The advantages of a NA engine?

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by swamp2

To me that does not make it a better daily driver. The exact 100 ft lb margin of torque you mentioned would not make the car the winner in the time to distance race! Also this particular 420/420 car is highly modified, pushing too hard on an already weak-ish cooling and fuel system and is running race gas. If you call that a great daily driver that's fine we can agree to disagree on that point.

You can have all of your infinite wisdom on the supreme importance of high crank torque values as well. Mocking science and engineering is a bit absurd don't you think? You could not have any of your favorite daily drivers anywhere close to what they are with out immense amounts of both. Perhaps we should argue about plate techtonics, evolution or global warming instead ?

I personally prefer a realistic combination of science and seat of the pants.

You're never to old to learn and I've personally learned a ton from other knowledgeable forum members here.

Torque drives the car and the N54 has more low end torque than the S65. Stock for stock, once you take away the N54 torque advantage by keeping the S65 at 4000 rpm and higher, it is certainly faster, but that is not the way I daily drive. Modded 335i have even more torque and the result against the M3 is extended.

If I need to learn something, I can simply find on the internet like you have . . . . There is nothing you are writing that I have not read before. I can do internet research pretty well also.

In addition to the internet research, I have plenty of seat of the pants experience in turbo cars and naturally aspirated cars and know the difference between torque and high rpm power. The E90M3 is not my "fast car." It is my daily driver. My fast car is my E36 M3, which used to be supercharged with 465 rwhp and 360 lbs rwtq -- enough to run down and pass an E90M3 in any acceleration contest except 0-60 (where the traction control of the E90M3 is tough to beat). Anyway, I used to think it was fast until I turbocharged it. It now makes over 500/500 and the difference the torque makes is night and day in daily driving. The power is right there when you want it. You don't have to drive the piss out of it to make power like I used to when it was supercharged and a high horsepower low torque car like the E90 M3. Until you experience it, you don't know what torque does for daily driving. Maybe that will happen for you when the next M3 comes out.

The E90M3 is a nice car. I am not knocking it. It is a good overall package for the enthusiast, but a 135 or 335 with a mild mods will equal or beat it in most acceleration contests. This has been proven many times . . . in the real world. Ask Will Turner. He is as good a driver as an accomplished internet bench racer and he got spanked repeatedly in his M3 by a mildly modded 335i (intercooler, exhaust, intake, tune). He pulled over and asked to drive the 335i. The result was the same. The other driver, then in Turner's M3, could not keep up with the 335i.

[IFX]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Torque drives the car and the N54 has more low end torque than the S65. Stock for stock, once you take away the N54 torque advantage by keeping the S65 at 4000 rpm and higher, it is certainly faster, but that is not the way I daily drive. Modded 335i have even more torque and the result against the M3 is extended.

If I need to learn something, I can simply find on the internet like you have . . . . There is nothing you are writing that I have not read before. I can do internet research pretty well also.

In addition to the internet research, I have plenty of seat of the pants experience in turbo cars and naturally aspirated cars and know the difference between torque and high rpm power. The E90M3 is not my "fast car." It is my daily driver. My fast car is my E36 M3, which used to be supercharged with 465 rwhp and 360 lbs rwtq -- enough to run down and pass an E90M3 in any acceleration contest except 0-60 (where the traction control of the E90M3 is tough to beat). Anyway, I used to think it was fast until I turbocharged it. It now makes over 500/500 and the difference the torque makes is night and day in daily driving. The power is right there when you want it. You don't have to drive the piss out of it to make power like I used to when it was supercharged and a high horsepower low torque car like the E90 M3. Until you experience it, you don't know what torque does for daily driving. Maybe that will happen for you when the next M3 comes out.

The E90M3 is a nice car. I am not knocking it. It is a good overall package for the enthusiast, but a 135 or 335 with a mild mods will equal or beat it in most acceleration contests. This has been proven many times . . . in the real world. Ask Will Turner. He is as good a driver as an accomplished internet bench racer and he got spanked repeatedly in his M3 by a mildly modded 335i (intercooler, exhaust, intake, tune). He pulled over and asked to drive the 335i. The result was the same. The other driver, then in Turner's M3, could not keep up with the 335i.

thanks captain obvious.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Torque drives the car and the N54 has more low end torque than the S65. Stock for stock, once you take away the N54 torque advantage by keeping the S65 at 4000 rpm and higher, it is certainly faster, but that is not the way I daily drive. Modded 335i have even more torque and the result against the M3 is extended.

Man, you are really hardheaded. The motors aren't sitting on pieces of wood. They're connected to gears (gearbox cogs (1-6 ratios), rear diff (fixed ratio), and rear wheel circumference (fixed)). Each multiplies the torque at each and every rpm, in each gear. Each gearing combination multiplies the torque of the motor (output varies by rpm) and the effect is called force. Force drives the car. Repeating for affect. Force drives the car. Force is the power of the motor multiplied by gearing and finally applied to the ground. The gearing of these two cars is not the same. The gearing in the M3 creates more force than the N54 turbo cars after about 2,700 rpms. You'll never see 2,700 rpms after 1st gear, this is why the N54 car has an advantage in 1st gear only. After 1st gear the force being produced by the M3 is far greater in every gear especially at higher rpms and for longer (higher redline = higher speed in gear). More than enough to make up for the weight disadvantage. What makes this even more impressive is the M3 is geared to go much faster (as in top speed).

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Those who like to corner fast as well as street/drag race more or less know, appreciate and can feel how the extra $ in the respective price tags appropriately reflect the gained capabilities you get for that extra $. You still do get those stubborn ones that insist a 335i with mods that cost less than the new price difference between the cars can yield an overall better performer.

Where the M3 really excels is high speed stability, stability under braking, braking, and cornering. If you drive both a M3 and 335i under 100 mph you might think they are somewhat close in performance. Both driven at speeds in excess of 150 mph and it's obvious why the M3 wears the M emblem. There's one thing a 335i can do at 150 mph that a M3 can't ... make your palms sweat.

[N8dawg]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Where the M3 really excels is high speed stability, stability under braking, braking, and cornering. If you drive both a M3 and 335i under 100 mph you might think they are somewhat close in performance. Both driven at speeds in excess of 150 mph and it's obvious why the M3 wears the M emblem. There's one thing a 335i can do at 150 mph that a M3 can't ... make your palms sweat.

I'm pretty sure my palms will be sweaty at 150 mph regardless of what car I'm driving.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Torque drives the car and the N54 has more low end torque than the S65.

Go ahead and stick with your small isolated hot rodder world of torque centricism. You'll never learn anything and never really understand anything about the way a car really works. PLEASE read MVF4Rriders recent post again just above. Do you have a spreadsheet? Can you use one? Do the freaking calculation yourself. Oh yeah I forgot - you probably can't.

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

If I need to learn something, I can simply find on the internet like you have . . . . There is nothing you are writing that I have not read before. I can do internet research pretty well also.

Sometimes the internet can be a good way to learn. But not listened to the average drivel on the average forum. I learned about cars by studying relevant subject for years in school, combined with book on the subject. Combined with a love of driving. You know nothing about me and nothing about how I learn, sorry.

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

In addition to the internet research, I have plenty of seat of the pants experience in turbo cars and naturally aspirated cars and know the difference between torque and high rpm power.

Well then why do you continually make incorrect statements?

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

It now makes over 500/500 and the difference the torque makes is night and day in daily driving. The power is right there when you want it. You don't have to drive the piss out of it to make power like I used to when it was supercharged and a high horsepower low torque car like the E90 M3.

Wow what a surprise a much lighter car with much more hp bests the heavier car with much less power. Wow. Did I say wow?

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Until you experience it, you don't know what torque does for daily driving. Maybe that will happen for you when the next M3 comes out.

I have driven some high torque cars but that is largely irrelevant to my understanding of torque. If torque at the crank is so important please explain why a diesel truck with 2000 ft lb is not faster than a GT-R? Extreme example for sure but until you understand the reasons you really don't know squat. Also since you posted some questions on final drive ratios in another thread I will add that until you also understand the trade-offs of a higher/lower ratio final drive modification you absolutely do not fully understand torque vs. hp.

Let's not even mention the other post about light weight wheels where you massively confuse parasitic losses, rotational inertia and power.

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

The E90M3 is a nice car. I am not knocking it. It is a good overall package for the enthusiast

This is not about me defending my car or any car. Take a step back and try to see a bit of the bigger picture. I've knocked the M3 plently, right here in this forum if you'd like to read the history. I just knock it for the right reasons.

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

but a 135 or 335 with a mild mods will equal or beat it in most acceleration contests. This has been proven many times . . . in the real world.

Again rubbish. Only if the M3 driver refuses to use the right gear to accelerate. The break even point between the two cars is right about when the 335i has 410 hp and 410 ft lb. Guess what just about the same power to weight ratio as the M3, as that is what really matters. Unless you are calling the simulations I posted many posts back wrong you can't really win this argument.

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

Ask Will Turner. He is as good a driver as an accomplished internet bench racer and he got spanked repeatedly in his M3 by a mildly modded 335i (intercooler, exhaust, intake, tune). He pulled over and asked to drive the 335i. The result was the same. The other driver, then in Turner's M3, could not keep up with the 335i.

There is anecdotal evidence for about any conclusion one want's to make. This has no specifics needed to verify it. Again if you call lots of bolt on mods, doubled boost through software and race gas "mild" or a "daily driver" go ahead - don't expect anyone remotely rational to side with you though.

As much as this is a bit of a strongly worded post. I am honestly trying to help you understand some general car dynamics and general principles, not just debate a stock M3 vs. a modded 335i. Until you run some simple drivetrain torque calculations yourself you really won't see the light. You can do this even without a spreadsheet. Honestly I am so tired of this particular M3 vs. modded 335i debate I could loose my cookies...

Happy motoring, hopefully along your road to some small sliver of automotive enlightenment.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Man, you are really hardheaded. The motors aren't sitting on pieces of wood. They're connected to gears (gearbox cogs (1-6 ratios), rear diff (fixed ratio), and rear wheel circumference (fixed)). Each multiplies the torque at each and every rpm, in each gear. Each gearing combination multiplies the torque of the motor (output varies by rpm) and the effect is called force. Force drives the car. Repeating for affect. Force drives the car. Force is the power of the motor multiplied by gearing and finally applied to the ground. The gearing of these two cars is not the same. The gearing in the M3 creates more force than the N54 turbo cars after about 2,700 rpms. You'll never see 2,700 rpms after 1st gear, this is why the N54 car has an advantage in 1st gear only. After 1st gear the force being produced by the M3 is far greater in every gear especially at higher rpms and for longer (higher redline = higher speed in gear). More than enough to make up for the weight disadvantage. What makes this even more impressive is the M3 is geared to go much faster (as in top speed).

We are not drag racing in daily driving, much of which occurs above idle and below the point where the S65 reaches its torque peak. No one disputes that the S65 has an awesome top end. It simply does not have the bottom end to match. The N54 has a better bottom end, which is much more useful in daily driving, and a correspondingly worse top end, which is not so useful in daily driving. Modded, the N54 is faster in most driving conditions.

Here is a post from an M3 loving former modded 335i driver in this forum who acknowledges that the 335i was faster off the line:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...5&postcount=14

I understand some of you are deeply in love with your M3s and I agree it is a very expensive and nice, limited edition, great handling car, but don't go racing modded 135/335 unless you want to be embarrassed.

[pbonsalb]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Go ahead and stick with your small isolated hot rodder world of torque centricism. You'll never learn anything and never really understand anything about the way a car really works. PLEASE read MVF4Rriders recent post again just above. Do you have a spreadsheet? Can you use one? Do the freaking calculation yourself. Oh yeah I forgot - you probably can't.



Sometimes the internet can be a good way to learn. But not listened to the average drivel on the average forum. I learned about cars by studying relevant subject for years in school, combined with book on the subject. Combined with a love of driving. You know nothing about me and nothing about how I learn, sorry.



Well then why do you continually make incorrect statements?



Wow what a surprise a much lighter car with much more hp bests the heavier car with much less power. Wow. Did I say wow?



I have driven some high torque cars but that is largely irrelevant to my understanding of torque. If torque at the crank is so important please explain why a diesel truck with 2000 ft lb is not faster than a GT-R? Extreme example for sure but until you understand the reasons you really don't know squat. Also since you posted some questions on final drive ratios in another thread I will add that until you also understand the trade-offs of a higher/lower ratio final drive modification you absolutely do not fully understand torque vs. hp.

Let's not even mention the other post about light weight wheels where you massively confuse parasitic losses, rotational inertia and power.



This is not about me defending my car or any car. Take a step back and try to see a bit of the bigger picture. I've knocked the M3 plently, right here in this forum if you'd like to read the history. I just knock it for the right reasons.



Again rubbish. Only if the M3 driver refuses to use the right gear to accelerate. The break even point between the two cars is right about when the 335i has 410 hp and 410 ft lb. Guess what just about the same power to weight ratio as the M3, as that is what really matters. Unless you are calling the simulations I posted many posts back wrong you can't really win this argument.



There is anecdotal evidence for about any conclusion one want's to make. This has no specifics needed to verify it. Again if you call lots of bolt on mods, doubled boost through software and race gas "mild" or a "daily driver" go ahead - don't expect anyone remotely rational to side with you though.

As much as this is a bit of a strongly worded post. I am honestly trying to help you understand some general car dynamics and general principles, not just debate a stock M3 vs. a modded 335i. Until you run some simple drivetrain torque calculations yourself you really won't see the light. You can do this even without a spreadsheet. Honestly I am so tired of this particular M3 vs. modded 335i debate I could loose my cookies...

Happy motoring, hopefully along your road to some small sliver of automotive enlightenment.

Don't get snobby. You will tarnish the image of the well-heeled M3 driver.

It is OK that some people's knowledge is book or internet or simulation based. I can read also and have bench-raced plenty, but my real car learning came from working on them, modifying them, dyno testing them, tuning them, and driving them. We obviously have different approaches and I will leave the spreadsheets to you.

You have to beat the piss out of the high horsepower low torque car to run with the high torque lower horsepower car. You can certainly take that to absurd conclusions if you want to be absurd -- like your diesel truck example, but a turbo diesel truck will surprise in certain very limited and brief circumstances (and I have seen modded ones run M3 beating quarter miles at the strip). Of course, the high torque challenger is no big deal if you have simulated yourself into the right gear at the right rpm on your spreadsheet, but on the street, in the real world, you aren't always in the right gear at the right rpm making peak torque. This is why the N54 makes for the better daily driver in the 500 to 4000 rpm range where it shines.

Your small sliver of automobile enlightenment is the S65 and what you gather from the internet that everyone else looks at as well. I have your holy grail S65. I also have the N54. I had a supercharged M3 with 460 rwhp and 360 lbs rwtq with a 3.64 diff that is now turbocharged to over 500/500 and faster with a 3.15 diff. What I find to be enlighteing is enlightening to drive such different cars with such different power curves on a regular basis. It gives me the ability to appreciate one more than another in certain situations.

The E90M3 is a great car for the enthusiast. That is why I have one. I am just not close-minded to the reality of getting outsquirted on the street in daily driving by modded 135/335s. It has happened to far better drivers than me.

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by pbonsalb

You have to beat the piss out of the high horsepower low torque car to run with the high torque lower horsepower car.

Dude, the message is, it is not the darn peak engine torque/hp that matters, it is the longevity of the curve, and the gearing. People are trying to tell you this in the last couple pages

[James T. Kirk]

Firstly, I didn't buy my M3 to race college kids between stop lights. So the low end torque on the turbo is meaningless to me.

Secondly, I've had both cars and frankly there is no comparison. My tuned 335i felt like a toy compared to the suspension and traction of my ZCP M3. You'd have to mod a whole lot more than just the engine to get a 335i even close to the M3 in feel and performance.

And if I ever really cared to get in the business of racing between stop signs like a CHILD, I can just opt for a stage 2 supercharger giving me 620HP/450FtLbs of torque and disintegrate everyone into dust. But then that would be just like driving a C63, and I wouldn't want that.

So now you see how a mod-vs.-stock debate is really futile.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by James T. Kirk

Firstly, I didn't buy my M3 to race college kids between stop lights. So the low end torque on the turbo is meaningless to me.

Post makes ZERO sense.

low end torque is what you want for DD'ing.

[Sedan_Clan]

All of this DD talk is utter nonsense. Hell, a Civic has adequate torque for daily driving. To suggest that the ///M3 is any less of an efficient daily driver when compared to a 335i is just silly.

[Dodge2Dub]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

All of this DD talk is utter nonsense. Hell, a Civic has adequate torque for daily driving. To suggest that the ///M3 is any less of an efficient daily driver when compared to a 335i is just silly.

There's reason and logic again. Darn it, I thought we beat you away two pages ago!

[ManAndMachine]

Originally Posted by Serious

Post makes ZERO sense.

low end torque is what you want for DD'ing.

His post makes absolute sense because the M3 has plenty of TQ for DD

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by erhanh

Dude, the message is, it is not the darn peak engine torque/hp that matters, it is the longevity of the curve, and the gearing. People are trying to tell you this in the last couple pages

pbonsalb is correct. In all around driving, the turbo six is lazy fast, while the M3 plainly isn't. It needs revs in order to play.

Flat out, the M3 will blow the x35 so far into the weeds you'll need a map and compass to get back to pavement, but that wasn't the context of pbonsalb's remark.

[Edward]

Jesus, we've got 6 pages of M3 owners defending their engine/car to another guy who has the same car. What's wrong with you guys?

Both cars are built for such different things yet they are constantly compared in straight line acceleration scenarios, which neither is built for, nor particularly excels at.

And if I can mention the original thread post, why is it that the immediate comparison went straight to 335 vs M3? Aren't you guys tired of having to reinforce your purchasing decision to the N54/55 crowd? I'd be pretty annoyed if I were constantly explaining to 328i owners that my power is better for x.
Why couldn't we talk about GT3RS 2.8 flat 6 vs 997 turbo flat 6? How about S4 FI vs S4 V8? My point is that the turbo vs NA engine comparison that was spewed in this thread half-assedly applies to merely two cars. TWO out of the many FI and NA engines that are currently built. What about the fact that the GT2RS rocks the Carrera GT in basically every type of scenario and it is a TT in a non exotic chassis.

There is no solid answer as to whether FI is better than NA or the other way around. Every variation is different and the inherent differences between the tech in both types makes any comparison apples to oranges.

BTW, someone needs to throw in a real engineer's anwer to torque multiplication. I'm no engineer or physicist, but I do realize that the gearing on the M3 allows it to deliver much more torque to the rear tires than the same amount of torque in a 335 (if it had the same engine flywheel torque) would deliver through the powertrain.

[Doctor J]

Originally Posted by Edward

Jesus, we've got 6 pages of M3 owners defending their engine/car to another guy who has the same car. What's wrong with you guys?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Edward

...BTW, someone needs to throw in a real engineer's anwer to torque multiplication. I'm no engineer or physicist, but I do realize that the gearing on the M3 allows it to deliver much more torque to the rear tires than the same amount of torque in a 335 (if it had the same engine flywheel torque) would deliver through the powertrain.

I'm not an engineer, but in a full on race, more horsepower puts more torque to the wheels, and wins. Perhaps more simply, you need more horsepower to go faster - in a completely linear fashion, ignoring wind and rolling resistance. Torque is just a force. Horsepower includes speed in the equation. More speed equals more work being done, which needs more horsepower.

In short: Two cars of equal weight, starting side by side, , the one with more horsepower at a given instant will accelerate faster than the other car, no matter the torque figures or gearing.

Edit above in red. Sorry for not originally including these words, as they're critical.

[BMW269]

The NA engine has no more advantages!

McLAren MP4-12C:
3.8l V8
600 PS @ 7.000 RPM
600 NM @ 3.000-7.000 RPM
Redline @ 8.500 RPM

END OF STORY

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

In short: Two cars of equal weight, the one with more horsepower at a given instant will accelerate faster than the other car, no matter the torque figures or gearing.

This is hard for me to accept, Bruce. Can you explain why this is so?

My immediate thought is that a corrolary to this would be that if we took your example, and then gave the two cars the same horsepower at a given instant then they will accelerate at the same rate, correct?

If so, then that would mean that even if these two cars happen to be identical (say two stock M3's of the same specs), and one car were in 1st gear and one were in 4th gear, then they'd accelerate at the same rate for some given RPM. But obviously that makes no sense. So what I missing?

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

This is hard for me to accept, Bruce. Can you explain why this is so?

My immediate thought is that a corrolary to this would be that if we took your example, and then gave the two cars the same horsepower at a given instant then they will accelerate at the same rate, correct?

If so, then that would mean that even if these two cars happen to be identical (say two stock M3's of the same specs), and one car were in 1st gear and one were in 4th gear, then they'd accelerate at the same rate for some given RPM. But obviously that makes no sense. So what I missing?

It's hard to accept because it's incorrect. You can't explain acceleration without gearing (among other things). Horsepower is just the idea of engine power in terms of a correlation of torque and rpms. You still need to deliver that power to the ground which is gearing, and it's measured in lb-ft in the thousands (not hundreds). It's the compilation of multiplied torque across the rpm range [in use per gear] over time and distance which explains acceleration. You can leave horsepower out of the argument.

[Sedan_Clan]

Great info MV!