335i driver does test-drive with M3

[E90ice]

Originally Posted by lucid

You somehow missed the rather small detail that we are talking about the E92 M3 here.

I am not responding to your other comment because it has been answered.

It is the same high reving concept!!

No need to respond, anybody can test drive the car and make their own conclusions, you just seem to have drawn yours by not even drive-testing the car.

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Except for the fact that this test has been SOP for car testing since I can remember, I've subscribed to C&D since 1982 or thereabouts...and that's the whole point that neither car will be at redline. Do the test in 4th or 5th gear, 50-70, whichever gear is selected for normal fuel efficient driving at the lower speed. It measures the subjective "Driver's" TQ, which is different from the dyno measured TQ.

No it doesn't. It measures objectively the result of a contrived function of the car's "performance".

We are discussing the OP's subjective opinion of everyday driving here.

First you are unwilling to accept that such an opinion can be contested by numbers or charts. The next minute you are talking about numbers again...

Being such a long-term subscriber to C&D, you will know they do those tests in top gear. Never mind the fact that absolutely nobody in their right mind would be cruising in 6th gear in an M3 at 30mph! (I suspect the car would actually be telling you to change down). Forcing the driver to do this is simply testing a contrived set of circumstances, only loosely related to the reality of everyday driving or the OP's opinions.

I'm happy to concede that badly chosen gears or poorly timed gear-changes can send the revs into the low 1000's with miserable consequences, but this should not be happening to anyone who has got used to driving the M3 in various environments. Futhermore, doing this deliberately and then calling it everyday driving seems rather silly to me.

Likewise, if you're going to disregard the first two gears, drivers who are used to their cars would often choose different gears at higher speeds in the two cars in a given situation - this is, after all, what the S65 was designed to facilitate...

[lucid]

Originally Posted by E90ice

It is the same high reving concept!!

You clearly know nothing about the two M3s. They have drastically different redlines and torque outputs. They have completely different engines. Please stop and think about that for a second before you respond and accuse me of this or that again.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

The data demonstrates no such thing, and neither do the reviews. I hope you aren't referring to your 1st gear chart, which is not applicable to this discussion. Both cars easily exceed traction in 1st gear.

The data demonstrate exactly that. That chart is applicable because the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear ratios for the two cars are identical (well, 2nd is 2.4 vs. 2.37). Meaning, the difference is the final drive, which is a common multiplier. So the basic shape of the two steady state torque at the wheels lines would be the same, and they would cross each other at the same rpm. Only the torque figures on the y-axis would change, and the relative differences would be maintained.

Why would you try to punch it from below 2000 rpms in 2nd or 3rd--even in a daily commute? Why would you even be there in a M3? 13easite has already made that point clear to you in his post above, but you are arguing based on the same ill-founded premise here.

[E90ice]

Originally Posted by lucid

You clearly know nothing about the two M3s. They have drastically different redlines and torque outputs. They have completely different engines. Please stop and think about that for a second before you respond and accuse me of this or that again.

Somebody is very sensitive. Having second thoughts about the M3?

[GarryF]

On my limited test drive the m-drive settings on throttle made a clear difference, you can have the throttle part in accelerating in 3rd, press the m-button and the car thrusts you back into the seat without you having changed throttle position.

It seems to me the OP was possibly driving the car in normal mode and finding the throttle a bit lifeless unless fully depressed? in sport plus it's trigger happy

Also in 6th gear with cruise set at 65 I flicked the lever forward two stops to 75 and it was shocking how fast the car moved up, again it's only my perception but the car seemed to have loads of torque when I drove it

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

OK, this is getting close to outright arrogance, and you guys don't even know what you don't know.

You don't know what the part-throttle characteristics of each engine are, and possibly even more important, you don't know what the rotational inertia effects are. Your quaint belief that a spreadsheet showing full-throttle torque at the drive wheels is hardly meaningful in this context, and your dismissal of the experiences of two (and possibly three) drivers in favor of a non-applicable spreadsheet really is arrogance.

I haven't driven a new M3, but my experiences with a couple of 335s shows that they are typical of today's street turbo engines in that they deliver a non-linear boost map when driven at part throttle. That is to say, half throttle, for instance, delivers more than half the allowable boost, so the car feels very responsive because it''s putting out a larger percentage of its max torque under those conditions.

There's also minor evidence that suggests the M3 is a little lazy at part throttle. I've read in a couple of comparison tests (in Car, and at least one other mag, the name of which escapes me), that the M3 is a little bit soft at low revs on the street compared to the RS4, yet in full-throttle roll-ons from low revs, the M3 is the quicker car, according to the acceleration results.

As far as rotational inertia is concerned, the first point is that it goes up as the square of the gearing, and the second is that in a given gear, 100% of the rotational inertia is right there with you, whether you're at part thottle or at full throttle. Therefore, at part throttle, the effects of rotational inertia are more apparant than when you're seriously legging it.

I'm willing to bet that because of gearing, the M3 has significantly more rotational inertia in first gear than the 335 does, and it's obviously more apparent at part throttle than at full throttle. It's also a bit heavier than the 335, which is another factor that's with you at 100%, all the time.

I'm with hwelvaar, footie and termigni on this one. Lucid and Swamp, you need to reconsider your position.

Bruce

Wait a minute Bruce. You are contradicting yourself immensely here. You believe in physics based simulation and have claimed you can do it to a much better accuracy than I can (or more accurate than even a realistic spread in actual test data) yet now you claim an ass is a more accurate accelerometer than physics? Maybe QuarterJr does not output nor calculate it but CarTest does. F=ma is more or less how simulation works and how it gets the right answer is by getting a = a(t) (the accleration curve in time) correct. We all know that acceleration is what our butts "feel".

Next the torque curve of an engine describes everythingm about the engine, add drivetrain loss and drivetrain torque multiplication, PERIOD. These factors determine the acceleration of a car in any gear at any rpm. I think as 13 pointed out you are getting throttle mapping and or driving in the wrong gear confused with peak acceleration. Rotational inertia effects are likely not significant especially when there is not a huge difference in the drivetrain inertia. Are you even sure what rotational inertia is? It is a constant for a given object (gear, driveshaft, crankshaft etc.) is does not vary by the square of gearing. Just like F-ma, T=I x alpha and I = moment of inertia or "rotational inertia".

Not only do you need to get your terminology straight with things like inertia, non-linear boost maps and "lazy" feeling, but you need to reconsider your position.

What this all comes down to is quite simple, the M3 is faster than a stock 335i and it is faster in all contests, it is faster because it produces more torque at the wheels, if you were to measure this with a stop watch or an acceleromter both would be consistent. Any other such nonsense is back to the dark ages with the subjectivity of feel, perception, poor settings, or poor driving.

[swamp2]

OK Bruce. Here it is to humor you. I have tweaked my 335i sims a bit to get a 4.8 s 0-60 and 13.5 s 1/4 mi. Below are the acceleration curves for the 6MT M3 vs. 6MT 335i. Unless you are talking about that tiny little peak where the 335i exceeds the M3, only in 1st, for a very narrow speed range, the M3 exhibits a substantially larger acceleration in gears 1-3. Do note in 4th gear and higher the accelerations are much closer (almost identical) but also significantly smaller.

I did also notice that for 30-50 roll ons in gear the 335i slightly best the M3 in 3 gears. By slight I mean .1s or less. However, when using the proper gear and more rpms the M3 can still take this contest. If this is what you or the OP meant by the M3 will feel slower than I can agree it is technically true but again ones ass can not feel such small differences. All other in gear acceleration from speed X to Y are won by the M3.

[footie]

swamp,

I take it this graph is based on full throttle application and not part throttle which has been the bases on this discussion for quite some while now. No one is disagreeing that when you floor the M3 (even at low revs) that the things lift's it's skirt and goes but based on my experience (though brief) it doesn't have the same part throttle punch of either the 335i, S5 or RS4, but when it matters the car is quickest.

[southlight]

As someone mentioned already a throttle mapping graph for the 335i may give the answer to this.


Best regards, south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

As someone mentioned already a throttle mapping graph for the 335i may give the answer to this.


Best regards, south

I know South, so why are we still debating this.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by footie

I take it this graph is based on full throttle application and not part throttle which has been the bases on this discussion for quite some while now.

Footie, you and Bruce brought up part throttle performance, but that's not what this discussion is about. If you look back on how it started, it really is about if the 335 has more torque than the M3 for fast daily driving. As I mentioned earlier several times now, if you want to drive fast, you drive close to or at full throttle. If you are not willing to do that, you can't claim that car X or Y does not have enough torque because you are not using its full potential; that's by choice.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by footie

I know South, so why are we still debating this.

Just in case anybody else isn't aware of.
The OP didn't mention which throttle mapping of the M3 he's referring to...


Best regards, south

[footie]

Originally Posted by lucid

Footie, you and Bruce brought up part throttle performance, but that's not what this discussion is about. If you look back on how it started, it really is about if the 335 has more torque than the M3 for fast daily driving. As I mentioned earlier several times now, if you want to drive fast, you drive close to or at full throttle. If you are not willing to do that, you can't claim that car X or Y does not have enough torque because you are not using its full potential; that's by choice.

Clearly mine and Bruce's opinion of what is daily driving and yours differ, I never ever drive around the town or in traffic on full throttle, maybe you do and that is the difference of our opinions.

Plus in the kind of driving I do in traffic I felt that both the 335i and S5 offer more poke, but this is not the case that either are quicker flat out only on part throttle.

I am still lose as to why yourself and others has a problem with this fact, does it make the M3 any less of a car because of this.

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by footie

swamp,

I take it this graph is based on full throttle application and not part throttle which has been the bases on this discussion for quite some while now. No one is disagreeing that when you floor the M3 (even at low revs) that the things lift's it's skirt and goes but based on my experience (though brief) it doesn't have the same part throttle punch of either the 335i, S5 or RS4, but when it matters the car is quickest.

This is getting silly. How on earth can a comparison be made with no sensible definition of "part throttle"? Have you tried driving the M3 in Sport Plus Mode on "part throttle"?

[e46e92love]

[footie]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

This is getting silly. How on earth can a comparison be made with no sensible definition of "part throttle"? Have you tried driving the M3 in Sport Plus Mode on "part throttle"?

No and that is why I said in my experience, I drove a dealer's car which was set by the previous occupant. But on that occasion the others felt quicker on this type of driving. You may be correct that in this mode the M3 may feel and is quicker, just not on the occasion that I drove.

On the question of Sport Plus Mode, is it still easy to drive in traffic and around town in this mode?

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by lucid

The data demonstrate exactly that. That chart is applicable because the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gear ratios for the two cars are identical (well, 2nd is 2.4 vs. 2.37). Meaning, the difference is the final drive, which is a common multiplier. So the basic shape of the two steady state torque at the wheels lines would be the same, and they would cross each other at the same rpm. Only the torque figures on the y-axis would change, and the relative differences would be maintained.

Why would you try to punch it from below 2000 rpms in 2nd or 3rd--even in a daily commute? Why would you even be there in a M3? 13easite has already made that point clear to you in his post above, but you are arguing based on the same ill-founded premise here.

Today, as I made my normal commute to drop my son off at school, I watched my RPM's pretty closely. Most of the time they stayed below 2K RPM, even 1300-1400 RPM steady state 40mph, which is part of the reason I'm able to get 23mpg in suburban mixed driving out of a car that was as fast stock as e46M3's at my last GIR BMWCCA DE, and faster than M coupes, same capability as an M6 at a larger track like VIR. I also noticed how much acceleration I still had available, as a result of 1) TQ and 2) How quickly and smoothly the advanced Steptronic downshifts. I also was faster than any other car on the road, catching up to and passing everyone...so don't say I wasn't doing FAST daily driving.

None of your data takes any of these real world considerations into account, unless I'm missing something?

Since I have not driven an M3 I'm not in a position to judge superiority at around town speeds part-throttle. I'm sure I really don't care about that particular spec, even though there is a 1 in 5 chance my next car will be an M3. What I think is funny is how quickly you proclaim something simply cannot be the case based on a simple spreadsheet. Apparently, the millions no billions of dollars spent on R&D by car manufacturers is wasted money, because 3 people in here with excel can just run some numbers through a spreadsheet or consumer simulation software and come up with optimal answers.

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

I also noticed how much acceleration I still had available, as a result of 1) TQ and 2) How quickly and smoothly the advanced Steptronic downshifts.

So, now we're discussing what the torque is AFTER you change down a gear?

Originally Posted by footie

On the question of Sport Plus Mode, is it still easy to drive in traffic and around town in this mode?

It's a very easy car to drive, in any mode. When all is said and done, at its lowest level, it is just a powerful BMW.

[Bastet]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

It's a very easy car to drive, in any mode. When all is said and done, at its lowest level, it is just a powerful BMW.

fully agree!

[lucid]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Since I have not driven an M3 I'm not in a position to judge superiority at around town speeds part-throttle. I'm sure I really don't care about that particular spec, even though there is a 1 in 5 chance my next car will be an M3. What I think is funny is how quickly you proclaim something simply cannot be the case based on a simple spreadsheet. Apparently, the millions no billions of dollars spent on R&D by car manufacturers is wasted money, because 3 people in here with excel can just run some numbers through a spreadsheet or consumer simulation software and come up with optimal answers.

It's amazing how some people are so intimidated by this piece of evidence which tells you “something” about how the car delivers torque at different rpms. The spreadsheet simply demonstrates the effects of gearing and makes comparisons across the rpm range. You don't need to engage in a R&D effort to illustrate that simple point. The spreadsheet does not do anything numerically apart from taking gear multiplication into account; rather, it puts trustworthy empirical results into perspective, so it was used more of a presentation tool. I've spent many years dealing with much more sophisticated numerical analysis tools and models in R&D environments in the past, so I know what tool is appropriate for communicating what kind of technical information.

It's funny how you were willing to argue based on the data on the spreadsheet a few posts ago, and now that you realize you had that all wrong, you are saying the spreadsheet is a simple tool and therefore can't be effective. You tried this type of maneuver twice on this thread, once in your correspondence with me and again with 13eastie. It's not working.

Originally Posted by sdiver68

I watched my RPM's pretty closely. Most of the time they stayed below 2K RPM, even 1300-1400 RPM steady state 40mph,

If you drive predominantly below 2000rpms, yes, you do not need this car.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by footie

Clearly mine and Bruce's opinion of what is daily driving and yours differ, I never ever drive around the town or in traffic on full throttle, maybe you do and that is the difference of our opinions.

I don't drive on full throttle all the time or anything. But the point is when I want to go fast and use whatever the car is capable of delivering at that point, I floor it. It's that simple really. Again the issue has nothing to do with the car's ability to deliver torque to the wheels.