|
|
02-18-2008, 06:43 AM | #133 | |
Second Lieutenant
22
Rep 253
Posts
Drives: 335 cab,C-6 08, 73 911E 59 D,
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: American in Germany
|
Thanks for reading
Quote:
So you read, thats a good thing, But no testing of the C-6, or the new M-3 for you ! You mentioned the 930 Porsche, It is too bad you don't get some experience driving them. Deseminate all the information from the journalists you want. Remember journalists write, then sell themselves to a magazine, the magazine makes money through advertising (BMW, Porsche, Chevy) and sales of the magazines ( to people who cannot drive the car themselves ) You have proven that you can argue with many others until you reach a point of frustration where you're limited experience leaves you dazed and confused. You can only argue so far with information gathered from others then you get lost No a 93 Z-28 is not the same as an 08 C6 (or Z-06) "By far the best proof is experience." Sir Francis Bacon 1560-1625
__________________
TELL me what real drivers training do you have besides your State Drivers License ?
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2008, 10:25 AM | #134 | ||
Banned
60
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
I refrained from dissecting your overly simplistic and vague explanation why high revving engines have more advantages. There is a competent debater and incompetent. You fall under latter category. Your credentials are meaningless...seriously. Should I remind you of your statement that: "Part throttle, full throttle it does not matter the engine can only produce a certain max torque and it depends on rpm not on throttle position." So if you want to comment further on my posts/threads irrelevant to this discussion, I will be glad to pull more statements from our wonderful search option. You left quite a trail of random BS on entire e90post forum. gmund1948, Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2008, 11:26 AM | #135 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 02-18-2008 at 11:35 AM.. Reason: Spelling |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2008, 02:14 PM | #136 |
Lieutenant
31
Rep 423
Posts |
May we get back to topic?
Itīs pretty anoying to read so much offtopic stuff between the pieces of topicrelated stuff... why are you blaming each other? itīs totally useless! just ignore each other if you canīt handle with the counterpart. or mail/chat etc to solve the problem(if there is any problem). this forum is great, the members made it great, so keep it great. please. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2008, 02:15 PM | #137 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 36
Posts |
RPM's kill motors. They are harder on bearings, they are more expensive, they require more up-keep, they consume more oil, and have more oil control issues than an equivalent motor with a lower redline. The do allow more hp given a fixed displacement provided the head/cam selection is up to the task. Most high rev engines are derived from rule requirements and or space requirements. They make it into street cars touting race technology, which helps sell the brand. I also hear that the tq multiplication via gearing is better optimized with a higher redline but I honestly have not looked into that any further that just "hearing" that statement(honestly, based off of some minor brainstorming, I don't see how that comment has any merit).
However, don't fool yourself. If the E92 motor could last 150k miles with a 8400rpm redline, how long do you think it coud last with a 7k rpm redline? Before anyone tries to inform me, yes, I know motors can be built to withstand high rpm use(I had an S2k), but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is less margin for error and assembly process mistakes are more pronounced in the form of blown motors on high rpm engines. Also syncronizers have to be extra snappy since WOT shifts are happening at 8400rpm. There are a whole host of upgrades that have to be accounted for when building a high rpm production car, but it does get the heart churning and the mind racing better than any other form of power production.
__________________
2014 Viper TA - Stock - 11.43@132.37mph, 1.95 60'
08 ISF - headers/exhaust - 12.25@117.78mph, 1.96 60' |
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2008, 02:33 PM | #138 | |
Lieutenant
31
Rep 423
Posts |
Quote:
I think, there ll be some M3, which will be used on the track most of their lifetime (some people here do this, i live 60miles distanced to the Nürburgring). But most of the M3 engines ( like my prospective m3) will have to handle with a broad range of usements ( 30% city, 50% autobahn, 5% track, 5% abuse on the road ). Therefor i think that my engine ll last for at least 400.000miles ( if the engine is warmed up every time befor any stress). And if i m wrong... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2008, 02:43 PM | #139 |
Second Lieutenant
22
Rep 253
Posts
Drives: 335 cab,C-6 08, 73 911E 59 D,
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: American in Germany
|
Well
Gmund1948,
When you address my post (not only past, but previous) in its entirety, with something more substantial than I sat in the new M3 for 10 min, maybe we can discuss. I am neither dazed nor confused, simply amazed how a man of your age is so incapable of communicating on adult level. Taking my comical and so obviously sarcastic comment about '93 z28 and twisting it around shows you are really limited.[/QUOTE] There is a lot to be said for experience, the experience of driving high performance sports on a track or a back road, is fun. We can all debate who has a better suspension, the best motor or the best handling. I only have two track days in the new M-3 and a 45 minute test drive on the autobahn. The Corvette is a wonderful car as well, I just returned from a trip to Munich, and when we pulled into the BMW Welt, people took pictures of the Corvette ( one was a BMW delivery guy ) The Corvette is rare over here. A German friend was picking up his M-5 and I was invited, If you do delivery in Munich, this is the way to do it. The ride home was heaven, Fast, cold and dry. Every summer I have a hard time driving in the states because of the speed limits. In the Bay Area and LA its the congestion (like Munich argh!!) that I cannot stand. As far as age, I might be alot younger than you surmise, The point I have made is experience counts, synthesizing ideas from others opinions are in no way a substitute for driving experience.To be able to rate a car through others opinions is intellectual suicide, Many people here have autocrossed, been driving instructors or at least had some training. Have you ? If not start. BMW, Porsche, Audi, Chevrolet, they all make great cars. I was fortunate to be exposed at a young age to sports car driving. I am fortunate now to be able to own more than one car, and still be a good provider. If you love sports cars, the more power to you. I would rather drive any capable car on a mountain road or race track than being stuck in traffic. Your statements have much more value if you have experiences to back them up.even in other cars. The danger is in relying too much on the specs and not on the product itself. Your posts are so critical of other manufactures, you cant seem to accept that you do not have to put a great car down (if you have experienced it) to find that BMW has a great design in an M3. If could compare them yourself you might find the world is getting flat again.
__________________
TELL me what real drivers training do you have besides your State Drivers License ?
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2008, 02:58 PM | #140 | |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 36
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2014 Viper TA - Stock - 11.43@132.37mph, 1.95 60'
08 ISF - headers/exhaust - 12.25@117.78mph, 1.96 60' |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-18-2008, 05:46 PM | #141 |
Conspicuous consumption
97
Rep 1,183
Posts |
I saw your Avatar and thought Epacy is really coming around. Look he is now making posts that are objective and unbiased, wow. Then I was saddened to see it wasn't Epacy at all, but you: spearfisher. Nice to see you add something to the forum from outside the usual BMW circle of friends. Refreshing indeed.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-19-2008, 09:13 AM | #142 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Well what absolute falsity/absurdity of yours is next to deal with... I don't paraphrase wikipedia nor to I get pictures from there. Heck I'm the first to admit I grab pictures left and right from google images - who the hell doesn't/shouldn't. Again it begs the serious question, RELEVANCE??? Who the hell cares where a picture comes from if it helps you make a point? As far as e90post goes I have posted almost nothing there. Unless you call m3post.com part of e90post.com. I think of them really as separate and again have little to no interest in non M BMWs. Tell me more about my "trails of random BS" overe there, please. As far as your little obsession looking for errors I have made - enjoy yourself (your busy and impatient self ). I stand by my posts, and debates, the ones won and the ones lost, the times I am correct and the times incorrect. There are a lots of sharp and experienced folks here and I enjoy learning from them. Seems you definitely don't/won't. On the engine points again nice way to continue to argue. Say you don't have time but keep bringing up an issue. But of course never really making a serious attempt to clearly state your contention or disagreement. You simply have to be one of the worst/most frustating people to (attempt to) engage with. Try making a point and saying something critical/novel if you can (seems clearly not). Lastly, on my clear mistake about part throttle torque - again have fun digging around as much as possible to find my mistakes. Aren't you clever. Did you notice how I handled that one? I thought about it for a bit longer, realized I was wrong, admitted my clear mistake, offered a good thought experiment to help others who may have been confused about the same point (as others were indeed), thanked those who got me thinking right and simply moved right along. Of course we all make mistakes, but again I'll stand by the dozens or hundreds of times I have been correct, predictive, helpful or insightful for this board. What exacly are you credentials IRL or on this forum (perhaps other than a glorified mechanic who wrenches on their own car)? This is a strongly adviseable way for you to behave (as per my personal example just above) on the leaf spring issue if you want to maintain any shred of credibility yourself. I am anxiously awaiting your next note which will be clearly devoid of any real criticism or argument since you just don't have the time/patience for me. Get real. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-19-2008, 09:22 AM | #143 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-19-2008, 01:43 PM | #145 | |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
I'll meet you at the playground at 12 noon. you belive the BMW will prevail, but I belive power to weight ratio will prevail. we will see with time, or when I encounter one on the 1/4 or track, or clear cut data from a reliable source. But I know Bimmers are notorious for beating book times, I know when the E46 M3 came out tests conducted had it doing the 1/4 in 13.3. to 13.4, but I was able to coax 13.1 to 13.2 in the 1/4 in the past, and seen others cut 13.0 in the qtr, so I'm sure the new M3 will do better at the track. Question though I know you try to discredit what one member says due to his seat time or experience. I think experience and seat time counts for a lot, when I've attended driving schools, I respect the instructors for their experience and seat time. Besides theory cannot can't be validated without actual experience. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-19-2008, 06:34 PM | #146 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
2) LS3 is similar in overall size but not as tall, lending itself to a lower center of gravity in pretty much any car 3) LS3 makes about five percent more power (22 HP) 4) LS3 makes about 45% more torque (124 pound feet) 5) LS3 appears to have better bsfc numbers 1) M3 V8 has a 1900 rpm higher red line, which you have claimed in your fantasy world as an advantage So I guess in your world it's in "almost all regards" that the LS3 is superior. Oh, I forgot. Folks without actual knowledge would claim that since the M3 makes more power per liter, that's an advantage in this comparision. Would you claim that? Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-19-2008, 07:35 PM | #147 | |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
thanks ruff |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-20-2008, 05:18 AM | #148 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
No need to get so testy Bruce. You did agree with me on multiple points I gave on my list about the advantages, in general of a high rpm design. Was that pandering or are you changing your mind?
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-20-2008, 12:23 PM | #149 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
We're good. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-20-2008, 02:04 PM | #150 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
While we are on the M3 vs LS3 engine topic, I've been thinking about the following lately:
If both engines (engines only) were run at the same power output, say at 100 hp, 200 hp, and then 300 hp, which engine would consume less fuel and how would consumption differences between the two engines be affected at different power outputs? In other words, which one has the higher thermal efficiency, and how does thermal efficiency change over the rpm range? I am assuming variables like compression ratio, volumetric efficiency, friction, mass of reciprocating parts, combustion characteristics are all influential. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-20-2008, 11:15 PM | #151 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2008, 12:21 PM | #152 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Performance tests show very closely matched acceleration figures for the cars. The M3 accomplishes this with more weight, less power, less torque and a substantially worse power to weight ratio. Could there be some advantage of the high rpm design linked to an appropriately matched transmission that contributes to making the car a much closer competitor that one might guess. Is there some reason that F1 cars do not use relatively low rpm designs? If such designs were better in all regards as it seems to be your contention then surely such "technology" would be used in such cars. Sure neither a Vette nor M3 is as purpose built as an F1 car but all purport to offer one of the same clear and ultimate goals - very fast around a track. P.S. My take on the hp per liter thing is clear (or I'll make it clear now). High hp/l is a technical achievement and engineering advantage that may or may not always translate to a concrete/real world advantage in comparison with a lower hp/l design implemented in a properly designed and matched system. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2008, 01:08 PM | #153 | |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
Overall though, even though the LS3 is lighter and has a lower center of gravity. the M3 engine is technologically more advanced than the LS3, a more complicated engine to work on also, but has more technology, not that the LS3 is a slouch, very durable, flat torque band, good HP, but most engines now a days have a lot of engineering behind them anyway just some more than others. but the quad cam 4 valves per cylinder allows for more HP per liter and higher peak RPM. If the vette had similar technology or the M3 was 6.2 liters wow the amount of HP developed would be nice. the way I see it, two different ways of making HP displacment and making it effecient quad cams, 4 vavles per cylinder, and making it effecient Last edited by spearfisher; 02-21-2008 at 02:06 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2008, 01:29 PM | #154 |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
stumbled on this site, don't know how reliable a source this is
comments http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...=458eebee78a2f http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...=458be6dc37c65 http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php...=45896d4b380a0 |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|