E92 M3 vs E46 M3

[IFX]

Originally Posted by JOM3JO

Newer model always better....THE END...

Lol, real enthusiast here..

You're one of those people that probably lease all of your cars just so you can have something "newer" and probably have not the slightest clue about it.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by IFX

Lol, real enthusiast here..

You're one of those people that probably lease all of your cars just so you can have something "newer" and probably have not the slightest clue about it.

+1. The older I get the more I think current models aren't very cool. When I go to Porsche meets, I often feel out of place for having a newish Carrera. My car is badly overshadowed by the vintage 911s in the crowd. Cool is raw and simple and more singular in purpose. Very few new cars sub $100K get me very excited these days. Bottom line, if it doesn't have a dipstick, it probably isn't very cool.

[JOM3JO]

E46 was nice but cant compare with e92,If newer model are not better....thats sad....Dont buy BMW....

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by JOM3JO

E46 was nice but cant compare with e92,If newer model are not better....thats sad....Dont buy BMW....

With most every new BMW model, the car typically becomes more luxurious, definitely more modern in terms of safety and electronics, and more refined in creature features. The current M3 took a nose dive in fuel economy and the motor is actually a little disappointing considering its increase in displacement (S54 produces more torque per cc). The next M3 will be FI, breaking the NA rule well established by BMW M. So you can argue that newer is not always better, more enjoyable to own/operate, nor desirable. By my definition of desirable M3s, I'd rate as follows:

E46 M3 GTR (hands down king M3)
E92 M3 GTS
E46 M3 CSL
E30 M3
E92 M3
E46 M3 (still I'd rate higher than the E92 M3 in character/purity of essence)
E36 M3
Any future M3 FI variant

[JOM3JO]

i would only trade in my car with newer model Fx m3 or E92 M3 GTS(if available here).....older model was nice and "classic"..but its getting old on chassis and etc.....

[330CIZHP]

I think that is quite an ignorant statement considering the new E9X M3 has a far more usable torque curve and a much superior torque plateau at high rpms than the S54. Overall, the powerband is much wider in S65 compared to S54 spanning 6500 rpm.

From what I know, the S54 engine produced very little usable torque until 4500 - 5000 rpm.

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

With most every new BMW model, the car typically becomes more luxurious, definitely more modern in terms of safety and electronics, and more refined in creature features. The current M3 took a nose dive in fuel economy and the motor is actually a little disappointing considering its increase in displacement (S54 produces more torque per cc). The next M3 will be FI, breaking the NA rule well established by BMW M. So you can argue that newer is not always better, more enjoyable to own/operate, nor desirable. By my definition of desirable M3s, I'd rate as follows:

E46 M3 GTR (hands down king M3)
E92 M3 GTS
E46 M3 CSL
E30 M3
E92 M3
E46 M3 (still I'd rate higher than the E92 M3 in character/purity of essence)
E36 M3
Any future M3 FI variant

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

I think that is quite an ignorant statement considering the new E9X M3 has a far more usable torque curve and a much superior torque plateau at high rpms than the S54. Overall, the powerband is much wider in S65 compared to S54 spanning 6500 rpm.

From what I know, the S54 engine produced very little usable torque until 4500 - 5000 rpm.

Both these engines are stellar. I italicized little for a reason. I'm just saying to produce a motor with .8 liter (20% larger) and 2 cylinder advantage and come out with less torque per cc is a little disappointing, especially considering the EPA differences. The curves are quite similar between the two motors with the S65 having a little more on the very top.

Ultimately each motor produces near identical torque at 2,000 rpms as the same motor does at 8,000 rpms. The S54 peaks at about 12.5% higher at 5,000 rpms vs. 2,000 or 8,000; and the S65 peaks at about 11% higher at 6,000 rpms vs. 2,000 or 8,000. The advantage of the S65 is you have a flatter upper torque range because of the 6,000 peak vs. 5,000. But that also means you have to rev it much more to get to that sweet spot. Again, both motors are stellar. Guess which motor won more international awards?

So my statement is quite not ignorant.

[DiscoZ]

The S54 has higher torque per CC due to its undersquare design which necessitated the iron block and which is why it doesn't like to rev much past 7K. the S54 is stressed from the factory (which doesn't mean it can't take boost, it can very easily). The S65 is a far easier revving motor and revs to its redline much easier than a S54.

[Jive]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Both these engines are stellar. I italicized little for a reason. I'm just saying to produce a motor with .8 liter (20% larger) and 2 cylinder advantage and come out with less torque per cc is a little disappointing, especially considering the EPA differences. The curves are quite similar between the two motors with the S65 having a little more on the very top.

Ultimately each motor produces near identical torque at 2,000 rpms as the same motor does at 8,000 rpms. The S54 peaks at about 12.5% higher at 5,000 rpms vs. 2,000 or 8,000; and the S65 peaks at about 11% higher at 6,000 rpms vs. 2,000 or 8,000. The advantage of the S65 is you have a flatter upper torque range because of the 6,000 peak vs. 5,000. But that also means you have to rev it much more to get to that sweet spot. Again, both motors are stellar. Guess which motor won more international awards?

So my statement is quite not ignorant.

The difference (and less torque per cc in S65) is due to the engine design.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=473681 (Scroll down for link)

Give that a read if you missed it.

[taYab]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Newer model less rewarding to drive. I'd be amazed if anyone here would keep their "new" M3 if BMW would give them a perfect E30 M3.

Agree. Higher spec is not always good thing.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by shift@red

I said just that in a previous post. After 7K it falls flat whereas the S65 pulls harder and harder to 8400.

Your choice of words is extremely poor and utterly misleading, and simply inaccurate. Falls flat is not accurate and there is no data to support that statement. The S54 can rev to 8400 and beyond just like the S65. Both engines are still producing very usable power at redline which is why it's optimum to shift both at redline for maximum acceleration. Falls flat would be a great description for a N54, not S54. As they say, there's no replacement for displacement. You seem hellbent to compare the motors as if they're equal in displacement. Considering the S54 can nearly hold its own while 20% down on displacement is just an indicator of how fantastic that motor is. BMW factory racing S54 motors produce 400 hp in the exact configuration, mainly by raising the rev limit and allowing it to breathe better.

I can only imagine your basing your motor opinion on the car's overall acceleration. In that case, you've failed. Force determines acceleration, not hp or torque. Force is the motor's wheel torque plus the multiplication affect of all gearing (individual gearbox gear ratios, rear diff ratio, and rear wheel circumference). The E92 M3 is geared a little shorter than the E46 M3, thus has an advantage of more multiplied torque. BMW simply geared the E46 M3 too tall and I'm sure they did that to keep fuel economy decent, which it is comparatively. Change the final gear in a E46 M3 to one similar in ratio to the E92 M3 (6MT) and you've made up most the acceleration difference. Raise the rev limit to 8400 and you've made up some more. But being 20% down on displacement, you'll never make that up completely.

It would be great if you would base your inputs on substance, not uneducated opinion.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

The S54 has higher torque per CC due to its undersquare design which necessitated the iron block and which is why it doesn't like to rev much past 7K. the S54 is stressed from the factory (which doesn't mean it can't take boost, it can very easily). The S65 is a far easier revving motor and revs to its redline much easier than a S54.

Undersquare design has nothing to do with torque per cc, as explained here.

Our E46 really enjoyed running to red line. 7K was happily approached and passed in any of the lower gears, in fact.

I admit that the S65 is even happier up there, but power to weight rules, and the E9X does much better than the E46 in that regard.

My two bits about the fantastic torque curve of the S65 is intake and exhaust tuning.

From a cursory inspection, it appears that the exhaust system is opitmized for max scavenging at relatively low rpm. This is what accounts for the 3900 rpm torque peak.

The intake, on the other hand, is optimized for max "packing" of the intake charge at high rpm. Thus, the 8300 rpm power.

Most engines tend to have intake and exhaust tuned for max efficiency in a similar rpm range. This makes for more torque per cc or ci, but over a narrower range.

The difference in natural resonance tuning between intake and exhaust on the S65 is what accounts for both the astoundingly broad torque curve and the relatively low max torque value.

Bruce

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by shift@red

And you seem hellbent on trying to prove the s54 is a better motor. I guess overeggageration and sarcasm is lost on you completely, and in that case youve failed miserably.
I had a fully built 4.10 motorsport diff on one of my e46 m3s...and while it made up a big differnce in the driveability it still didnt feel as strong to me.
Since you say theres no replacement for displacement, have you ever driven a GT3? The 3.6 or 3.8 would beg to differ since they IMO pull harder than the s65 does (or any bmw m moto ive driven and mostly anything else you could compare them to), both being down on displacement and have a better top end as well and with a 3.44 rear end.

Never said it [S54] was better. Just don't like inane comments which are far from fact. As for your Porsche comparison to the E92 M3, there is far more to consider. Aerodynamic affect and drivability/grip makes an appreciable difference in acceleration. And you can't just compare the rear end ratio. You have to consider all the gearing and the entire power curve, and even how fast the motor builds power. Look at the lower rev limits of the flat 6. What the S65 has working against it for normal streetability is the vey high peak torque at 6,000 rpms. Perfect when you're revving it freely in every gear. Not so great for normal operation. As for rear end ratios for the E46 M3, the 3.91 is the right choice. 4.10 is too short and kills driveability and shortens the legs too much as well. Sometimes more is less.

3 minutes typing time!

[graider]

Originally Posted by shift@red

And you seem hellbent on trying to prove the s54 is a better motor. I guess overeggageration and sarcasm is lost on you completely, and in that case youve failed miserably.
I had a fully built 4.10 motorsport diff on one of my e46 m3s...and while it made up a big differnce in the driveability it still didnt feel as strong to me.
Since you say theres no replacement for displacement, have you ever driven a GT3? The 3.6 or 3.8 would beg to differ since they IMO pull harder than the s65 does (or any bmw m moto ive driven and mostly anything else you could compare them to), both being down on displacement and have a better top end as well and with a 3.44 rear end.

I think most of that has to do with the weight. 400lbs less on the gt3 sure make a big different.

[B R A N D X®]

After reading this entire thread and finding the pissing match more than a bit monotonous I thought I'd offer up another useless *opinion*:

Enjoyed both of my E46 M3's.........LOVE my E90 M3. Does anyone who favors the E46 really care which generation I like best? I hope not. It only matter what *you* like best and frankly, should only really matter to you and to no one else.

I sold an '09 Carrera S (after owning two 997.2 generations as well as a 2007 997.1) to help fund my new M3 because I enjoy the E90 more than the Carrera S even though I definitely did appreciate and enjoy my brief, 2 year, ownership of the 997.2.

Older versus newer:

One of the main reasons I sold my 997.2 was because after spending quite a bit of time behind the wheel of my buddy's '97 993 Carrera S I'd much rather own the E90 M3 while looking for a clean, low mileage 993S in the $45K range to purchase as a complement to my M3.

For me, at least, Newer BMW is better, 2 generation old (soon to be 3 generations) Porsche is better simply because it is more fun to drive, sounds better and demands more attention to keep from discovering that wonderful Porsche trait of "The Pendulum Effect"

Whatever.........drive what you like and don't feel the need to explain or justify to anyone!!!

Case in point: I could give a shite about folks who think I must be crazy to have sold an '09 997.2S in favor of a 2011 E90 M3 ZCP. I'm the one who paid for it, drives it and I now own the car I prefer.

Other than driving the car that *you* like best, the rest is just noise for cryin' out loud.

OP........You'll get spanked by the E9X in your E46, but who cares? You have a great car and hopefully you enjoy it!

I know I'm new here, but come on guys.......really (?).......Stating hard data can be informative, but anything beyond that is just working way too hard to try and prove who knows the most.

[JOM3JO]

M3 GTR performance must be crazy and fast track tool....but...dont know..still looks old for me...still choose e92 m3 over it...

[M3 Pilot]

I currently own both the E46 and E92 M3.

You really can't discount either car. The added displacement from the S65 does help the top end a fair bit

But neither can you knock S54 off the shelf simply for having 2 less cylinders and 800cc lesser in capacity, 343bhp is a respectable figure.

One thing you guys need to realiseis that the S54 was a great engine for its time (2000-2006?) and still is today. Technology can only move forward, not backwards. Till today, only a bunchful of NA engines can squeeze 343bhp from a 6 pot, 3.2L.

Even today, I can't pick 1 engine over the other. Both S54 and S65 are made and suited for their respective cars. I wouldn't want a S65 in the E46 or vice versa.

[Sedan_Clan]

Do any of you have skidpad numbers for the E92 and E46 M3's?

edit:

Nevermind, I got them!

[skim]

i think really the perfect combo is what i have..
e9x m3 and e86 m (i so prefer the coupe version)

[AngelinIsRich08]

The E9X M3 to the E46 M3

[agentm]

Originally Posted by AngelinIsRich08

The E9X M3 to the E46 M3

Childish comment. Both M are very nice car. I drove every model at the dealership. I do wish the e9x M feel a little more raw. I can't wait for the next generation M3. I have a feeling what they are going to do.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by agentm

Childish comment. Both M are very nice car. I drove every model at the dealership. I do wish the e9x M feel a little more raw. I can't wait for the next generation M3. I have a feeling what they are going to do.

....And what is it that you think they are going to do? If you think the new ///M will "feel" any more raw than the current car, you'll likely be disappointed. The E9X feels less raw because it is a more refined car; the E46 emphasizes drama.