M3 vs C6?

[bmwprince4life]

vettes suck

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by bmwprince4life

vettes suck

no, no, no. Vettes are cool chick amgnet cars...... if you are bald, over 55 and have a large gold chain collections. and who can knock that, with the price of gold on the rise!!!

[1.8t]

What if your 24yr old, have all of your hair, and love making certain "propeller" badged cars with M's aside their 6's and 5's eat your dust???

[spearfisher]

Originally Posted by bmwprince4life

vettes suck

Great analytical statement

[spearfisher]

Originally Posted by sayemthree

no, no, no. Vettes are cool chick amgnet cars...... if you are bald, over 55 and have a large gold chain collections. and who can knock that, with the price of gold on the rise!!!

that's funny I saw a fat bald dude in a M3 on south beach the other day, I guess they like M3's also

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

First off, let me apopogize here for doing a Hillary - meaning I misspoke. I said I thought the M3 engine was better in terms of smoothness and zinginess (eagerness to gain revs), but left out the really important part that I've waxed poetic about before. Namely, the M3's torque curve is stupendously flat. In fact, the idea that torque only drops from peak by about 11% over a 5400 rpm span is probably a milestone for street driven internal combustion engines.

Ok, I feel better now.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

...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.

These are far from mutually exclusive positions. As I tried to illustrate with the E46 example, easily getting to the point where the car turns into an understeering pig absolutely doesn't show that the car is superior at the limit.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

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.

Trust me on this: Porsche's almost mystical reputation didn't come from driving them at 8/10ths. You so don't understand any of this.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

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.

You've taken the position that the M3 engine is superior in every way, and I've pointed out that the LS3 is slightly lighter (and more compact) while making more power and torque. You say that 9 pounds is miniscule? I agree - but it's in the LS3's favor.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

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.

Ridiculous? Apparently you've never taken a look at a DOHC head vs an OHV, cam-in-block head. The DOHC heads are massive by comparison - hence the idea that with similar engine weights, the taller engine with more mass up top will result in a higher overall center of gravity. It's elementary.

Minor point? I agree - but it's in the LS3's favor.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

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.

You said that the reason the LS3 gets better mileage is due to weight, and that I should take a look at a GTO to see just how much of a gas guzzler these engines really are. OK, so the GTO weighs more and gets better mileage. Where do you go now that your pet theory is in shreds? To gearing. So? Need I point out that due to its revvy nature the M3 needs aggressive gearing or it won't perform worth a damn in everyday driving? Do you think the M3 engineers geared it wrong? Get real, please.

Originally Posted by malter2.0

Total performance wise it is not superior.

Actually, it is. There isn't a single area of performance where the M3 engine exceeds the LS3. Not weight, not overall exterior size, not power, not torque, and not in fuel mileage. I love its torque curve (which helps explain why the car is something of an overachiever in my estimation), but the fact is that an M3 with an LS3 powerplant would perform better than it now does.

Please note that power per liter is not "performance".

Originally Posted by malter2.0

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?

I'll personally be very interested to see how the M3 performs with the new auto box. Meanwhile the Vette is quicker on a drag strip, and quicker on a road course - push rods and leaf springs notwithstanding. It's a major performer at a (relatively) minor price.

And by the way, this apologist crap that you espouse (and apparently Swamp agrees with) makes no sense whatsoever. You talk about tire sizes and vehicle weights as if that meant something.

The fact is that this is the way the cars are built and shipped. If the bimmer boys want to lighten the car up and put bigger tires under it, that's fine, but until then, who gives a damn?

I could get pregnant if I just had the right plumbing, but I don't. So?

Originally Posted by malter2.0

...-Regards,

Elitist&fanboy

Well, kudos to you for admitting it.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

And by the way, this apologist crap that you espouse (and apparently Swamp agrees with) makes no sense whatsoever. You talk about tire sizes and vehicle weights as if that meant something.

Come on Bruce that is not the point. I am not one who desires a Corvette for myself but I, like you, appreciate all good performers and especially good performers per dollar - that is where the Vette really shines. Talking about a car being under-tired is absolutely not "apologist crap" it is just an observation and helps us understand that the M3 has a great chassis and suspension. As you have agreed with it is sort of an "over performer". Tires are such a critical compoenent in any performance car in any driving area, drag, road course, rally, off road, whatever. Hence it is good to note tires along with things such as a N'Ring time.

[footie]

Might be opening a can of worms but what the hell.

Tyre width should always related to weight, the heavier the car the wider the tyres, other factors are power output and weight balance. It a fine line manufacturers have to make between maximum grip and traction off the line and in a corner with tread footprint size in the rain and snow.

I personally prefer a car which is neither over tyred in width or with too low a profile, the whole balance changes and seldom for the better. It's the main reason why I have decided on 18" alloys instead of the 19" option.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

You said that the reason the LS3 gets better mileage is due to weight, and that I should take a look at a GTO to see just how much of a gas guzzler these engines really are. OK, so the GTO weighs more and gets better mileage. Where do you go now that your pet theory is in shreds? To gearing. So? Need I point out that due to its revvy nature the M3 needs aggressive gearing or it won't perform worth a damn in everyday driving? Do you think the M3 engineers geared it wrong? Get real, please.

Weight probably accounts for a couple MPG in the city and highway cycles (compare an LS2 engined GTO with an LS2 engined C6). It's GM's uber tall sixth gear and 1-4 skipshift that really help the Vette's EPA numbers.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Actually, it is. There isn't a single area of performance where the M3 engine exceeds the LS3. Not weight, not overall exterior size, not power, not torque, and not in fuel mileage. I love its torque curve (which helps explain why the car is something of an overachiever in my estimation), but the fact is that an M3 with an LS3 powerplant would perform better than it now does.

Please note that power per liter is not "performance".

I'm not convinced an LS3 engined M3 would get better mileage, even if the final drive ratio were optimized for the LS3. BMW would never put skipshift on a car and they'd never put a pure economy gear in the transmission.

[malter2.0]

These are far from mutually exclusive positions. As I tried to illustrate with the E46 example, easily getting to the point where the car turns into an understeering pig absolutely doesn't show that the car is superior at the limit.

Pfffffftt please. You are now turning away what you said earlier or better yet denying. Get your story straight and pick the stance you want to argue.

Trust me on this: Porsche's almost mystical reputation didn't come from driving them at 8/10ths. You so don't understand any of this.

Again strawman argument. I was merely stating that going 8/10 in Porsche will give you same entry/exit corner speed as going 9.5/10 in M3. Good job on taking it out of context. I have never said anything how Porsche should be driven to get it into its sweet spot.

You've taken the position that the M3 engine is superior in every way, and I've pointed out that the LS3 is slightly lighter (and more compact) while making more power and torque. You say that 9 pounds is miniscule? I agree - but it's in the LS3's favor.

So you are splitting hairs about 9lbs which is exactly the difference of empty windshield washer fluid tank. How about you address the fact you have your lighter and more powerful LS3 giving out the same performance as M3? How do you address that? Where are you arguments? Go back to my previous lengthy post and address my statements.

Ridiculous? Apparently you've never taken a look at a DOHC head vs an OHV, cam-in-block head. The DOHC heads are massive by comparison - hence the idea that with similar engine weights, the taller engine with more mass up top will result in a higher overall center of gravity. It's elementary.

Minor point? I agree - but it's in the LS3's favor.

Damn, 9lb difference is massive? You are grabbing any straw you can aren't you?

You said that the reason the LS3 gets better mileage is due to weight, and that I should take a look at a GTO to see just how much of a gas guzzler these engines really are. OK, so the GTO weighs more and gets better mileage. Where do you go now that your pet theory is in shreds? To gearing. So? Need I point out that due to its revvy nature the M3 needs aggressive gearing or it won't perform worth a damn in everyday driving? Do you think the M3 engineers geared it wrong? Get real, please.

Your paragraph is unclear. Again ADDRESS what I said. Automatic 2005 GTO gets 14/19, which is worse than M3. Cars are comparable in weight. Where do you see LS3 advantage in fuel economy? Why is 2005 GTO getting 14/19? Can you answer that question?

Actually, it is. There isn't a single area of performance where the M3 engine exceeds the LS3. Not weight, not overall exterior size, not power, not torque, and not in fuel mileage. I love its torque curve (which helps explain why the car is something of an overachiever in my estimation), but the fact is that an M3 with an LS3 powerplant would perform better than it now does.

How thick are you? Seriously? You have a car that weighs 400lb more with less grip, but it is able to generate identical performance number (on unbroken engine with less than 1200 miles). How do you think this same fat M3 would perform if it weighed 400lb LESS in the same chassis? OBVIOUSLY, it would go from a tie to a complete victory in any acceleration test and DOMINATE even more in braking, skidpad test. ANY TEST!

I'll personally be very interested to see how the M3 performs with the new auto box. Meanwhile the Vette is quicker on a drag strip, and quicker on a road course - push rods and leaf springs notwithstanding. It's a major performer at a (relatively) minor price.

No it is not quicker. Tests are identical. Exception is n-ring, which wasn't tested with same drivers or in the same weather. It is not formalized or calibrated test in any way, shape or form.

And by the way, this apologist crap that you espouse (and apparently Swamp agrees with) makes no sense whatsoever. You talk about tire sizes and vehicle weights as if that meant something.

So you are an instructor and a seasoned racer, but you are belittling vehicle weight and tire size as unimportant factors? This is now officially a FARCE, not a discussion. You are blindingly omitting the facts. Again, address the numbers!

The fact is that this is the way the cars are built and shipped. If the bimmer boys want to lighten the car up and put bigger tires under it, that's fine, but until then, who gives a damn?

hahaha bail out with style. good job. thank you, come again!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

...hahaha bail out with style. good job. thank you, come again!

Well, I am bailing out. I've made my points, and I forgot a piece of advice my dad gave me, which was to "Never argue with an idiot - people may not be able to tell the difference."

Malter, the field is yours.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

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.

Back in my Vette days, I was at the parts counter of my local dealer one Saturday morning when I heard a guy back in the body shop (brand new, huge and apparently with a lot of new personnel) delivering a lecture. The parts guy said he was from the Corvette plant, so I wandered back there. Since I am far from an expert on bodywork, I listened in for awhile. Much of it was very highly technical, but one thing that struck home for me was his very strong assertion about maintaining factory panel gaps. He said something like "It's critical to set panel gaps to factory specifications. You might want to tighten door gaps on these cars during your repair, but "DON'T DO IT!" Then he explained about how the composite panels grew and shrunk more with heat, and that you were asking for trouble when your customer went to get in his car after it had been sitting in the hot sun.

DAMN! That was exactly what happened to me after getting my car back from an independent shop (after a lady made a left turn into me).

The shop expressed bewilderment and repaired the damage, but the memory stuck.

Bruce

[KonigsTiger]

Vettes are soooo ugly most of the time! Even if it peforms 10x better than an M3, I would not buy it. lol!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Back in my Vette days, I was at the parts counter of my local dealer one Saturday morning when I heard a guy back in the body shop (brand new, huge and apparently with a lot of new personnel) delivering a lecture. The parts guy said he was from the Corvette plant, so I wandered back there. Since I am far from an expert on bodywork, I listened in for awhile. Much of it was very highly technical, but one thing that struck home for me was his very strong assertion about maintaining factory panel gaps. He said something like "It's critical to set panel gaps to factory specifications. You might want to tighten door gaps on these cars during your repair, but "DON'T DO IT!" Then he explained about how the composite panels grew and shrunk more with heat, and that you were asking for trouble when your customer went to get in his car after it had been sitting in the hot sun.

DAMN! That was exactly what happened to me after getting my car back from an independent shop (after a lady made a left turn into me).

The shop expressed bewilderment and repaired the damage, but the memory stuck.

Bruce

Composites can have a tailored CTE as I mentioned. Some offer near zero CTE but at a very high cost. This is aerospace and weapons stuff, not auto body panels. Either way I think you are losing this one. How can the M3 and Vette both have significant use of composites in their body panels and one have small body gaps and the other large. It is a bit of speculation but this observation leads me to believe that one engineering team took CTE into account and the other did not, or for cost chose to work around it.

On a somewhat loosely related point was it you and I who long ago had the argument about calling a dual clutch tranny an "automatic"? I strongly believe they should be called automated manuals instead, or simply dual clutch. "Everyone" knows there are essential components and functions of an automatic tranny and the DC units are very very different than those.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Composites can have a tailored CTE as I mentioned. Some offer near zero CTE but at a very high cost. This is aerospace and weapons stuff, not auto body panels. Either way I think you are losing this one. How can the M3 and Vette both have significant use of composites in their body panels and one have small body gaps and the other large. It is a bit of speculation but this observation leads me to believe that one engineering team took CTE into account and the other did not, or for cost chose to work around it.

Uh, because one has composites in both the fenders and doors, and the other doesn't? I thought this was clear. You can easily engineer the fastenings so that the fenders can expand so as to push out toward the front of the car (or the rear), but the doors have nowhere to go. The nose and tail caps can be free to move, but I have no clue as to how you can work the door-gap problem.

Originally Posted by swamp2

On a somewhat loosely related point was it you and I who long ago had the argument about calling a dual clutch tranny an "automatic"? I strongly believe they should be called automated manuals instead, or simply dual clutch. "Everyone" knows there are essential components and functions of an automatic tranny and the DC units are very very different than those.

As I remember it, my position was that anything without a clutch pedal that shifts its own gears is an automatic - but that from my point of view, you were free to call it anything you wanted to. Your position then (and now, apparently) is that I should call it what you want me to call it.

The EPA calls it an "automatic - sequential shift", so if you're really a stickler, perhaps that's what you should call it as well. Not that I would insist, of course.

Bruce

[malter2.0]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Well, I am bailing out. I've made my points, and I forgot a piece of advice my dad gave me, which was to "Never argue with an idiot - people may not be able to tell the difference."

Malter, the field is yours.

Bruce

Yeah, it's better to stop before you dig yourself even a bigger hole than the one you are already in. I am not going to call you names, since that would lower me on your level. Enjoy your Malibu.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Uh, because one has composites in both the fenders and doors, and the other doesn't? I thought this was clear. You can easily engineer the fastenings so that the fenders can expand so as to push out toward the front of the car (or the rear), but the doors have nowhere to go. The nose and tail caps can be free to move, but I have no clue as to how you can work the door-gap problem.



As I remember it, my position was that anything without a clutch pedal that shifts its own gears is an automatic - but that from my point of view, you were free to call it anything you wanted to. Your position then (and now, apparently) is that I should call it what you want me to call it.

The EPA calls it an "automatic - sequential shift", so if you're really a stickler, perhaps that's what you should call it as well. Not that I would insist, of course.

Bruce

Even front and rear fenders have part that they need to line up with on both sides. I see what you are saying but do not think it really explains everything.

Does the US government typically make good decisions? It seems that much of what they do in terms of terminology is make up really bad and cryptic acronyms. I think calling AMTs automatics does a serious disservice to any less than well educated enthusiast. The distinctions are massive. Focusing on the number of pedals vs. the essential mechanical nature of a system is a misnomer at best.

[m3lkr]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

Yeah, it's better to stop before you dig yourself even a bigger hole than the one you are already in. I am not going to call you names, since that would lower me on your level. Enjoy your Malibu.

It's not really the same wheel. The part you hold is of much higher grade leather and way thicker.

The center portion is a nice shape, but looks like cheap plastic. It could use a nicer emblem as well. But the fact that a $20K Mabibu gets a similar wheel to a Corvette is pretty cool for the Malibu!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Even front and rear fenders have part that they need to line up with on both sides. I see what you are saying but do not think it really explains everything.

Look, it's fine with me if you think Vettes have egregiously bad quality control, bodywise and otherwise, but as I've mentioned to you, when it's convenient (auto show or whatever), examine the Vette body carefully. My belief is that you and I share a gene, scientifically named the "Why'd they do that?" gene. The characteristic (some would call it an affliction) is that when you look at something - anything - you start wondering why that something was designed/implemented in a particular fashion. As an example, when I was a kid in single digits, I remember wondering why they put those engineered channels in concrete sidewalks every few feet, so when I worked up the courage to ask the guy who was doing just that, he was kind enough and knowledgeable enough to explain about expansion, contraction and stress relief.

I know you know exactly what I'm talking about. Use that gene when checking out the Vette body - or don't bother, serene in your belief.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Does the US government typically make good decisions?...

Clearly yes.

It's fashionable to criticize or even deride "the idiots in Washington" (God forbid that should ever stop except perhaps in times of national crisis), but the fact is that our Government actually does make good decisions, by and large. Yeah, I've been known to actually yell at inanimate objects from time to time (TV, radio, newspaper) after hearing about some particular political idiocy, but Richard Jeni hit the nail on the head in one of his standup routines. He said we just don't market ourselves correctly, and he had the perfect catch phrase to build a marketing program around:

"America. Twenty million illegal aliens can't be wrong!"

Originally Posted by swamp2

I think calling AMTs automatics does a serious disservice to any less than well educated enthusiast. The distinctions are massive. Focusing on the number of pedals vs. the essential mechanical nature of a system is a misnomer at best.

My position would be that focusing on the "essential mechanical nature of a system" as opposed to what that system actually accomplishes is missing the forest for the trees. But as I said, feel free to call it whatever you like, and please feel free to clean up after me following my next transgression.

Bruce

[1.8t]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

No it is not quicker. Tests are identical. Exception is n-ring, which wasn't tested with same drivers or in the same weather. It is not formalized or calibrated test in any way, shape or form.

You think Car and Driver, Road and Track, and Motortrend tested their C6's and the new M3 on the same day with the same humidity, temperature, and pressure to accurately compare numbers between them??? Hell no. Gotta love hypocrisy

Bruce, you represent a neutral stance both for and against the Vette in a fair manner. You should know by now that fanboy's will always be blind to anything outside of their bubble.

[malter2.0]

Originally Posted by 1.8t

You think Car and Driver, Road and Track, and Motortrend tested their C6's and the new M3 on the same day with the same humidity, temperature, and pressure to accurately compare numbers between them??? Hell no. Gotta love hypocrisy

Bruce, you represent a neutral stance both for and against the Vette in a fair manner. You should know by now that fanboy's will always be blind to anything outside of their bubble.

All C&D and road and track tests are corrected for humidity, temperature and other variables, so you are actually wrong. Reading is fundamental.

Neither you or Bruce have addressed why is corvette posting same performance numbers, longer braking distance, lower skidpad numbers, slower slalom numbers, in comparison to 400lb heavier M3, with less power and rubber.

Can you or you can not address this?

[1.8t]

Originally Posted by malter2.0

All C&D and road and track tests are corrected for humidity, temperature and other variables, so you are actually wrong. Reading is fundamental.

"Corrected" LMAO. If you had ever done anything in life other than run your mouth, you would see how "corrected" numbers are about as accurate as a tabloid magazine. I have said it before and I will say it again, keep living in the dream land of bench racing magazine data....it helps display your snobby attitude so well.

Experience is all that matters and its obvious you have none.