What is the M3's biggest weakness?

[davesaddiction]

Originally Posted by ferrari6891

weakness: it's a huge dick magnet.

Didn't even make the list!

http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-ultimate...nets-450711108

[NYBulldog]

The driver... a bad one

[bga23]

Originally Posted by davesaddiction

Didn't even make the list!

http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-ultimate...nets-450711108

There are a shitton more cars that will attract a dude than there are that will get you a girl. Most women couldn't care less what we drive, unless it is a Bentley (or the like) and then all she is interested in is your bank acct.

[ozinaldo]

Hi to all, nice discussion here,

I don't have a M3 but had some time on the wheel and owned a E90 330i for a few years and now since one and a half year a 1M of which E9X M3 is one of the donor cars (respect!)

Since buying it (M3) was a real alternative to 1M for me two years ago, I felt like I could say what was the bottomline for me to go for the 1M and not M3 which is the same thing that you guys discuss here:

Dealbreaker was and still is the size and weight for me and with that order.

There may be lots of other things but they are quite minor issues, like the lack of creative interior design, stupid cupholders (of all 3 series), absence of dipstick etc. etc.

Coming from a car (1M) which has monster and loveable torque (bone stock dynoes point minimum 400 to maximum 430 lb.ft of crank torque and almost that level between 2000 to 5500 rpm), I have to say M3 does not have an issue with lack of torque. Yes it does not have that kind of torque but it has a lovely and super flat torque curve which only adds to the high revving nature of the car, it is like a race engine and I find it irrelevant to complain about that, the same goes for 1M when people complain it doesn't rev 8000 something rpm, they deliver differently. 1M goes to target more or less the same time of a manual M3 but makes it in its own way; I find the M3 engine perfect for its own purpose.

However, M3 is not as sharp and agile as the 1M. Its just the size and weight that shadows the whole package imho.

Hope that you guys will take it as a constructive contribution to discussion, cheers.

[JC919]

Originally Posted by davesaddiction

Weight.

Ding, ding, fucking ding.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by M3takesNYC

Sounds like you are not familiar with the S54. The ONLY reason it made a higher torque than average for that size of motor was its absolutely bizarre oversquare engine that revved that high. That is why it was so stressed as well. Longer stroke engines given the same size or properties will give you more torque but at the cost of a power band or torque curve that is not as consistently flat for as long of a period as the longer stroke compromises breathing up top of the revs which is exactly what you see with that engine. You notice how much quicker and more the top end torque curve drops off.

And sure the s65 could have made a lot more torque in the middle of the curve but at the cose of a more narrow torque curve that fell off much more quickly. Look at the e60 M5. While more torque per litre, again the toorque curve falls off much more quickly and is not as flat as the m3. Notice even with this peak power per litre is greater in the m3.

So again you look at driveability as well as area under the curve and the s65 is not oversquared for one, so comparing it to the s54 is silly as that design would not withstand 8400 rpms well nor would it breath up top.

COmpromises made the s65 be able to have the torque and power curves it has where it pulls well beyond 8400 rpms because it can breath very well at the top with a bit of sacrifce at low end power

First of all, a nit: Engines with a smaller bore and longer stroke are known to be undersquare.

Second, a question: Exactly how does a longer stroke add torque?

Third, how does a shorter stroke make for a flat torque curve?

Fourth, why is a flat torque curve the ne plus ultra of automotive wonderfulness? Serious answer, please.

Fifth, in my opinion, a current M3 that made 327 pound feet of torque at 4900 rpm could easily be tuned to make the same 414 HP at 8300 as it now does, and as a result, the car would be quicker down a drag strip (earlier torque, and more torque after each shift), and quicker out of every corner.

Lastly, check the torque per liter of the Ferrari 458. There's just no physical reason why the M3 couldn't produce that level of output - and you sure as hell don't need a long stroke to make torque. Or do you want to challenge that assertion.

Look, we're all agreed that the S65 is a world-class engine. We're just discussing comparative weaknesses.

Bruce

Edit: I killed the "Calm down a bit, would you?" comment up front in this note. Not warranted on my part. Sorry.

[Peahi]

The m3's biggest weakness is so many whiny owners.

[jonasaurus]

Weight and lack of exhaust sound. Brakes not the prettiest but they do the job as far as DD goes.

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by Peahi

The m3's biggest weakness is so many whiny owners.

Rumor has it BMW will offer a special package with the F8x M3/4 just for the whiners. 'Tis the ZSTFUP.

[Savage_M3]

How about that they didn't offer a GTS or CRT version in the states? That might have satisfied some of the hard core track enthusiasts.

The brakes off the GTS would also have been a nice to have. Maybe as a option with the Competition package?

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

First of all, a nit: Engines with a smaller bore and longer stroke are known to be undersquare.

Second, a question: Exactly how does a longer stroke add torque?

Third, how does a shorter stroke make for a flat torque curve?

Fourth, why is a flat torque curve the ne plus ultra of automotive wonderfulness? Serious answer, please.

Fifth, in my opinion, a current M3 that made 327 pound feet of torque at 4900 rpm could easily be tuned to make the same 414 HP at 8300 as it now does, and as a result, the car would be quicker down a drag strip (earlier torque, and more torque after each shift), and quicker out of every corner.

Lastly, check the torque per liter of the Ferrari 458. There's just no physical reason why the M3 couldn't produce that level of output - and you sure as hell don't need a long stroke to make torque. Or do you want to challenge that assertion.

Look, we're all agreed that the S65 is a world-class engine. We're just discussing comparative weaknesses.

Bruce

Edit: I killed the "Calm down a bit, would you?" comment up front in this note. Not warranted on my part. Sorry.

I hope I cover all of your points:

Bruce you are right, a longer stroke don't affect peak torque very much at all but it does decrease the RPM at which peak torque occurs. Another benefit to a longer stroke is that it can make an engine more responsive since Piston acceleration off of TDC is increased and it causes a greater velocity intake charge entering the cylinder.

Shorter/longer stroke don't have a lot of effect on the shape of the torque curve but more the point at which the peak torque occurs. Camshaft selection, Variable camshaft timing, variable intake manifolds and port design have a lot more effect on the shape of the torque curve than the stroke. One thing that does affect the fall off of torque at high RPM is the fact that a larger bore allows an engine to breath better in the higher RPM ranges since it un-shrouds the valves and allows better flow. When building an engine a square or close to square design is generally the best compromise for responsiveness, low end torque, high end power and durability (due to reduced forces on the rotating assembly compared to an under square design).

A flat torque curve provides the most linear power delivery and arguably the most drivable engine since it has torque anywhere in the rev range. This is one of the main reasons why many of the new turbocharged engines list peak torque numbers from xxxxRPM to xxxxRPM......... a flat torque curve is a very desirable thing for an engine to have and with modern engine control systems with electronic boost control manufacturers are able to manipulate boost to obtain that perfectly flat torque curve.

I believe the reason the S65 don't have the same torque output per litre as the S54 comes down to the limitations of the amount of space available to design an intake plenum, cylinder head, port design and exhaust header with the limited space available when using a V8 engine as opposed to the inline 6. Anyone that has worked in an engine bay can realize the flexibility and ease of access one has when working on an inline engine as opposed to a V engine. Engineers have to deal with this lack of space and compromise because of it too. I am quite sure that when the S65 was first prototyped it was noted that torque per litre was down, I think M's compromise was to endow it with the flattest torque curve possible.

Finally there is one main reason why the 458 has way more power and torque per litre than the S65 $$$$$$$. The engine in the 458 most likely costs as much as an entire M3........ That is not really an apples to apples comparison in my opinion.......... I bet the 458 engine is just amazing though, I drove a F430 and even that engine was amazing.

[JJunkins]

This thread should be burned. Superman knows no kryptonite!

[klammer]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

I hope I cover all of your points:

Bruce you are right, a longer stroke don't affect peak torque very much at all but it does decrease the RPM at which peak torque occurs. Another benefit to a longer stroke is that it can make an engine more responsive since Piston acceleration off of TDC is increased and it causes a greater velocity intake charge entering the cylinder.

Shorter/longer stroke don't have a lot of effect on the shape of the torque curve but more the point at which the peak torque occurs. Camshaft selection, Variable camshaft timing, variable intake manifolds and port design have a lot more effect on the shape of the torque curve than the stroke. One thing that does affect the fall off of torque at high RPM is the fact that a larger bore allows an engine to breath better in the higher RPM ranges since it un-shrouds the valves and allows better flow. When building an engine a square or close to square design is generally the best compromise for responsiveness, low end torque, high end power and durability (due to reduced forces on the rotating assembly compared to an under square design).

A flat torque curve provides the most linear power delivery and arguably the most drivable engine since it has torque anywhere in the rev range. This is one of the main reasons why many of the new turbocharged engines list peak torque numbers from xxxxRPM to xxxxRPM......... a flat torque curve is a very desirable thing for an engine to have and with modern engine control systems with electronic boost control manufacturers are able to manipulate boost to obtain that perfectly flat torque curve.

I believe the reason the S65 don't have the same torque output per litre as the S54 comes down to the limitations of the amount of space available to design an intake plenum, cylinder head, port design and exhaust header with the limited space available when using a V8 engine as opposed to the inline 6. Anyone that has worked in an engine bay can realize the flexibility and ease of access one has when working on an inline engine as opposed to a V engine. Engineers have to deal with this lack of space and compromise because of it too. I am quite sure that when the S65 was first prototyped it was noted that torque per litre was down, I think M's compromise was to endow it with the flattest torque curve possible.

Finally there is one main reason why the 458 has way more power and torque per litre than the S65 $$$$$$$. The engine in the 458 most likely costs as much as an entire M3........ That is not really an apples to apples comparison in my opinion.......... I bet the 458 engine is just amazing though, I drove a F430 and even that engine was amazing.

Once again, great info

[mamadub]

Originally Posted by ferrari6891

weakness: it's a huge dick magnet.

This is a strength for me!! However, I would say soft paint is a huge weakness. I detail my car with one eye closed just not to see all the little chips.

[Mr. ///M3 RD]

Originally Posted by Mike van D

#1 for me is the brakes as well, but agree that shedding some pounds would help a bit.

Mike, have you been up and down shifting or do you just use the brake? Don't know if you have MT or DCT, try up and down shifting instead of hard braking and anticipate stops you will (as I'm sure you know) save your brakes.

[Kong Sheng Han]

Originally Posted by M3RD

Mike, have you been up and down shifting or do you just use the brake? Don't know if you have MT or DCT, try up and down shifting instead of hard braking and anticipate stops you will (as I'm sure you know) save your brakes.

Here's another tip if you don't already use it: When nearing an intersection, look at the crosswalk lights to see how much time you have left before your light hits red.

[sensi09]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

You did not find me any engines that had considerably more torque than the M3 V8 at around 4.0 Litres. I was not talking about equal numbers, I was talking about wayyyy more...... There aren't any that is why....... The GT3 RS and RS 4.0 are two of the few engines that have considerably more torque in an equal displacement category. Otherwise the M3 makes good torque for it's displacement, not the torquiest but above average for sure when it comes to torque per litre.

The reason why the engine wasn't built for absolute maximum torque was that some compromise had to be made to port design and cam choice to achieve the broad torque curve that the engineers wanted out of this engine. This is illustrated by the fact that it has one of the flattest NA torque curves out there for a production engine!

Finally, the reason for not going with a larger displacement engine was that M wanted a high revving engine with the S65. As engine displacement increases the mass of internal components inevitably have to increase as do bearing journal diameters to deal with the extra forces generated by the added mass of components and higher forces that are a result of this. The problem is that heavy components do not want change direction as easily (When the pistons reach TDC and BDC and then reverse their direction) especially at higher engine speeds and larger journal diameters result in extremely high linear bearing speeds at the bearing surface. So in order to build an engine that turns 8K+ and has to last more than a few hundred miles smaller displacement is necessary, unless you start using exotic metals and extremely expensive components that aren't sensible for series production.

Well I did mention the porsche engines.

Anyhow, the GTS shows that BMW can build a slightly larger displacement engine with the same redline just fine. I believe the 4.0 V8 is due in part to the S85 as the two engines share the same bore and stroke.

The low range and having to fill up is likely a universal complaint, but if the car had more torque then it could probably be fitted with a true overdrive gear in both 6mt and DCT. Off-topic, but I read that the new chevy considered a turbo V6 for the C7, but "Chevy rejected a twin-turbo V-6 because while it delivered on power, it didn't improve fuel economy." Part of that due to overdrive gears and more available torque with the V8. Rather interesting when you compare to the new turbo engines in the M4.

[M3takesNYC]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

First of all, a nit: Engines with a smaller bore and longer stroke are known to be undersquare.

Second, a question: Exactly how does a longer stroke add torque?

Third, how does a shorter stroke make for a flat torque curve?

Fourth, why is a flat torque curve the ne plus ultra of automotive wonderfulness? Serious answer, please.

Fifth, in my opinion, a current M3 that made 327 pound feet of torque at 4900 rpm could easily be tuned to make the same 414 HP at 8300 as it now does, and as a result, the car would be quicker down a drag strip (earlier torque, and more torque after each shift), and quicker out of every corner.

Lastly, check the torque per liter of the Ferrari 458. There's just no physical reason why the M3 couldn't produce that level of output - and you sure as hell don't need a long stroke to make torque. Or do you want to challenge that assertion.

Look, we're all agreed that the S65 is a world-class engine. We're just discussing comparative weaknesses.

Bruce

Edit: I killed the "Calm down a bit, would you?" comment up front in this note. Not warranted on my part. Sorry.

I have noticed you post a lot of threads that really technically do not have correct information.

An undersquare, long stroke engine given a similar CC/cylinder which both engines are about 500cc per cylinder, allows, as above mentioned a faster piston speed which by default limits its usable torque range into the higher rpms so also as mentioned torque peak is tuned at a lower rpm. Inherent in a longstroke engine is the inability to breath at higher RPMS. While the S54 redlines at 8K it drops its torque a lot earlier and harder than the S65 so the engine was simply not able to be tuned for a high rpm and thus did not have to make concessions that the S65 did in terms of trading some low torque in order to have the flat curve to almost 8K. This means the S54 could tune for maximum torque with a shorter band. The S65 has a longer torque band because it was able to breath up high with shorter stroke and thus maximum torque is inherently lower.

So while it is not the longer stroke itself, its what a longer stroke limits an engine to and what it allows you to do, which is create torque down low and more torque down low because its difficult and not desirable to flatten a torque curve out to nearly as high RPM.

Comparing an S65 to a Ferrari 458 is just silly. That is like saying it should have 700 hp because its displacement is bigger than an F1 car. With money comes lighter parts, more R and D and less of a one-size-fits-all engine build which the M still has to be a bit more liveable than a ferrari requires.

So before you tell someone to cool it, perhaps learn about undersquare vs square engines and the impact on torque peak and torque curve vs a similar displacement engine per liter engine that is square.

[jerseygirl]

Originally Posted by LarThaL

We all know what a great overall car it is, but if you had to pick one weak point, what is it?

My vote: Undersized tires. Needs 255/295 stock IMO.

i wish it was much faster off the line. its fast if you hit it right. but i want something idiot proof

[davesaddiction]

If you get a GT-R, the computers will do it all for you!

[M3AG]

Rear seat center armrest?

[urBan_dK]

You really shouldn't call Bruce out....

Originally Posted by M3takesNYC

I have noticed you post a lot of threads that really technically do not have correct information.

When you make statements like this:

Originally Posted by M3takesNYC

Sounds like you are not familiar with the S54. The ONLY reason it made a higher torque than average for that size of motor was its absolutely bizarre oversquare engine that revved that high.

You need to check your technical info here. The S54 is undersquare.

Don't throw rocks in glass houses, and all that....