373whp BONE STOCK :)

[OzStriker]

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

I mean I wish the engine put out as much torque as HP...

Now that is a statement that makes no sense at all.

[lucid]

Power and torque are different concepts. Power is work done per unit time, whereas torque is the application of force across a moment arm. They have different units. So the torque and power numbers being the same doesn't really mean anything specific. But they are related by: Power = Torque * Angular Velocity

[spearfisher]

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

I mean I wish the engine put out as much torque as HP...

torque doesn't win races on a track HP does

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

I mean I wish the engine put out as much torque as HP...

Drive at 5250 rpm the whole time, then. Not quite sure what you will achieve, but I hope it's fun

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

The graphs say "Wheel power" and "Total wheel torque."

This would indicate a 10% drivetrain loss, which likely means the new M3 is underrated, as 15% DTL is a much more conventional number for manuals.

So if we assume that we can replace the 10% figure with a more realistic 15% crank output becomes 438 bhp.

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

Drive at 5250 rpm the whole time, then. Not quite sure what you will achieve, but I hope it's fun

that's funny

[ArtPE]

Originally Posted by footie

Lucid,

I have asked the question, if this result was based on hubs instead of the actual wheels then how much of a down from the figure show should be expected, 15~20hp or something different.

there are 2 factors missing:

wheel mass
and most importantly, wheel slip ~3%

I'd guess these numbers are ~3-4% low at most

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Celsius

IMHO, it's not impressive because it's a V8 and should produce bigger #'s than that...just look at the Z06 #'s.

Doesn't the Z06 have a 7 liter engine? That's about 72hp/liter at the crank. M3 has about 104hp/liter at the crank. I know they are different engine layouts/designs, but still...

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by lucid

Doesn't the Z06 have a 7 liter engine? That's about 72hp/liter at the crank. M3 has about 104hp/liter at the crank. I know they are different engine layouts/designs, but still...

displacement? who cares about that, both engines have 8 of those cylinder thingys, both 8, so they should be the same no? if one had 10 then sure it would be more powerful, a 20 would be really really powerful, BMW should have made one of those, that would rock.

[grkm3]

Theres another M3 that put down 350whp on a regular dyno.I think the M3s will be putting down 350-360whp on most dynos.

[sayemthree]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

Drive at 5250 rpm the whole time, then. Not quite sure what you will achieve, but I hope it's fun


So if we assume that we can replace the 10% figure with a more realistic 15% crank output becomes 438 bhp.

Dinan uses about 11% average DT loss on the 335i. they also point out that DT loss varies with RPM and is not a single static number.

for 11% the test is right on - 414 hp.

[dechoong]

Originally Posted by Celsius

IMHO, it's not impressive because it's a V8 and should produce bigger #'s than that...just look at the Z06 #'s.

You've got to be kidding. Isn't there a huge difference between the Z06 72hp/L and M3's 104hp/L?

[dechoong]

Originally Posted by Celsius

You can go on and on about HP vs displacement. Just look @ the GTR, it's only a 3.8L V6

Now you really have got to be kidding. The GT-R has a twin turbo forced induction engine whereas the M3 is naturally aspirated. The only 3 other NA cars which I can think of with higher hp/L ratio is the Honda S2000, Ferrari F430 and the Porsche 997 GT3.

[SS32]

Originally Posted by Celsius

me too! But, then it wouldn't rev as high

finally, a sensible answer. I don't know why everyone freaked out about what I said. I just think its ridiculous that a 335 puts out just as much, and can easily put out more, bottom end grunt than the M.

ozstriker, why does it not make since that an engine produces as much torque as it does horsepower?

[dechoong]

Originally Posted by Celsius

So, if the Honda S2000 has higher hp/L ratio then the M3, then does it perform better?
Listen, you don't need to educate me about cars. So, what's your point?
You see unlike you, I actually drove and played a part at building a 417 WHP (on PUMP Fuel) RX-7 (oh by the way, it's only a 1.3L which would be approx 320WHP/L)....
You are just good @ using google

Now back to the topic!

What more do you expect from a standard road car with a NA 2L engine producing 240bhp and revs to 9000rpm? The E92 M3 4L V8 has double the S2000 displacement and twice the number of cylinders, is itself no slouch in case you forget.

The RX-7 rotary engine is a totally different concept, and to this day the only manufacturer still embracing the wankel engine is Mazda's RX-8. Building engine isn't my field... I spend my spare time tracking 911 and M3, not in a garage.

It's quite impossible for NA engines to produce big torque figures without FI. 100NM/L is generally a good guide for a well developed NA road car engine. But that doesn't mean it is any slower than an equally powerful car with higher torque figure. The best of the F1 engines during the 3L V10 era has a maximum torque of only about 350NM, but produce over 900hp at 19,000rpm.

[DASHOCKER]

Excellent numbers for this beast!!

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by cowmoo32

finally, a sensible answer. I don't know why everyone freaked out about what I said. I just think its ridiculous that a 335 puts out just as much, and can easily put out more, bottom end grunt than the M.

You are correct, as long as you are determined to drive your M3 at less than 1500 rpm. Otherwise, check the other (most recent of the highly adversarial) posts on this topic.

Originally Posted by Celsius

So, if the Honda S2000 has higher hp/L ratio then the M3, then does it perform better?

It might.

If you double its displacement.