really sore about this Malter, but the Vette has an advanced multi link aluminum rear suspension. As I have said before, the spring element is pretty much independent of the arm configuration and geometry. You can have single arm with leaf, single arm with gas/spring shock or multi-link with both as well.
2. I agree that the small swept area of the Vettes rear brakes looks a but funny. But it was also intentional. A small swept area (per ton) typically does translate to ppor brake performance but you have to think about the entire system, brake heating/cooling, balance, initial bite, fade, pedal effort etc. and despite how they look the brakes on the car are pretty darn good.

Bruce: What the heck was the comment about chemistry and physics and how that relates to body panel gaps. I totally missed the point.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

...Bruce: What the heck was the comment about chemistry and physics and how that relates to body panel gaps. I totally missed the point.

The composite body panels thermally expand and contract much more than steel or aluminum.

Bruce

[rai]

Originally Posted by m3lkr

hhhmmmm. 6.2L 436HP, 424 ft-lb of torque AND 28 MPG on highway vs. 4.0L 414HP and 295 ft-lb of torque and 20 MPG on highway.

modern?? I would venture to say that the BIGGER, more economical, and fastly more powerful (torque) engine is more modern.

the Corvette is more economical for a couple of reasons mainly gearing. The EPA tests a car by a system and the Corvette works that system very well.

1) corvette has a computer assisted gear shift, meaning on low acceleration part throttle it will force a 1-4 shift. Meaning you can't go 1-2 (unless you are on more of the throttle) so in low speeds it will force 1-4 shift which keeps the RPMs low and thus burns less gas. Physics more HP (more RPMs) means more gas used. So a M3 is turning more revs and thus closer to the peak power. Many people disable this 'feature' on the vette since it serves performance driving nothing. Once it passes the EPA test GM could care less if you drive with the 1-4 shift feature.

2) the Corvette's gearing is very long. I mean probably if you look at the max speed in each gear the M3 will be like 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180 (if able to make top speed) and the Corvette may be more like 40, 70, 120, 160, 200, 240 (or such) meaning in 6th gear at 70 mph you will be like 3000 rpm in the M3 and 1500 rpm in the corvette. What that means is the Corvette gets better gas mileage and probably 5th gear in the Corvette will feel more like 6th in the M3. This makes the M3 feel quicker or as quick as the Corvette in spite of it's weight but it takes the toll on gas mileage.

If BMW wanted the M3 to get better gas mileage it would have OD in more gears and in 6th gear it would be a dog since it would be turning 1500 rpms instead of close to 3000 rpms. The amount of power being used at 3000 rpm means worse gas mileage.

I think the M3 is first a performance car, people want performance so they will give up fuel economy as long as the car feels (and is) fast. People don't want a long geared M3 which would be slower but get better economy.

The Vette has a larger engine 50% more displacement and more TQ so it can live at lower rpms and still get good power/acceleration.

If you look at my car the S2000 it has an even higher rpm so it can feel peppy, but it's gas mileage is not much better than th Vette because the S2000 may be 4500 rpm where the Vette is 1500 rpm at the same speed. The Vette is 3x larger engine than the S2000 engine, but the S2000 doesn't feels 3x slower cos it's burning a lot (or the same fuel) at the same speed. a S2000 at 4500 rpm may be making the same power as the Vette at 1500 rpm.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The composite body panels thermally expand and contract much more than steel or aluminum.

Bruce

Hmmm not so sure. Most the the M3s fenders are composite as well. SMC (sheet molding compound) I believe. Composites can have a tailored CTE but I don't think there is much you can do with SMC besides change the basic constituents. Either way if this is the real reason the Vette has poor body panel fit then the M3 should have it as well.

[th3Stig]

anyone comparing a C6 and new M3 is a moron.


I'm with 1.8t, get your heads on straight and come back down to Earth.

[malter2.0]

1. I know you are going to get really sore about this Malter, but the Vette has an advanced multi link aluminum rear suspension. As I have said before, the spring element is pretty much independent of the arm configuration and geometry. You can have single arm with leaf, single arm with gas/spring shock or multi-link with both as well.

I'm not. Yes, I know it is an IRS and it is better than previous generation and far more advanced than other GM "sports cars", but it is still years behind germans.

2. I agree that the small swept area of the Vettes rear brakes looks a but funny. But it was also intentional. A small swept area (per ton) typically does translate to ppor brake performance but you have to think about the entire system, brake heating/cooling, balance, initial bite, fade, pedal effort etc. and despite how they look the brakes on the car are pretty darn good.

They are excellent brakes, but the car does not brake shorter or better than M3. If you take into account the weight of M3, difference is even bigger. Yes, I agree all those things do play a part in braking, but it would be way too exhausting to cover every aspect, because that is an entire different topic. Based on his statements, I think Bruce knows well what makes a car brake well, so it was needless to cover obvious fundamentals.


We are comparing two cars that have 400lb of difference. Fat one has considerably skinnier tires, is taller and narrower, but it is able to brake better and generate higher numbers on skidpad. What does this tell you about chassis design, brakes, suspension and engineering?

You have 2.2 L less displacement, 20hp less, 110ft.lb torque less, but you have pretty much EXACT numbers to 60mph and 1/4 trap speeds, AGAIN while having 400lb more.

There is NOTHING to argue which car is better. Zero. Nada. Nil. You get what you pay for, always was and always will be like this in the world.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

So if you are acknowledging this, why are you pushing vette as being some omnipotent track car? We clearly agree that M3 is superior at the limit and as such a better engineered track car in that aspect.

I personally don't think the Vette is omnipotent on track - just faster than the M3. We don't agree that the M3 is superior at the limit. I know you think it's pretty much omnipotent at the limit, but you haven't driven one at the limit, nor have I. The difference is that you're a fanboy and I'm not, so I'm not sure how good it'll be at the limit and you are.

Look, let me give you a case in point. The E46 M3 was pretty easy to take to its limits (compared to, say, a 911), but it wasn't very rewarding to do that with the car. In fact, it was an understeering pig on track, and all the track guys I know were looking for ways to fix that basic problem.

Hell, I could stay with the E46 cars through the twisty bits with my SRT4, although they'd walk away on the straights with another 100 HP on tap.

From what I've read so far, the new M3 is better than the old one in that regard, but you have to know that hype abounds right now. The real story will come out only over time. This is true of any "important" new car release, by the way, so I'm not picking on the M3.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

It is not an opinion, but a fact. Confidence inspiring car is deemed more successful by any standard, not just mine. As an engineering project M3 is successful because among other things it is safe when pushed or at least safer than competitors.

As I mentioned above, how the car acts at the limit is really important. What if it's an understeering pig?

Originally Posted by malter2.0

That's strawman argument because I never used a Porsche as an example. You are simply drawing a parallel and knocking down a caricature to advance your line of thought.

I don't know what "knocking down a caricature" means in this context, but I was certainly drawing a parallel by way of edification. Something wrong with that?

Originally Posted by malter2.0

But to address your Porsche example - limits on rear engine car are inherently higher in comparison to equivalent front engine/RWD configuration, that in comparison, Porsche will feel faster because it really is. This is the prime reason why it is rewarding - you can go 8/10 and be content.

First of all, what the heck limits are you talking about? Certainly not cornering, I hope. Secondly, the Porsche isn't faster than a Vette - it's just faster than an M3. 7:59 at the ring with standard sneakers.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

LS3 motor is not superior to M3s V8 in any shape or form, INCLUDING ECONOMY. M3 is dragging extra 400lb and it is expected to have worse gas mileage. This has all to do with weight and nothing to do with motor. Look at the GTO to really see what LSX gulps down. It would not sit at lower center of gravity than german V8 and it is marginally lighter if any.

Still a pushrod.

I hardly know where to start. As mentioned, the LS3 motor weighs about the same as the M3 engine (actually about nine pounds less) and occupies about the same amount of real estate under the hood. It's not as tall as the M3 V8, however. Because of the M3 DOHC configuration. a lot of the total weight is in the heads (cam towers, cams and valve control paraphernalia). Therefore, the LS3 would have a potential (and very minor) positive effect on handling because of a slightly lower center of gravity when installed in an M3. It also makes about five percent more power, and 45% more torque.

Fuel economy? One of my sons drives fast planes and fast cars. His '05 GTO is rated at 17/25 under the old EPA standard, which should equate to, what, 16/23 under the revised standard? It weighs 3800 pounds.

Superior? Strong word. I would say the LS3 is better than the M3 engine in many respects. It probably only loses out in overall smoothness and "zinginess" - I think. Maybe not.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

Stops worse, handles worse (on and off track, lower skidpad, WITH far wider tires), sounds like any other truck and is as quick and fast as M3. 4.1 to 60mph, traps 115mph are the numbers for M3 and vette is in the same ballpark. I am not going to, but I could also tell you're an elitist because you enjoy cars which handle, stop and sound good. It's a two way street. I am not knocking down vette for it is, but rather for what it isn't.

So far, the evidence suggests Vettes are quicker than M3s on racetracks. You're quoting the best you can think of for the M3 in terms of acceleration (and it feels like a flyer, since those numbers don't seem to be repeatable), but Vettes routinely run mid to lower 12s in the quarter mile.

By the way, I'm turning into an M3 fan, and am certainly a fan of the engine. Perhaps I'm falling for routine hype, but I'm starting to salute. With the new automatic it very well may be something special, I think.

Bruce

PS - I left your elitest comment in there just because I wanted people to enjoy it one more time.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Hmmm not so sure. Most the the M3s fenders are composite as well. SMC (sheet molding compound) I believe. Composites can have a tailored CTE but I don't think there is much you can do with SMC besides change the basic constituents. Either way if this is the real reason the Vette has poor body panel fit then the M3 should have it as well.

Swamp, think about it, please. Fenders aren't the problem. Doors are the problem. And by the way, the Vette doesn't have poor body panel fit. It just has wider gaps - particularly between the doors and the fenders.

Bruce

Edit: PS - Next time you come upon a Vette, check the gaps between parts that have no room to expand without contacting another body panel.

[malter2.0]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I personally don't think the Vette is omnipotent on track - just faster than the M3. We don't agree that the M3 is superior at the limit. I know you think it's pretty much omnipotent at the limit, but you haven't driven one at the limit, nor have I. The difference is that you're a fanboy and I'm not, so I'm not sure how good it'll be at the limit and you are.

I'm a believer, what can I say.

But lets get something clear here. Earlier you said the following:

I personally believe that the new M3 will be easier to drive at the limit than almost anything else - because in my experience that's a BMW trait, going back to my early track experiences with our '95 M3.

and now you are saying:

We don't agree that the M3 is superior at the limit.


Please pick a stance, and then we can move on to discussion. If I have to copy and paste random contradictions then we are not going anywhere.

From what I've read so far, the new M3 is better than the old one in that regard, but you have to know that hype abounds right now. The real story will come out only over time. This is true of any "important" new car release, by the way, so I'm not picking on the M3.
As I mentioned above, how the car acts at the limit is really important. What if it's an understeering pig?

I agree with you here. Fluff and hype will settle down like on any other car once problems surface. 95 M3s were oversteering, 96-99 M3 were understeering. It was a matter of slightly different sway bar setup and staggered setup on latter years. I owned both years and it is super easy to turn either year in whichever setup you prefer. Same thing with E46. I don't think it will be any different with new M3, but I could be wrong. I believe 911s tend to go from undesteering to snap oversteer, which again is mostly attributed to their bizzare rear engine setup. M3s are perfectly balanced and as such, much easier to setup.

I don't know what "knocking down a caricature" means in this context, but I was certainly drawing a parallel by way of edification. Something wrong with that?

Yea, it is wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

First of all, what the heck limits are you talking about? Certainly not cornering, I hope. Secondly, the Porsche isn't faster than a Vette - it's just faster than an M3. 7:59 at the ring with standard sneakers.

What I mean is that Porsche is likely to carry more speed into and out of the corner, thus driving it 8/10 (without pushing) gives you probably the same feel as driving M3 at 9.5/10, since the corner entry/exit/apex speed is essentially the same, despite one being driven harder.

I hardly know where to start. As mentioned, the LS3 motor weighs about the same as the M3 engine (actually about nine pounds less) and occupies about the same amount of real estate under the hood.

So you are counting LS3s 9lb as lighter engine? Funny. Thats pretty much the same to me, give or take a bottle of windshield washer fluid. Gallon of fluid is lil' over 8 lb.

It's not as tall as the M3 V8, however. Because of the M3 DOHC configuration. a lot of the total weight is in the heads (cam towers, cams and valve control paraphernalia).

Cams and valves a lot of weight? That is ridiculous. S65B40 rods weigh 623 g. Pistons including rings and pins 481.7 g, crank for example weighs only 20 kg. Entire valve train is even lighter.

Therefore, the LS3 would have a potential (and very minor) positive effect on handling because of a slightly lower center of gravity when installed in an M3. It also makes about five percent more power, and 45% more torque.

Very minor indeed. You would have a lot more low end torque, which I never disputed. LS3 is a great engine in terms of power.

Fuel economy? One of my sons drives fast planes and fast cars. His '05 GTO is rated at 17/25 under the old EPA standard, which should equate to, what, 16/23 under the revised standard? It weighs 3800 pounds.

Interesting you mention this because GTO with manual is 16/23, but 2005 GTO automatic is even worse than M3. It is 14/19. Manual tranny overdrive making that much difference. Considering M3 has more aggressive gearing than vette and auto tranny on GTO likely has more aggressive gearing than manual this makes complete sense. Conclusion is (again) that famously hyped up LS3 gas mileage is simply related to car's weight, not engine economy.

Superior? Strong word. I would say the LS3 is better than the M3 engine in many respects. It probably only loses out in overall smoothness and "zinginess" - I think. Maybe not.

Total performance wise it is not superior. Performance per liter (which I find useless, but from engineering standpoint pretty impressive) is superior. Again, I am not knocking down LSX engine. It is a great powerhouse, but there is nothing innovative about extracting 70hp per liter. Old stingrays made that same power almost 50 years ago, albeit with a lot worse gas economy.

So far, the evidence suggests Vettes are quicker than M3s on racetracks. You're quoting the best you can think of for the M3 in terms of acceleration (and it feels like a flyer, since those numbers don't seem to be repeatable), but Vettes routinely run mid to lower 12s in the quarter mile.

Most M3s that were tested were not past its 1200 miles break in. Do you honestly expect such a car to deliver its best numbers? LS3 has been out for some time now--enough time to get enough information and find out what they typically run. So far M3s run from 4.1-4.X and trap from low to mid 110s. Variance is too small too claim corvette as quicker and faster car.
Again, more weight, less power, less torque and making identical numbers speak volumes. I honestly don't understand what are we arguing about?

By the way, I'm turning into an M3 fan, and am certainly a fan of the engine. Perhaps I'm falling for routine hype, but I'm starting to salute. With the new automatic it very well may be something special, I think.

I want to like MDCT/DKG ..whatever...but I can't stomach 2 pedals on the floor. I'm sure it will be faster and what not, but I would take mine with proper 6-speed manual transmission.

PS - I left your elitest comment in there just because I wanted people to enjoy it once more time.

:-)

-Regards,

Elitist&fanboy

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

We are comparing two cars that have 400lb of difference. Fat one has considerably skinnier tires, is taller and narrower, but it is able to brake better and generate higher numbers on skidpad. What does this tell you about chassis design, brakes, suspension and engineering?

You have 2.2 L less displacement, 20hp less, 110ft.lb torque less, but you have pretty much EXACT numbers to 60mph and 1/4 trap speeds, AGAIN while having 400lb more.

There is NOTHING to argue which car is better. Zero. Nada. Nil. You get what you pay for, always was and always will be like this in the world.

I agree with most of this. The M3 is definitely under-tired, not in terms of tire quality but tire quantity - specifically width. M3s have always been over performers in many ways. The chassis and suspension play key roles not only in handling but in braking and even acceleration. Put simply M3s seem to be able to just hook up and go, stick in the turns and stop on a dime.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Swamp, think about it, please. Fenders aren't the problem. Doors are the problem. And by the way, the Vette doesn't have poor body panel fit. It just has wider gaps - particularly between the doors and the fenders.

Bruce

Edit: PS - Next time you come upon a Vette, check the gaps between parts that have no room to expand without contacting another body panel.

I don't get your point, nor your PS. I realize that doors are more rigid and more rigidly attached to the body. I also know the M3 has steel doors. I don't know what the Vette doors are made from but whatever they are I'd be they have a lot of steel in them for crash reinforcement, just like the M3.

Either way to me wide body gaps = poor quality, period.