What is the M3's biggest weakness?

[Nati Beastcat]

Originally Posted by Porschefile

Torque makes a car feel fast even when going slow-ish. Go drive a tuned (or even stock!) 135i or 335i, it will "feel" faster than a M3 around town. Not saying it is a fatal flaw, just pointing out that torque is relevant for street driving.

^This

I want more torque! I don't get to drive my car around the track so I guess I'll never know the limits of my car according to some....... I have a Toyota highlander with 4wd and a speed odometer that reads to 140 mph. I Don't plan on driving it off the top of dune at 139 mph so i'll probably never know its limits either. Traffic light to traffic light I want torque! AMG type torque! I want to roast my tires off if I feel like it with little effort.

is that so bad?

[Eau Rouge]

Originally Posted by Nati Beastcat

^This

I want more torque! I don't get to drive my car around the track so I guess I'll never know the limits of my car according to some....... I have a Toyota highlander with 4wd and a speed odometer that reads to 140 mph. I Don't plan on driving it off the top of dune at 139 mph so i'll probably never know its limits either. Traffic light to traffic light I want torque! AMG type torque! I want to roast my tires off if I feel like it with little effort.

is that so bad?

No, but it does mean that you bought the wrong car. Better luck next time.

[m3anAPPLE]

^^ hahaha!!

[SD-E93-11]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Fuel tank is too small!!! I personally am ok with the fuel mileage the tank just needs to be bigger...... a range of 700-750km would be nice!

I think you nailed it here. Fuel economy is on par with other eight-cylinder performance cars (using Merc as a personal reference point here). But a gas-guzzler needs bigger than a 16 gallon tank.

[Rk-d]

The car doesn't really need more torque. The s65 is one of the great engines in current mass production. I love it. But the car needs to be lighter. If this car had the curb weight of an e36 m3 - wow.

[Vic311]

Originally Posted by robotk

The car doesn't really need more torque. The s65 is one of the great engines in current mass production. I love it. But the car needs to be lighter. If this car had the curb weight of an e36 m3 - wow.

I dont think it "needs" more torque..but it would definitely improve mid-range driving

[MilehighM3]

Brake ducts and factory exhaust sound that doesn't indicate it's a hybrid. Shaving off the weight of 2 passengers would be great also.

[Kong Sheng Han]

Originally Posted by Dkhan23

Surreeee... LOL

Maybe when he said "ugly", he meant the damn tips are too small or he doesn't like the color of them. I don't know, just guessing.

[Nati Beastcat]

Originally Posted by Eau Rouge

No, but it does mean that you bought the wrong car. Better luck next time.

Could have bought a C63 Amg or something else if I wanted... I wanted the M3, doesn't mean I wouldn't change some things about it. Thread asked what it thought the weakness was.

[ec_E92]

less weight but bigger fuel tank....
more torque with larger displacement but better fuel economy....

I think the fact that we're all pushing and pulling in all different directions means BMW engineered a pretty all-around and ideal car for the street and track.

But I'll play, dipstick, and maybe interior materials (plasti-dipped trim pieces and leather that doesn't hold up to wear).

[Da M3nace]

Originally Posted by sensi09

A 2000 LS400 has a 4.0L V8 with 300ft-lb of torque lol.

If you're talking about 4.0 and smaller, there's plenty of Porsche engines that come to mind with an equal amount of torque or more.

I'm sure there are plenty of truck engines that fit this bill as well.

The question that should be asked is, why not use a bigger V8

Could not fit a bigger V8 in this 3series, tight as it is under hood. The bump in hood was a necessity due to space.

[Transfer]

Well I guess everyone is going FI with the next M. Better get rid of that NA E9x M3. What a downer of an engine!




Have fun with your turbo'd torque ya frickin weirdos.

[Denk]

Weight and the stock exhaust. If it were as light as my old e46 and came with the M Perf exhaust as standard equipment, that would've been awesome.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by sensi09

A 2000 LS400 has a 4.0L V8 with 300ft-lb of torque lol.

If you're talking about 4.0 and smaller, there's plenty of Porsche engines that come to mind with an equal amount of torque or more.

I'm sure there are plenty of truck engines that fit this bill as well.

The question that should be asked is, why not use a bigger V8

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.

[Goat Rodeo]

Originally Posted by Lemon Jelly M3

People keep complaining about torque because they never rev high enough.
I don't know what to tell them, this is a high revving engine sports car, put those throttle into work and you will never complain.

Originally Posted by ScreaM

There in lies the problem..on the street its not always feasible to live in the high rev range all the time..thats where more torque would benefit street driving.

Agree with both of you. M3 has plenty of torque. Which is what confuses me about the guy who thinks the stock exhaust is too quiet. Stock is exhaust is too loud! In order to get off the line quick you need to rev high which draws a lot of attention.

So my two improvements for the M3:

"Valvetronic exhaust" tied to the M button: If I'm not in M mode, I want the car to be quieter, so I can get up in the revs without looking like a douche. When I press the M button, I want the IPE F1 sound

Larger fuel tank: I think the car gets great fuel economy vis a vis driving enjoyment and power. But I wish it had another four gallons or so of capacity -- e.g. a full week of commuting rather than filling up every three days.

[Rk-d]

Originally Posted by Vic311

I dont think it "needs" more torque..but it would definitely improve mid-range driving

Personally, I wouldn't want to (potentially) sacrifice this motor's rev characteristics for mid range grunt. Weight loss would achieve your goal, I think, and also improve handling and economy to boot.

The alternative would be a 458 type engine - 4.5 L with 9k redline, 12.5:1 compression ratio and peak torque at 3250. That's a very sweet engine, but it's exotic, expensive and a gas guzzler. For the price range, particularly, the s65 is an awesome powerplant.

We all know BMW will resort to turbos to get crowd pleasing low end power and efficiency. I'll miss NA, personally.

[Edjay]

Originally Posted by Goat Rodeo

Larger fuel tank: I think the car gets great fuel economy vis a vis driving enjoyment and power. But I wish it had another four gallons or so of capacity -- e.g. a full week of commuting rather than filling up every three days.

Theres no more room.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

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.

In my personal opinion, the M3 doesn't lack for low end torque in everyday driving (because it's so easy to get the revs up), but only suffers when compared with a number of other high-performance offerings.

How about just matching the torque per liter of the last M3? That would give the current engine 327.5 pound feet at 4900 rpm, meaning it's torque production at, say, 1500 rpm would probably be just a bit higher than now, but quite a bit higher as soon as you were at 3000 rpm, or even earlier.

Bruce

[ferrari6891]

weakness: it's a huge dick magnet.

[Goat Rodeo]

Originally Posted by Edjay

Theres no more room.

'Tis true, but this is a wishlist, no?

[Goat Rodeo]

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... 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.

Good point. I feel some people forget that the engine in this car had to be designed to fit a car with a 49.5K retail price (E90 base sedan price) and have 15,000 mile maintenance intervals driven around the globe.

I personally believe it's an incredible engine from any angle, but when you consider those two design constraints it's absolutely amazing.

[M3takesNYC]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

In my personal opinion, the M3 doesn't lack for low end torque in everyday driving (because it's so easy to get the revs up), but only suffers when compared with a number of other high-performance offerings.

How about just matching the torque per liter of the last M3? That would give the current engine 327.5 pound feet at 4900 rpm, meaning it's torque production at, say, 1500 rpm would probably be just a bit higher than now, but quite a bit higher as soon as you were at 3000 rpm, or even earlier.

Bruce

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