Discussion about M3 torque

arr0gant · 05-27-2009, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subw00er

Cant really comment, I've only driven a few 911s's.

I own a 08 m3 btw. Have you driven the s2k and evaluated it, observing that its 1/2 to 1/3rd the price of these other cars?

I'm surprised that you think the M3 needs more torque. Especially in the low to mid range. Anyhow, I could use more seat time in an S2000 and I'm sure I would enjoy one on the track, but now way for daily driving.

Dascamel · 05-27-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ersin

My opinion is that torque numbers only confuse most people's minds. You need to remember that when a manufacturer quotes torque they are talking about "peak" torque at one specific RPM. That says nothing about the real shape of the torque vs rpm curve, which is after all one of the most important measures of engine performance. Not only does the S65 rev high while allowing the M3 gearing to multiply engine torque, but the torque curve itself is very flat compared to most other engines. It is this flatness that may be responsible for the feeling that it has little torque compared to say the 335 which "bumps" the torque after the turbo has spooled up. It seems as though we don't feel the acceleration as much as the impulse, i.e. the change in acceleration.

The utility of a flat torque curve is that it allows finer modulation of engine output. This makes it easier to control the car around curves at high speed and helps the driver to drive the car in a "smoother" fashion which is the key to getting the best performance.

+1

No radical change in acceleration, but in the end your accelerating faster.

Subw00er · 05-27-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arr0gant

I'm surprised that you think the M3 needs more torque. Especially in the low to mid range. Anyhow, I could use more seat time in an S2000 and I'm sure I would enjoy one on the track, but now way for daily driving.

I think my complaint is because I'm coming out of a z06 which was 405HP/400TQ (intoxicating). I guess I just figure that for this kind of money, they could have put an extra 50TQ in it to make it perfect. Its all about the value for money. If the car was $40K, I could forgive it, just like I do with the s2k, but for a $67K car?!

Dont get me wrong, I love my car. The way I like to summarize the M3 is that it does not excel in any one area, but its above average in ALL.

arr0gant · 05-27-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subw00er

I think my complaint is because I'm coming out of a z06 which was 405HP/400TQ (intoxicating). I guess I just figure that for this kind of money, they could have put an extra 50TQ in it to make it perfect. Its all about the value for money. If the car was $40K, I could forgive it, just like I do with the s2k, but for a $67K car?!

Dont get me wrong, I love my car. The way I like to summarize the M3 is that it does not excel in any one area, but its above average in ALL.

I think you're too hung up on the price, big displacement and torque. They don't necessarily have anything to do with the price of the car.

If that was the case, your $120k 911 GT3 would have more than 415BHP and 299lb-ft and your $40k Dodge Challenger SRT8 would have way less than 425hp and 420lb ft

MrAdams · 05-27-2009, 01:32 PM

supercharge?

sirploppy · 05-27-2009, 02:25 PM

I have to say the s2000 is most fun car you can drive for the money. The 2.2 after 2004 helped the torque a bit and it still screamed. There is no better shifter on any car for any price.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subw00er

As someone who has owned a couple generations of S2k's, you cant knock that car! It may sound "underpowered" but look at the weight and suspension. It is by far the most fun car I've owned. It does not need more power IMO, and I totally disagree about lackluster performance in low RPMs, its fine. Remeber what this car costs and what you get for your money. Its an astounding car.

s2k funfactor = 9
m3 funfactor = 7

Getting back to the torque discussion, I do feel the M3 is a bit down. I came out of a z06, so I miss the grunt off the line. This car should have 350 tq.

z06 funfactor= 10

arr0gant · 05-27-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirploppy

I have to say the s2000 is most fun car you can drive for the money. The 2.2 after 2004 helped the torque a bit and it still screamed. There is no better shifter on any car for any price.

Maybe I'll look at one again. I hear so much great stuff about 'em.

ersin · 05-27-2009, 03:37 PM

I've never driven an S2000 (not from lack of trying, dealer treated me like a deadbeat but that's a different story) but my '94 Miata is pretty fun to drive too. It doesn't even come close to an M3, and probably not an S2000, in terms of power. But the combination of low weight, a peppy if not powerful engine, and a very competent suspension will endear a Miata to any gearheads heart. I can certainly understand the compulsion to drive a torque monster like a Corvette. But sometimes other things can make up for lack of torque.

I don't doubt that an S2000 can be fun, maybe even the most fun for the money. But by the same token, an M3 can be just as much fun to drive as a vette with over 100 more ft-lbs of torque.

Nawaaz · 05-27-2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirploppy

I have to say the s2000 is most fun car you can drive for the money. The 2.2 after 2004 helped the torque a bit and it still screamed. There is no better shifter on any car for any price.

Drive an Evo IX and you'll soon find out what fun is all about. I sold mine to get into a more refined car without losing the performance.....And I landed upon the M3. I'll tell you one thing, I truly miss my Evo. Hopefully I'll find true love in my M3 that I just ordered.

sirploppy · 05-27-2009, 06:02 PM

I had an 03 Evo VIII with software, exhaust, and intake. That thing was a BLAST! I got the M3 thinking the same thing, looking for the performance and rawness of the Evo with a little more comfort and drivability. You will love the M3.

I do miss the Evo, even with all the tickets I got in it. The M3 though is a great next step. I wish I could afford to keep all the cars I've had!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nawaaz

Drive an Evo IX and you'll soon find out what fun is all about. I sold mine to get into a more refined car without losing the performance.....And I landed upon the M3. I'll tell you one thing, I truly miss my Evo. Hopefully I'll find true love in my M3 that I just ordered.

JCtx · 05-27-2009, 06:20 PM

I had a Vette, and although more 'torquey' at 400/400, no way in hell I prefer it over the incredible M3's V8 mill. The Vette motor feels strained at 3K, but it's a dinosaur. A potent dinosaur, but nothing like the sound of the M3. You feel the 'lack' of torque on the M3 for a fraction of a second, if at all. I honestly thought it was going to be more lacking, but as it was posted, it feels a lot more powerful than the numbers imply IMO. I'm happy as hell with this car, and the engine noise is to die for. It sounds like a refined Vette, deep, smooth, and mean (unlike Ferraris), and also revs to the stratosphere. Best of both worlds IMO.
But yes, with limited finances, the Vette is the best performance value for the money, no question. Take care.

dknightx · 05-27-2009, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirploppy

There is no better shifter on any car for any price.

I couldn't agree more! After owning an S2k for 2 years I can honestly say that the shifter completely BLOWS AWAY every other manual transmission car I've owned (including several M cars). It spoiled me so much that I couldn't stomach the manual trans on the E92 M3.

So I got the DCT instead!

-Dave

powertrip · 05-27-2009, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dknightx

I couldn't agree more! After owning an S2k for 2 years I can honestly say that the shifter completely BLOWS AWAY every other manual transmission car I've owned (including several M cars). It spoiled me so much that I couldn't stomach the manual trans on the E92 M3.

So I got the DCT instead!

-Dave

I've had an '05 RSX Type S and an '08 Civic Si as daily drivers and you're right...Honda trannys are like butter

.

Rennbahnmeister · 05-29-2009, 12:41 PM

It's pretty clear that the M3 will not feel as fast because of its flat torque curve when compared to a car that has a huge peak. I feel this sensation but then I look down and I am doing crazy speeds and I realize how quick this car is.

It's all about sensation, what some consider fast is suddenly getting this surge of power which the M3 doesn't have because it's so smooth throughout. If anyone has ever driven a turbo powered car you get this same sensation, it's normal and then the turbo kicks in and you get this sudden surge.

The M3 is quick, it's just deceiving + it is also a very solid built car which makes it feel safe as the speed goes up. I can't teel you how many times I have been crusing on the freeway thinking I am doing 100km and I am actually almost double that.

wolftrouble · 05-29-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucid

That's because the car has no traction and the rear end is always loose!

/joke

05-27-2009, 01:32 PM	#49
MrAdams do a wheelie!!! 154 Rep 929 Posts Drives: E46 M3 - '72 2002 - '65 Impala Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Los Angeles iTrader: (1) Garage List 2008 M3 Sedan e90 [0.00]	supercharge? __________________ ~Adam
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-27-2009, 03:37 PM	#52
ersin Brigadier General 126 Rep 4,144 Posts Drives: 17 YMB F80 M3 Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Maryland iTrader: (1)	I've never driven an S2000 (not from lack of trying, dealer treated me like a deadbeat but that's a different story) but my '94 Miata is pretty fun to drive too. It doesn't even come close to an M3, and probably not an S2000, in terms of power. But the combination of low weight, a peppy if not powerful engine, and a very competent suspension will endear a Miata to any gearheads heart. I can certainly understand the compulsion to drive a torque monster like a Corvette. But sometimes other things can make up for lack of torque. I don't doubt that an S2000 can be fun, maybe even the most fun for the money. But by the same token, an M3 can be just as much fun to drive as a vette with over 100 more ft-lbs of torque. __________________ 2017 F80 YMB.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-27-2009, 06:20 PM	#55
JCtx Major General 258 Rep 5,012 Posts Drives: No BMW yet Join Date: May 2008 Location: El Paso TX iTrader: (0)	I had a Vette, and although more 'torquey' at 400/400, no way in hell I prefer it over the incredible M3's V8 mill. The Vette motor feels strained at 3K, but it's a dinosaur. A potent dinosaur, but nothing like the sound of the M3. You feel the 'lack' of torque on the M3 for a fraction of a second, if at all. I honestly thought it was going to be more lacking, but as it was posted, it feels a lot more powerful than the numbers imply IMO. I'm happy as hell with this car, and the engine noise is to die for. It sounds like a refined Vette, deep, smooth, and mean (unlike Ferraris), and also revs to the stratosphere. Best of both worlds IMO. But yes, with limited finances, the Vette is the best performance value for the money, no question. Take care.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-29-2009, 12:41 PM	#58
Rennbahnmeister Private 1 Rep 80 Posts Drives: E90 SG M3 Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Canada iTrader: (0)	It's pretty clear that the M3 will not feel as fast because of its flat torque curve when compared to a car that has a huge peak. I feel this sensation but then I look down and I am doing crazy speeds and I realize how quick this car is. It's all about sensation, what some consider fast is suddenly getting this surge of power which the M3 doesn't have because it's so smooth throughout. If anyone has ever driven a turbo powered car you get this same sensation, it's normal and then the turbo kicks in and you get this sudden surge. The M3 is quick, it's just deceiving + it is also a very solid built car which makes it feel safe as the speed goes up. I can't teel you how many times I have been crusing on the freeway thinking I am doing 100km and I am actually almost double that. __________________ ///M
	Appreciate 0 Quote