M3 vs C63

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by Krueger///M3

This whole ls3, ls7 engine in an M3 is frankly ridiculous IMO. That would be the automotive equivalent to telling Mozart that he would've made more money if he sold out and wrote butt-rock.

Or Spielberg should have directed porn.

It is definitely ridiculous, some guy sitting at his keyboard thinking he knows better than some of the best engineers in the world hand picked to serve in the most exclusive division of a top multi-national company.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

Absolute bullshit. But, whatever makes you feel better about your purchase.

Bruce A.... where would intelligent discussion be without you?

What I want to know (since there is such vast factually-based knowledge here) is why the C63 gets under M3 fans skin so much. I don't remember this happening with the E46 M3 and C32 or C55.

I think what's happened is that MB has finally built a worthy competitor.

Thank you for the plaudits, but my dad once told me that you can't challenge everybody who is being a jerk, because where would you stop? Of course, I was a teenager at the time, so I wasn't listening closely. Nowadays, I try to restrict myself to loudmouthed jerks who are also down on knowledge, but it's an effort - as I'm sure you know.

Clearly, the C63 is a real challenge to the M3. It my be the first time that you have a "pick your purchase and you can't lose" situation between the two vendors in this narrow niche. Thumbs up, sez I, but if you're a fanboy, the situation may force you to begin leaping into bed, assuming the prenatal position and turning your electric blanket up to 9.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

I don't agree with this part of your argument at all. The C6 gets better fuel mileage because it's lighter, has CAGS, and an uber tall sixth gear. Without getting into a debate about the merits of CAGS and the tall sixth gear, it's safe to say BMW would never put either on an M3. You'd be perverting the basic nature of the M3; Not only by adding the aforementioned transmission "tweaks", but by using a high displacement, low revving (relatively) V-8 vs. a lower displacement, higher revving V-8. There's no proof this LS3 engined M3 would be faster either. I recall GM sticking an LS2 in a 3,700 lb sedan, a.k.a. the 2006 Pontiac GTO. That car ran about 13.3 @ 108mph, stock. Knock three tenths off that for the LS3 and you're still not much faster than the current M3, if at all.

I'd agree that an LS3 engined M3 would drive differently, but not better. I'd even go as far as to say its power might very well be more "accessible" in many normal driving situations, but M cars have always been about high rpm thrills.

Good post.

In regard to the LS3 (and LS7, I guess) powerplants, they can get away with the tall overall gearing that would make the 4 liter bimmer falter in everyday driving, and can thus deliver better mileage. In regard to your GTO performance comments, you forgot to allow for the Pontiac's 3800 (yes, 3800) pound portliness, so subtract another three tenths or so for that when installed in an M3, plus another tenth or two for the more aggressive final drive gearing in the M3. Result? The M3 should be a hair quicker on track (as befitting the 22 HP gain), and more responsive in everyday driving at low and medium revs. In addition, the GTO gets better mileage than the M3, and not just on paper. One of my sons has an '05, and his routinely gets in the 17-18 range around town, and 25 out on the road in the 75-80 mph range.

The M3 would likely be near those mileage numbers with the LS3 powerplant.

I tend to agree that it would be a perversion of M values, but that's only if you care about Tradition, and of course there's nothing wrong with doing that.

My use of the term "better" meant a faster car, with better mileage and no handling penalty.

Anecdotally, my son's GTO now has somebody's blower on it, making 511 HP at the rear wheels, so it is absolutely giggle fast - and no mileage penalty in all-around driving, if you can believe that.

He drives it just as much as his 997S, and appears to like it about as much - but for different reasons, of course.

Bruce

[J08M3]

GTO does not get better gas milage. I just sold an 05 that I owned for three years before buying my M3. My average in the GTO was around 12 mpg, driving the same way I'm averaging about 13.5 in my M3. With out a doubt the M3 is faster cause it handles so there is no need to slow down around turns, and the brakes are great allowing you to keep a high speed longer. From a dead stop though in a straight line the GTO would definitely give the M3 a run for the money.

[J08M3]

I must say though, the LS2 was a great engine. Without comparing all the stats on paper and whatever technology is inside the engine or whatever the block is made out of. The performance really is good. You can feel it when driving the car. Very strong, reliable, smooth, and once you got it over 2,000 rpm you could just feel it making power all the way up to redline. I haven't memorized what the torque curve looks like on a dyno for it. But I do know how it behaves from the drivers seat. Plus 6th gear in the GTO was so nice, cruising down the highway at 75 MPH was only 1,900 rpm. and about 24 MPG.

[TLud]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Good post.

In regard to the LS3 (and LS7, I guess) powerplants, they can get away with the tall overall gearing that would make the 4 liter bimmer falter in everyday driving, and can thus deliver better mileage. In regard to your GTO performance comments, you forgot to allow for the Pontiac's 3800 (yes, 3800) pound portliness, so subtract another three tenths or so for that when installed in an M3, plus another tenth or two for the more aggressive final drive gearing in the M3. Result? The M3 should be a hair quicker on track (as befitting the 22 HP gain), and more responsive in everyday driving at low and medium revs. In addition, the GTO gets better mileage than the M3, and not just on paper. One of my sons has an '05, and his routinely gets in the 17-18 range around town, and 25 out on the road in the 75-80 mph range.

The M3 would likely be near those mileage numbers with the LS3 powerplant.

Bruce, aren't you contradicting yourself here? You talk about how the M3 would be a few tenths faster with the LS3 engine and the M3's more agressive gearing. Then you say that the M3 would likely achieve similar fuel efficiency numbers with the LS3 engine, after acknowledging that the improved fuel efficiency in the GTO is due to the taller gearing allowed by the LS3 engine. Which set of gears are going in this hypothetical LS3 M3?

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by TLud

Bruce, aren't you contradicting yourself here? You talk about how the M3 would be a few tenths faster with the LS3 engine and the M3's more agressive gearing. Then you say that the M3 would likely achieve similar fuel efficiency numbers with the LS3 engine, after acknowledging that the improved fuel efficiency in the GTO is due to the taller gearing allowed by the LS3 engine. Which set of gears are going in this hypothetical LS3 M3?

I think that Bruce was saying that you would keep the final drive from the M3 and use the gearing from a corvette or GTO.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Sticky

You must be one of those people that finds SMG boring. I guess I am one of those people that finds the third pedal outdated. But hey, if you appreciate the LS3 vs. the S65 I guess we have different standards. The alternator was one thing in a long list I mentioned, where are your reading skills or did you have very little to choose from in a vain attempt to criticize? When the quality of the parts and engineering are stacked up against one another the LS3 appears to have the level of quality of an engine made out of playdough by kids at recess.

I thought SMG was astoundingly good on track, and the worst automatic gearbox ever for the street.

I thought I addressed your drivel about unobtanium-filled connecting rods by saying that the Chevy would last at least as long as the bimmer, each driven within their respective limits. See, the Chevy doesn't need those rods (and the other admittedly cool stuff) because it doesn't need to rev as high to produce more power than the bimmer. Capische? BMW goes to the trouble because they have to, in turn because the M tradition is for high revving engines making a lot of power per liter.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Faster does not equate to better. There are many motors that would be quicker in an M5, or M3. Without the Motors the cars lose the characteristics that make them the complete motorsport package they are. BMW makes a complete vehicle, it is the most well rounded sum of its parts.

Faster always equates to better. That said, I agree with your contention that traditional M characteristics need to be preserved.

Originally Posted by Sticky

You don't understand gearing? Horsepower is torque x rpm / 5250. The torque curve on the M3 being as flat as it is, they can gear it shorter, allowing larger multiplication of the torque to the rear wheels. When someone goes to a shorter final drive, they are not increasing power, simply increasing torque multiplication. This is one of the reasons the M5/M6 is so balls out fast from a roll, spanking things like, all the 63 AMG's which have far more torque through the curve.

I asked about gearing because it seemed from your original statements that you don't get it in regard to that subject. See, the M3 needs aggressive gearing because of where the power is in that car. It's that simple. In addition, the M5/6 is so fast because it makes a ton of power, and has really good power to weight. It's that simple. Once under way (say, from 25-30 mph and up), overall gearing essentially doesn't matter. It's just power and weight. Period.

Originally Posted by Sticky

This torque nonsense is exactly that. I will take a smooth powerband with higher revs, which is what I bought. I also love that BMW raced the hell out of this motor. The upside in the aftermarket and longevity should one leave it stock is huge.

Torque is important, as well. The M3 would be a better car if it had a 4.4 liter V8 making 10% more torque, even if max power didn't change. Think S2000. The 2.2 was a better engine in that car than the 2.0, even though it made the same power. The increased low and mid range torque made for a more responsive drive.

Originally Posted by Sticky

The Chevy V8's don't get better mileage, they cheat the EPA and skip gears. All they do is play the test well, no bearing in the real world. The most popular mod to the cars is the Cags defeat.

They don't cheat the EPA at all. They simply get much better mileage in the real world. See my quote above in regard to my son's GTO. More weight and better mileage in that car, according to the EPA and also in the real world. My last Vette (an LT1) averaged 24.8 mpg over the entire time I owned it, including track time.

Anecdotally, CAGS was a real mileage-killer in that car. Everybody who owned one would both gun it and rev it in first gear to avoid that piece of engineering crap, and thus used more fuel, rather than less. We all defeated it first chance we got.

Originally Posted by Sticky

The M3 is down on power? Compared to what?

Why, compared with each of the other engines we've been discussing, of course.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Give BMW 6 liters and they will produce a motor which makes the world take notice. Oh wait, they did, BMW powered the McLaren F1 to feats the world had never seen. Plus, actual automotive engineers and journalists, not magazine racers on messageboards, awarded the M3 V8 engine of the year 2008 in its class. You are looking at the motor the wrong way, I will trust the M engineers opinion as to what is best for the chassis over you, sorry. Maybe they should have sent an order in for some Ls3 crate motors and spared themselves the trouble?

Of course I'm not suggesting that BMW load up on LS3s. The bimmer engine is an essential part of the package, and it deserves its accolades. I've just suggested that the M3 would be faster while getting better mileage with an LS3. To me, faster is better, as long as you don't add weight or screw up the balance. Still waiting for you to give me specifics on how the MB engine would do that, by the way.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Some good discussion and a lot of terrible trash talk here. As well most of the topics we have beat into the ground in past discussions and debates. Although I won't directly enter this debate, I do have a few comments.

Bruce:

-Recall the simulation work I did by putting the LS7 engine and transmission into the M3. It won all 0-speed X contests based on time but curiously enough it lost most time to distance contests meaning that in a street race between an M3 and M3 with Vette engine the good old M3 would actually win. You didn't much like those results then and I doubt you will like them now either.

-As well if you think that the 6.2 liter engine in the Merc could in any possible way be smaller than the 3.99 liter M3 engine you are really in a fantasy world. Larger pistons = larger piston spacing = longer block = longer engine (all other things being roughly equal). You know as well as I do that that poster will not be able to produce dimensional data for either engine. The size of the M3 engine and the way it can be placed in its chassis are key parts of the entire vehicle design. I know you also think the 6.2 l Merc engine is as light or lighter than the M3 but very simple geometric and physics based arguments tell us this is not possible. It is like saying the fat man weighs less than the skinny man, perhaps because he is less dense. The density argument is also in direct contradiction with the engineering. Engine components must be highly engineered for high rpm, typically meaning very light and superb strength to weight ratio. If identical mass rotating components are used at the M3s redline they will have almost 40% more stress than if operated at the C63s redline. This is why they are not the same mass - they HAVE to be lighter. Despite the published specs on engine weights I'll simply refuse to believe that those are true "apples to apples" specifications. It is specsmanship, not reality.

[footie]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I thought SMG was astoundingly good on track, and the worst automatic gearbox ever for the street.

I couldn't agree with you more, it was and is the worst gearbox ever to grace a production car......period. If it was solely for track use it's failings would never have been noticed, sadly for BMW that was not the case and they spent the rest of the time re-writing the software trying to make a poor design work better. DSG showed it for what it was, a piss poor product.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Faster always equates to better. That said, I agree with your contention that traditional M characteristics need to be preserved.

Not always Bruce, character is just as important as overall speed, though if you can combine the two together then you are on to a winning package, just like the M3 is already.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I asked about gearing because it seemed from your original statements that you don't get it in regard to that subject. See, the M3 needs aggressive gearing because of where the power is in that car. It's that simple. In addition, the M5/6 is so fast because it makes a ton of power, and has really good power to weight. It's that simple. Once under way (say, from 25-30 mph and up), overall gearing essentially doesn't matter. It's just power and weight. Period.

Up to a point I was agree with that statement of 'it's just power and weight', gearing does play it's part as does aerodynamics, though regardless of what gearing you would give the M3, it would never out accelerate an M5/6, maybe over the first couple of gears but there after it would be a walk in the park for the big brother.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Torque is important, as well. The M3 would be a better car if it had a 4.4 liter V8 making 10% more torque, even if max power didn't change. Think S2000. The 2.2 was a better engine in that car than the 2.0, even though it made the same power. The increased low and mid range torque made for a more responsive drive.

If power doesn't drop but torque increases then of course it's a better thing. Torque improves drivability, though the kind of customer that buy an M3 looks for revs and usually torque and revs aren't mentioned in the same sentence.

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Some good discussion and a lot of terrible trash talk here. As well most of the topics we have beat into the ground in past discussions and debates. Although I won't directly enter this debate, I do have a few comments.

Bruce:

-Recall the simulation work I did by putting the LS7 engine and transmission into the M3. It won all 0-speed X contests based on time but curiously enough it lost most time to distance contests meaning that in a street race between an M3 and M3 with Vette engine the good old M3 would actually win. You didn't much like those results then and I doubt you will like them now either.

-As well if you think that the 6.2 liter engine in the Merc could in any possible way be smaller than the 3.99 liter M3 engine you are really in a fantasy world. Larger pistons = larger piston spacing = longer block = longer engine (all other things being roughly equal). You know as well as I do that that poster will not be able to produce dimensional data for either engine. The size of the M3 engine and the way it can be placed in its chassis are key parts of the entire vehicle design. I know you also think the 6.2 l Merc engine is as light or lighter than the M3 but very simple geometric and physics based arguments tell us this is not possible. It is like saying the fat man weighs less than the skinny man, perhaps because he is less dense. The density argument is also in direct contradiction with the engineering. Engine components must be highly engineered for high rpm, typically meaning very light and superb strength to weight ratio. If identical mass rotating components are used at the M3s redline they will have almost 40% more stress than if operated at the C63s redline. This is why they are not the same mass - they HAVE to be lighter. Despite the published specs on engine weights I'll simply refuse to believe that those are true "apples to apples" specifications. It is specsmanship, not reality.

+1 I don't agree with the statement that the M3 is not as good of a car because it does not have the Chevy engine in it. I respect was GM has done with their V8s, they have tons of power and return good gas mileage, but I don't believe it's for the M3. I don't know if anyone else agrees with my earlier statement about Mozart though.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I thought SMG was astoundingly good on track, and the worst automatic gearbox ever for the street.

I thought I addressed your drivel about unobtanium-filled connecting rods by saying that the Chevy would last at least as long as the bimmer, each driven within their respective limits. See, the Chevy doesn't need those rods (and the other admittedly cool stuff) because it doesn't need to rev as high to produce more power than the bimmer. Capische? BMW goes to the trouble because they have to, in turn because the M tradition is for high revving engines making a lot of power per liter.



Faster always equates to better. That said, I agree with your contention that traditional M characteristics need to be preserved.



I asked about gearing because it seemed from your original statements that you don't get it in regard to that subject. See, the M3 needs aggressive gearing because of where the power is in that car. It's that simple. In addition, the M5/6 is so fast because it makes a ton of power, and has really good power to weight. It's that simple. Once under way (say, from 25-30 mph and up), overall gearing essentially doesn't matter. It's just power and weight. Period.



Torque is important, as well. The M3 would be a better car if it had a 4.4 liter V8 making 10% more torque, even if max power didn't change. Think S2000. The 2.2 was a better engine in that car than the 2.0, even though it made the same power. The increased low and mid range torque made for a more responsive drive.



They don't cheat the EPA at all. They simply get much better mileage in the real world. See my quote above in regard to my son's GTO. More weight and better mileage in that car, according to the EPA and also in the real world. My last Vette (an LT1) averaged 24.8 mpg over the entire time I owned it, including track time.

Anecdotally, CAGS was a real mileage-killer in that car. Everybody who owned one would both gun it and rev it in first gear to avoid that piece of engineering crap, and thus used more fuel, rather than less. We all defeated it first chance we got.



Why, compared with each of the other engines we've been discussing, of course.



Of course I'm not suggesting that BMW load up on LS3s. The bimmer engine is an essential part of the package, and it deserves its accolades. I've just suggested that the M3 would be faster while getting better mileage with an LS3. To me, faster is better, as long as you don't add weight or screw up the balance. Still waiting for you to give me specifics on how the MB engine would do that, by the way.

Bruce

So SMG is great on the track yet horrible on the street? Well, in comes DCT which is better at being an automatic than an automatic and a better manual gearbox than SMG. Case closed.

Faster is always better? Why aren't we all driving Z06's? Maybe if someone really feels they need more power than the M3 has stock the aftermarket exists to satisfy such demands?

Uh, gearing matters once you get under way. The M5/M6 have to be at the top of the powerband to be as quick as they are. Look at the difference between the manual transmissions and SMG. The cars are MUCH faster with 7 gears, from a roll or stop.

Many people felt the 2.2 made the s2000 lazy and less exciting, losing some character. Plus, Honda just could not keep the 2.0's together with the 9k redline and it was a business decision not one in the favor of the enthusiast.

Uh, YES, they do cheat the EPA. They design the cars to inflate their numbers on the EPA test. You talk about vettes and their mileage how about that their 6th gear is just a fuel mileage gear? The z06 hits top speed in 5th gear, not 6th. You give the M3 a 7.0 liter motor and the m3's gearing it is going to burn fuel faster than a 4.0 liter, it is simply inevitable.

There is a long list of cars with larger motors with more torque that get bitch slapped by the M3. The evidence clearly points that the M3 is exactly where it should be and an impressive performer at that. Nothing else stacks up to it per liter (GT3).

No, you DID suggest BMW should use the LS3 saying the car would be better with it. This is essentially saying the LS3 is a better motor for the car. How else should one interpret your statement regarding if the sole difference was the motor the M3 would be a better car?

As for the AMG 63 dimensions, you look it up, this isn't a homework assignment and I think I have typed out quite enough information for you as is.

You say the M3 is heavy and needs a larger motor for its weight. It is the lightest car in its class and shockingly close to the E46 M3. Many have weighed their car and the numbers were the same as my SMG E46 M3, crazy?

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Thank you for the plaudits, but my dad once told me that you can't challenge everybody who is being a jerk, because where would you stop? Of course, I was a teenager at the time, so I wasn't listening closely. Nowadays, I try to restrict myself to loudmouthed jerks who are also down on knowledge, but it's an effort - as I'm sure you know.

Clearly, the C63 is a real challenge to the M3. It my be the first time that you have a "pick your purchase and you can't lose" situation between the two vendors in this narrow niche. Thumbs up, sez I, but if you're a fanboy, the situation may force you to begin leaping into bed, assuming the prenatal position and turning your electric blanket up to 9.

Bruce

Bruce,

I am sorry if I came across rude with my last comment. I believe that you a a great attribute to this board and that you are one of the most knowledgeable members, but I don't always agree with your comments sometimes regarding the LSX and the M3.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by TLud

Bruce, aren't you contradicting yourself here? You talk about how the M3 would be a few tenths faster with the LS3 engine and the M3's more agressive gearing. Then you say that the M3 would likely achieve similar fuel efficiency numbers with the LS3 engine, after acknowledging that the improved fuel efficiency in the GTO is due to the taller gearing allowed by the LS3 engine. Which set of gears are going in this hypothetical LS3 M3?

LS3 six-speed box, with the standard M3 final drive. You use the LS3 six-speed because its taller gearing (compared to the M3 box) is better suited to the slower-turning Chevy motor, and because the M3 box might also have a problem with the torque. No problem with the stock final drive, though.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by J08M3

GTO does not get better gas milage. I just sold an 05 that I owned for three years before buying my M3. My average in the GTO was around 12 mpg, driving the same way I'm averaging about 13.5 in my M3. With out a doubt the M3 is faster cause it handles so there is no need to slow down around turns, and the brakes are great allowing you to keep a high speed longer. From a dead stop though in a straight line the GTO would definitely give the M3 a run for the money.

You are in a minority with your GTO gas mileage. Stockers routinely do mid 20s on the highway, and higher teens around town. I perused the GTO forums for awhile after my son bought his '05, and his experience seems typical.

Bruce

[TLud]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

LS3 six-speed box, with the standard M3 final drive. You use the LS3 six-speed because its taller gearing (compared to the M3 box) is better suited to the slower-turning Chevy motor, and because the M3 box might also have a problem with the torque. No problem with the stock final drive, though.

Bruce

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Some good discussion and a lot of terrible trash talk here. As well most of the topics we have beat into the ground in past discussions and debates. Although I won't directly enter this debate, I do have a few comments.

Bruce:

-Recall the simulation work I did by putting the LS7 engine and transmission into the M3. It won all 0-speed X contests based on time but curiously enough it lost most time to distance contests meaning that in a street race between an M3 and M3 with Vette engine the good old M3 would actually win. You didn't much like those results then and I doubt you will like them now either.

I didn't mind your simulations then, and don't mind them now. My own simulator shows the LS3 car to be a fat two tenths quicker (12.48 to 12.74). So what. They're simulators. At a guess, the LS3 will have more trouble launching, and will be in control from there on. Perhaps it would make up for the launch problem by the end of a quarter mile, and perhaps not. It would be in control out on the mean streets, I believe.

Originally Posted by swamp2

-As well if you think that the 6.2 liter engine in the Merc could in any possible way be smaller than the 3.99 liter M3 engine you are really in a fantasy world. Larger pistons = larger piston spacing = longer block = longer engine (all other things being roughly equal). You know as well as I do that that poster will not be able to produce dimensional data for either engine. The size of the M3 engine and the way it can be placed in its chassis are key parts of the entire vehicle design. I know you also think the 6.2 l Merc engine is as light or lighter than the M3 but very simple geometric and physics based arguments tell us this is not possible. It is like saying the fat man weighs less than the skinny man, perhaps because he is less dense. The density argument is also in direct contradiction with the engineering. Engine components must be highly engineered for high rpm, typically meaning very light and superb strength to weight ratio. If identical mass rotating components are used at the M3s redline they will have almost 40% more stress than if operated at the C63s redline. This is why they are not the same mass - they HAVE to be lighter. Despite the published specs on engine weights I'll simply refuse to believe that those are true "apples to apples" specifications. It is specsmanship, not reality.

I've asked the guy to come up with the engine measurements because I'm too lazy to look them up, but I'm sure they're out there. Obviously I don't think the 6.2 liter Merc is smaller, but just how much bigger is it, and will that likely throw off the handling balance? Doubt it, but since the guy said it would, he should come up with some data to prove his assertion. If the Merc is an inch longer, no problem with handling. If it's six inches longer, big problems - with everything.

After reading some in-depth tech analysis from Mercedes when it was first announced (including metallurgy), I'm willing to believe the Merc is indeed very light for its capacity. Plus of course Mercedes says it's lighter, and while you say they're lying in public, I am willing to believe them.

No problem, we just disagree again, as is often the case.

Bruce

[J08M3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

You are in a minority with your GTO gas mileage. Stockers routinely do mid 20s on the highway, and higher teens around town. I perused the GTO forums for awhile after my son bought his '05, and his experience seems typical.

Bruce

Depends how you drive it.... If you use the 400hp they gave you, don't expect better than the 12-13 around town. Of course if you baby it around as a friend of mine tried for a week he got around 18 in town. Highway isn't going to be better than low 20s and that's higher than the sticker says.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Krueger///M3

Bruce,

I am sorry if I came across rude with my last comment. I believe that you a a great attribute to this board and that you are one of the most knowledgeable members, but I don't always agree with your comments sometimes regarding the LSX and the M3.

Thanks for the apology, but not needed. You actually made me laugh out loud, because your outrage caused me to remember an "event" I experienced way back when.

I had pulled into my local Sunoco station with my just-tuned '64 GTO, silver, TriPower, 4-speed, posi and all - and there were not one, but two XK-Es pulled up to the pumps.

Nirvana. I do the quick mental evaluation ("Yeah, I could take them through a quarter mile, but then..."), and pull up to a free pump next to one of the Jags.

The older guy who had just pulled in got out of the other Jag and began walking toward the one by me, giant smile on his face, hand beginning to reach out in preparation for a hearty shake, when the somewhat younger guy (who hadn't seen the other guy yet) lifted the hood.

Small-block Chevy!

Over a period of perhaps five seconds, the older guy's face went from joy, to confusion, to bewilderment, and finally to sheer outrage. He clenched his fists, and for a second I thought he was going to hit the other guy - and so did he.

Then he just sort of wilted, shuffled off to his "proper" XK-E, and drove off without getting gas.

Now, a lot of guys were stuffing small-blocks into Jags back then for what were obvious reasons at the time. The Jag was a temperamental, oil-guzzling, always-in-need-of-a-tuneup engine, prone to overheating, and with Lucas "Prince of Darkness" electrics. The Chevy was a more powerful, more reliable, cheaper to run powerplant, equipped with Delco electrics, plus there were cheap parts available everywhere, including an unbelievable array of speed equipment. It was even a little lighter than the Jag engine. Plus it made that brassy, blaring, clarion call to battle sound that only came in packages marked small block Chevy at the time.

Still, something was clearly lost. Those cam covers. That lovely, wicked and edgy snarl, at idle and everywhere else, turning to a melodious howl at full chat, as they say. I could see the case for both sides.

Now, of course, I feel the same way about the M3 with a Chevy motor. I personally don't give a damn about automotive tradition, for the M3 or any other car, so bolting some other powerplant in there that would make more power without additional weight is just fine with me. Of course, it would change the complexion of the car, but for me, so what? You'd lose that wonderful M3 sound, for example, but you'd pick up that wonderful Vette sound. And so on.

I certainly understand the outrage, however.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Sticky

So SMG is great on the track yet horrible on the street?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Well, in comes DCT which is better at being an automatic than an automatic and a better manual gearbox than SMG. Case closed.

Case not quite closed, but I'm willing to believe it will be when they clean out the bugs. I also believe this "new style" automatic will surely proliferate, because it's a better idea.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Faster is always better? Why aren't we all driving Z06's? Maybe if someone really feels they need more power than the M3 has stock the aftermarket exists to satisfy such demands?

Pardon me, I meant that faster is always better in terms of your current car (of whatever make or model), getting a power injection. That's why I quoted David E. Davis: "Any car on the planet would be a better car if it just had 50 more horsepower."

Originally Posted by Sticky

Uh, gearing matters once you get under way. The M5/M6 have to be at the top of the powerband to be as quick as they are. Look at the difference between the manual transmissions and SMG. The cars are MUCH faster with 7 gears, from a roll or stop.

You've switched gears, so to speak. Now you're talking gear spacing. You originally said aggressive gearing is better out on the road because of torque multiplication, and I disagree. Once underway, just pick the correct transmission gear so as to get close to the power peak and have fun. It doesn't matter whether you've got really long gears (think Viper), or tighter gears as in the M3.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Many people felt the 2.2 made the s2000 lazy and less exciting, losing some character. Plus, Honda just could not keep the 2.0's together with the 9k redline and it was a business decision not one in the favor of the enthusiast.

I don't know what people you're talking about, but I sold these cars for two plus years, and everybody I dealt with had a better initial reaction and ownership reaction to the 2.2.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Uh, YES, they do cheat the EPA. They design the cars to inflate their numbers on the EPA test. You talk about vettes and their mileage how about that their 6th gear is just a fuel mileage gear? The z06 hits top speed in 5th gear, not 6th. You give the M3 a 7.0 liter motor and the m3's gearing it is going to burn fuel faster than a 4.0 liter, it is simply inevitable.

Who cares about a seven liter motor with M3 gearing, and who would do that anyway? That's way too much gearing for such a car. The fact is that the LS cars get better mileage than the M3 while making more power and torque. This is real world, buddy, although they do that on the EPA tests, as well.

In my opinion, the truly miserable mileage is probably the weakest thing about the car, and it should be an embarrassment to BMW.

Originally Posted by Sticky

No, you DID suggest BMW should use the LS3 saying the car would be better with it. This is essentially saying the LS3 is a better motor for the car. How else should one interpret your statement regarding if the sole difference was the motor the M3 would be a better car?

It makes more power and torque at the same weight, so the car would be faster while also making better mileage (of course when geared properly for the LS3s rev range).

Originally Posted by Sticky

As for the AMG 63 dimensions, you look it up, this isn't a homework assignment and I think I have typed out quite enough information for you as is.

You said the Merc motor would throw the balance off. Prove it.

Originally Posted by Sticky

You say the M3 is heavy and needs a larger motor for its weight. It is the lightest car in its class and shockingly close to the E46 M3. Many have weighed their car and the numbers were the same as my SMG E46 M3, crazy?

The M3 is too big and heavy, in my opinion, but didn't say it needs a larger motor, exactly. Said it would be a better car with several other motors that make more power.

Our '04 weighed almost exactly 3400 pounds. Are you saying the new one weighs 3400 pounds? If it does, I stand corrected.

Bruce

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I didn't mind your simulations then, and don't mind them now. My own simulator shows the LS3 car to be a fat two tenths quicker (12.48 to 12.74). So what. They're simulators.

But, but, Bruce, the regular C6 coupe runs 12.4-12.5 @ 115-116mph. You're saying an LS3 engined M3, with 350 lbs more junk in the trunk would be equally fast? I'm just not buying this argument. I think at best an LS3 swap into an M3 would be a break even proposition. Also, if this combination is your idea of an ideal mechanical marriage, why not just cut to the chase and get the C63? Sure, it won't handle quite as well and you will have to live with the automatic, but I think its character would be more in line with what you're after? Or...maybe not; you have pretty peculiar tastes

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Yes.



Case not quite closed, but I'm willing to believe it will be when they clean out the bugs. I also believe this "new style" automatic will surely proliferate, because it's a better idea.



Pardon me, I meant that faster is always better in terms of your current car (of whatever make or model), getting a power injection. That's why I quoted David E. Davis: "Any car on the planet would be a better car if it just had 50 more horsepower."



You've switched gears, so to speak. Now you're talking gear spacing. You originally said aggressive gearing is better out on the road because of torque multiplication, and I disagree. Once underway, just pick the correct transmission gear so as to get close to the power peak and have fun. It doesn't matter whether you've got really long gears (think Viper), or tighter gears as in the M3.



I don't know what people you're talking about, but I sold these cars for two plus years, and everybody I dealt with had a better initial reaction and ownership reaction to the 2.2.



Who cares about a seven liter motor with M3 gearing, and who would do that anyway? That's way to much gearing for such a car. The fact is that the LS cars get better mileage than the M3 while making more power and torque. This is real world, buddy, although they do that on the EPA tests, as well.

In my opinion, the truly miserable mileage is probably the weakest thing about the car, and it should be an embarrassment to BMW.



It makes more power and torque at the same weight, so the car would be faster while also making better mileage (of course when geared properly for the LS3s rev range).



You said the Merc motor would throw the balance off. Prove it.



The M3 is too big and heavy, in my opinion, but didn't say it needs a larger motor, exactly. Said it would be a better car with several other motors that make more power.

Our '04 weighed almost exactly 3400 pounds. Are you saying the new one weighs 3400 pounds? If it does, I stand corrected.

Bruce

Running in circles with you is pointless as you will continue to distort whatever you can to attempt to strengthen your argument of the M3 motor being a weak point. Yet you can't seem to explain how the M3 outperforms the vast majority of motors in the marketplace with more torque. You don't get the M3 can make more power with less torque with more revs. If an LS3 could rev to 8k and maintain its peak torque, it would be a crowning achievement, but it cant and never well.

Gearing, as we were generally speaking, would encompass spacing. If you want to sit here and nitpick semantics I suppose we can do that. Now speaking of spacing, I am not sure what you don't get about the SMG with 7 gears being faster as it keeps the motor in that 6-8k rpm range more often than the 6 speed manual does. It is geared shorter with the 7, increasing torque to the wheels at all RPM ranges, rather simple.

Ah, so you sold Hondas. Good for you, I am speaking of my friend who had the 2.0 let go on him, THREE TIMES. He eventually got the 2.2 but felt it just did not have the same excitement. Purely subjective, so who is to say who is right or wrong?

You can't prove me wrong regarding placing the AMG motor in the E92, so why don't YOU prove it? Logic would dictate the larger motor would require completely different spacing in the engine bay. Either way, it is a stupid suggestion.

The only thing that could be embarassing to BMW would be if you were making the engine decisions at M. So I get 20-21 mpg during break in on the highway... boo hoo.

As far as the weight, I guess you missed it when I wrote the weight was the same as my E46 M3 SMG. Too big and heavy in your opinion? Compared to... what? It is the LIGHTEST car in its class, but I guess you can never please everyone.