E92 M3 vs. C63? Which would you pick? Regardless of price..

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Well you can view validated, science based simulation as "speculation" all day, whatever way you want to delude yourself. Do you know how cars, rocket, ships and airplanes are desinged today...Did you notice how many different cars validate in an incredibly accurate way with CarTest? Do you realize CarTest is a physics based simulation tool? If the assumptions and values for slush box losses in CarTest are wrong it would likely not validate so well.

Cool your jets, tough guy. I helped design a quarter-mile simulation tool a number of years ago, called "ShiftMaster", so I have a little knowledge of the topic. That tool was accurate to within around a hundredth anywhere during the quarter mile. I have no knowledge of CarTest, but assume from your rantings that it's pretty good. Tell you what, though. When enough test results are available for the C63, see how it matches up.

The 335i automatic probably does not have less tranny losses - it is absolutely under-rated by BMW.

Maybe I wasn't clear. On chassis dynos, stick 335s are typically putting out around 275 horsepower, while Steptronics are making 265+. Clear?

OK now I am really confused you begin by saying all I am doing is speculating and "very probably incorrect" and then you close by totally agreeing with me.

A course on reading skills might be in order.

Bruce

[Big Windy]

get a manual transmission. moms get MB and automatic.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Cool your jets, tough guy. I helped design a quarter-mile simulation tool a number of years ago, called "ShiftMaster", so I have a little knowledge of the topic. That tool was accurate to within around a hundredth anywhere during the quarter mile. I have no knowledge of CarTest, but assume from your rantings that it's pretty good. Tell you what, though. When enough test results are available for the C63, see how it matches up.

Maybe I wasn't clear. On chassis dynos, stick 335s are typically putting out around 275 horsepower, while Steptronics are making 265+. Clear?

A course on reading skills might be in order.

Bruce, like others have siad your peculiar quoting style makes discussions really difficult requiring tons of cut and paste - I mean your use of the forum, not what you say...

My jets are not hot, sorry if you can't take the truth. You basically ridiculed something that it appeared you knew little to nothing about, I simply replied. Heck even by your own admission you still know nothing about CarTest. Furthermore your experience "helping to design" a similar 1/4 mi simulator is in serious doubt. There is no such simulator that will match even a single car within 1/100s for the entire quarter mile. There is simply too much physics happening, too many unknowns and too many estimates. I do physics based simulation for a living - I simply call BS. Show me your numbers and evidence!!!

Thanks for the clarification on the 335i drivetrain losses. As you might have noticed in my other posts on CarTest I have been totally unable to get a good simulation of the 335i - this typically means that one or more of dozens of customizeable parameters of the sw is in error. It does not mean the sw is not good nor correct - it jest mean you don't know important facts about the car accurately.

No need to insult my ability to read. You said my post on the comparo of power to the wheels per weight on the M3 v. C63 was pure speculation and likely incorrect then went right on to say

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Lets say that the C63 loses enough power to make it even with the M3 on a power-to-weight basis, and call it quits.

That was the basic premise of my entire post. How is it that I can't read?

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I simply said that you can hit that corner in whatever gear you like with either a stick or automatic. That's obvious, right?

In that comment, I wasn't implying that you have as much control with an automatic as with a stick, but now that you mention it, you pretty much do.

In terms of skilled shifters, *nobody* powershifts in a 90 degree turn - at least, not if you're at or near the limit. It upsets the chassis, and at the very least, you're going to be spending the next several seconds trying to gather it back up, assuming you don't prang anything. At that point, the other guy (who did the corner correctly) is way the hell up there where you won't catch him.

In regard to automatics vs sticks: While you weren't looking, they got a bunch better, and sticks didn't. Today's best autos are flat better (meaning faster and more responsive, while maintaining smoothness) than today's best sticks. I've been powershifting since I got my first new car (a '64 TriPower GTO), but I can't match the shift speeds of nearly any good automatic, obviously including today's stick-without-a-clutch-pedal autos. Likewise, I have several thousand track miles under my (rather massive) belt, and have been instructiing in those venues for the last couple of years, but I can't consistently rev-match on downshifts (while braking for a turn) as well as today's best autos can.

My position is that the feeling of control you get while driving a stick is now largely an illusion. Automatics just flat get it done.

By the way, I've been a stick guy for over 40 years, so all this flat pisses me off. I may have to join the dark side with my next car, just because autos are now effortlessly quicker than sticks.

Bruce

That was my point. When your driving a stick (DSG), YOU control when the car shifts, if you want to shift during a turn, YOU CAN!

In an automatic, you don't control when you shift, the car does! Thus, you have less control. Doesnt sound like your talking about an automatic, but some type of SMG/DSG or some sort of Tiptonic.




-Garrett

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Bruce, like others have siad your peculiar quoting style makes discussions really difficult requiring tons of cut and paste - I mean your use of the forum, not what you say...

My jets are not hot, sorry if you can't take the truth. You basically ridiculed something that it appeared you knew little to nothing about, I simply replied. Heck even by your own admission you still know nothing about CarTest. Furthermore your experience "helping to design" a similar 1/4 mi simulator is in serious doubt. There is no such simulator that will match even a single car within 1/100s for the entire quarter mile. There is simply too much physics happening, too many unknowns and too many estimates. I do physics based simulation for a living - I simply call BS. Show me your numbers and evidence!!!

Thanks for the clarification on the 335i drivetrain losses. As you might have noticed in my other posts on CarTest I have been totally unable to get a good simulation of the 335i - this typically means that one or more of dozens of customizeable parameters of the sw is in error. It does not mean the sw is not good nor correct - it jest mean you don't know important facts about the car accurately.

No need to insult my ability to read. You said my post on the comparo of power to the wheels per weight on the M3 v. C63 was pure speculation and likely incorrect then went right on to say

That was the basic premise of my entire post. How is it that I can't read?

Swamp, does that software even work for FI vehichles..? How can it(software) know that it not only has a maximum Torque @ 3500rpm, but nearly the same at 1700 rpm ..?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

...Furthermore your experience "helping to design" a similar 1/4 mi simulator is in serious doubt. There is no such simulator that will match even a single car within 1/100s for the entire quarter mile.

...No need to insult my ability to read. You said my post on the comparo of power to the wheels per weight on the M3 v. C63 was pure speculation and likely incorrect then went right on to say

That was the basic premise of my entire post. How is it that I can't read?

Go to http://www.eec-tuner.com/

Then go to Products. Turns out ShiftMaster is still available.

I've never had trouble getting to within about a hundredth, using my own timeslips on a number of cars. I didn't do any of the code in this product, but helped work out the factors necessary to make an accurate calculation - with the help of numerous SAE papers, I must say.

Your post said that the M3 had around a 5% power-to-weight advantage, while my rough calculations showed the C63 had an approximate 1% power-to-weight advantage (assuming a 15 HP transmission loss compared to the stick M3). Therefore, I said what the heck, let's call it even.

By the way BER is *not* a factor in this discussion (or at least it shouldn't be). Under SAE testing standards, it's already accounted for in the numbers.

Bruce

PS - Sorry for the undue difficulty in copying my notes correctly. Can you tell me how to multi-quote?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Garrett

That was my point. When your driving a stick (DSG), YOU control when the car shifts, if you want to shift during a turn, YOU CAN!

In an automatic, you don't control when you shift, the car does! Thus, you have less control. Doesnt sound like your talking about an automatic, but some type of SMG/DSG or some sort of Tiptonic.

-Garrett

Garrett, I don't know what type of automatics you've been driving, but I personally have never driven an automatic that won't let you control the shifts, whether that be in a turn or not.

Listen, chief. SMG, DSG, Tiptronic - they are each and every one an automatic. You're giving me grief about control, and the *only* possible additional potential control you have with a stick is clutch feathering. No clutch pedal, no feathering.

No clutch pedal? AUTOMATIC. Don't give me crap about torque converters. Some autos have 'em, some don't.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Your post said that the M3 had around a 5% power-to-weight advantage, while my rough calculations showed the C63 had an approximate 1% power-to-weight advantage (assuming a 15 HP transmission loss compared to the stick M3). Therefore, I said what the heck, let's call it even.

By the way BER is *not* a factor in this discussion (or at least it shouldn't be). Under SAE testing standards, it's already accounted for in the numbers.

Bruce

PS - Sorry for the undue difficulty in copying my notes correctly. Can you tell me how to multi-quote?

Yes, even tough I showed what I think to be a reasonable calculation the main point was simply to look at a real number, rather than crank hp or tq. Sure +/- a few percent either way depending on tranny and other losses is reasonable. So indeed the M3 may not be higher but both are darn close.

Are you sure BER is already accounted for in SAE hp testing? Is it similarly accounted for in DIN testing?

To multi-quote just hit reply, then copy and paste the first [...] to the begining of the second and subsequent quotes and copy the second [...] to the respective ends of each subsequent quote.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Garrett

Swamp, does that software even work for FI vehichles..? How can it(software) know that it not only has a maximum Torque @ 3500rpm, but nearly the same at 1700 rpm ..?

Yes. The only thing needed is a proper torque curve. In the sw you have two options, put in the peak values and the rpm they occur at or you can put in, point by point, the exact torque curve. When you use the first option the sw makes some assumptions and uses things like displacement, FI/NA, compresson ratio, etc. to calculate a torque curve. I have found the simple method to validate many cars correctly in terms of performance and have only resorted to inputing the actual full curve for the 335i which I just can't get to validate. Unfortunately the full torque curve did not help.

[Becksgold]

I wonder if people in Mercedes forums also dream about owning a BMW?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Yes, even tough I showed what I think to be a reasonable calculation the main point was simply to look at a real number, rather than crank hp or tq. Sure +/- a few percent either way depending on tranny and other losses is reasonable. So indeed the M3 may not be higher but both are darn close.

Yup - and for the first time since M-B built that 2.5 liter four cylinder to compete with the E30 M3 way back when, we're apparently gonna get ourselves a pair of pretty evenly matched cars chasing a fairly similar audience, BMW and M-B fanboys notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Are you sure BER is already accounted for in SAE hp testing? Is it similarly accounted for in DIN testing?

If my understanding of BER is correct (software eliminates charging except during deceleration and idle - no hardware), it's accounted for.

Don't know all the details in regard to DIN (now called something else) test procedures, but my guess is that it is taken into account there, as well. Of course, a guess is just a guess, but the 420HP Euro rating vs 414HP SAE matches the same percentage differentials found in other engines tested with no BER. However, assuming a 110-amp alternator doing its damnest, we're still talking well under three horsepower, at max and assuming well under 100% efficiency. It's more likely we're talking less than a single pony under more real operating conditions.

SAE testing is governed by SAE Standard J1349, mildly revised in 2004 (for the first time since they went to "SAE Net" standards which went into effect for the 1971 cars). That standard calls for engine testing to be done with full intake and exhaust systems in place, all accessories in place, and with engine control software installed and operating just as it would in the vehicle out on the road. That obviously means no battery charging during the dyno run.

As an aside, J1349 was revised largely because the Japanese (among others) were taking advantage of loopholes in the 1971 standard, doing such things as using premium when regular was stipulated (with engine control software able to take advantage of the increased octane), running the engine a quart low on oil to reduce crank splash, etc. Smacked Toyota right between the eyes with that, although Honda, Mazda, et al were also embarassed.

Now, the rules are very close to air tight, and an SAE guy has to be there to witness the runs. "Trust everyone", said Ronald Reagan, "but always cut the cards."

Originally Posted by swamp2

To multi-quote just hit reply, then copy and paste the first [...] to the begining of the second and subsequent quotes and copy the second [...] to the respective ends of each subsequent quote.

Well Duh, that was easy. Sometimes I think if I got any dumber they'd have to water me twice a week. Thanks.

Bruce

PS - Just plowed through Hawking's "Brief History" update, and got almost as big a headache as when I read the original. The difference is that the update includes a bunch of illustrations, which tend to appeal to my cartoonish mind.

His "Nutshell" book got even worse, and when he started describing "p-branes", I thought he was talking about me, and had changed the spelling so I wouldn't get it.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I've seen other posts that do multiple quotes (note: in tinted boxes), with specific replies to each. That seems to be the more elegant way of doing it - but I have no clue as to how that is done. Can you or someone give me a pointer?

Thanks,

Bruce

Sure.

Like I said, you have to add the quote and /quote tags (note: they need square brackets around them) around each section you wish to add the "tinted boxes" to. What you can do is simply copy them from the editor window that comes up when you quote someones post. Then just paste them where you need them.

HTH

EDIT: I hadn't read the rest of thread. I see you got it down now. Cool.

[///MWA]

///M3 for sure

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I personally have never driven an automatic that won't let you control the shifts...

SMG, DSG, Tiptronic - they are each and every one an automatic. You're giving me grief about control, and the *only* possible additional potential control you have with a stick is clutch feathering. No clutch pedal, no feathering.

The classifcation of an automatic vs. manual is based on a small set of direct engagement gears vs. a complex set of planetary gears, hydraulics, pumps and multiple clutches. The lossy nature of an automatic is clear once you realize all of the parts inside. Both SMG and DSG are ABOSLUTELY NOT automatic transmissions. If you had to choose calling both either auto or manual, manual would be the closest. Technically though they are both called automated manuals. A computer and some fairly simple external actuators control the mechanism that would normally be moved by ones arm. Inside the transmission they are indeed manual transmissions. Of course all that being said todays automatics do indeed offer a similar level of control compared to an automated manual. It is just that the automated manual is typically smaller, lighter, more efficient and faster shifting.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The classifcation of an automatic vs. manual is based on a small set of direct engagement gears vs. a complex set of planetary gears, hydraulics, pumps and multiple clutches. The lossy nature of an automatic is clear once you realize all of the parts inside. Both SMG and DSG are ABOSLUTELY NOT automatic transmissions. If you had to choose calling both either auto or manual, manual would be the closest. Technically though they are both called automated manuals. A computer and some fairly simple external actuators control the mechanism that would normally be moved by ones arm. Inside the transmission they are indeed manual transmissions. Of course all that being said todays automatics do indeed offer a similar level of control compared to an automated manual. It is just that the automated manual is typically smaller, lighter, more efficient and faster shifting.

The classification of an automatic transmission depends on whether or not you have to shift it. If you don't have to shift, it's an automatic. I'd use all caps as well if I thought it would make this simple and obvious point any better.

Furthermore, just because automatics started with a planetary gear setup (and most torque-converter automatics still use this design), there's no reason to define the genre this way. As a for instance, are CVTs not automatics?

As a comment on lightness and efficiency, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a lighter, more efficient transmission than the automatic in the Toyota Prius.

Bruce

PS - You and I are going to disagree forever on this point, and also on your opinion of the "lossy nature" of an automatic. That's yesterday's news when you take a look at the current offerings. Probably the best evidence of this is that autos typically hold their own in the EPA ratings. Some are a little better, and some are a little worse, but they're certainly efficient.

[m_bazeepaymon]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The classification of an automatic transmission depends on whether or not you have to shift it. If you don't have to shift, it's an automatic. I'd use all caps as well if I thought it would make this simple and obvious point any better.

Furthermore, just because automatics started with a planetary gear setup (and most torque-converter automatics still use this design), there's no reason to define the genre this way. As a for instance, are CVTs not automatics?

As a comment on lightness and efficiency, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a lighter, more efficient transmission than the automatic in the Toyota Prius.

Bruce

PS - You and I are going to disagree forever on this point, and also on your opinion of the "lossy nature" of an automatic. That's yesterday's news when you take a look at the current offerings. Probably the best evidence of this is that autos typically hold their own in the EPA ratings. Some are a little better, and some are a little worse, but they're certainly efficient.

I understand where you are getting at
But I feel myself that SMG was a Manual gear box without a clutch due to how you can chose any gear to land on... Without any lag time (compared to auto especially)

And thats why there is an Automatic mode in the SMG programs...
there is a reason why they call it Sequential MANUAL gearbox..

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The classification of an automatic transmission depends on whether or not you have to shift it. If you don't have to shift, it's an automatic.

Well that is one "working" definition. However, 99.9% of folks will adopt a definition similar to mine based on the DESIGN of the transmission, not the most coarse description of how a user interacts with the transmission.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As a for instance, are CVTs not automatics?

No it is not an automatic; based on its fundamental design and operational principles it is it's own category, the CVT category. It is so crystal clear to me that a CVT is not an automatic. Another case and point as to why your definition is neither useful nor a standard definition.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As a comment on lightness and efficiency, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a lighter, more efficient transmission than the automatic in the Toyota Prius.

The exception does not the rule make, ugh.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

PS - You and I are going to disagree forever on this point, and also on your opinion of the "lossy nature" of an automatic. That's yesterday's news when you take a look at the current offerings. Probably the best evidence of this is that autos typically hold their own in the EPA ratings. Some are a little better, and some are a little worse, but they're certainly efficient.

It is likely that I (and 99.9% of others) will disagree with you.

I have not done a detailed statistical study of the mpg variations between autos and MTs. If one did and removed confounding variables I'd be willing to be you would find mpg MT > mpg AT. Just use some common sense, all the mechanisms, all the hydraulics and pumps, the multiple clutches, the extra weight. All compared to a few directly engaging shafts with gears, bathed in some lubricant. Hmmm ... which is more efficient???

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by m_bazeepaymon

I understand where you are getting at
But I feel myself that SMG was a Manual gear box without a clutch due to how you can chose any gear to land on... Without any lag time (compared to auto especially)

I think the transmission in the 335i (and 535i) actually shifts faster than the SMG that was available in the old E46 330i. I think its about even with the E46 M3, in fact (Don't quote me on that last one).

Now this is one of the best autos on the market according to reviews. However, it still lacks the ability to hold a gear properly. It rev-matches, but will still up-shift at redline, even in manual mode. It also will not allow high RPM downshifts in all situations, even when no overrev would result. So yeah, its got its problems. In the future these things may be addressed. Some of them might already be addressed by other manufacturers (Porsche?). The question is, with dual clutch transmissions coming into favor, will it matter? Its going to be an interesting transition to watch over the next decade thats for sure.

And thats why there is an Automatic mode in the SMG programs...
there is a reason why they call it Sequential MANUAL gearbox..

A very good point.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Well that is one "working" definition. However, 99.9% of folks will adopt a definition similar to mine based on the DESIGN of the transmission, not the most coarse description of how a user interacts with the transmission.

I would suggest that any transmission that shifts for itself is *the* working definition of an automatic. On the other hand, I personally have no problem calling out design differences, just as the marketing and engineering types do for each of the manufacturers. Even the EPA does. As an example, they say the VAG DSG box is an "Automatic Transmission - Select Shift", and they use the same words to describe the M5/M6 transmission.

Hey, tomato, tomahto.

As an aside, your assertion that 99.9% of folks agree with you is pretty silly, since roughly that percentage of drivers only tend to know whether they're driving an automatic or not, and have no idea at all how it works. I would venture to guess that at least half of the readers on this site have no clear idea of how an automatic works. So what. They just put it in "D" and drive off.

An exception to this is that I think BMW drivers with these transmissions know - because it's cool. BMW torque converter/planetary gear drivers (meaning the majority) typically won't have a clue.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I have not done a detailed statistical study of the mpg variations between autos and MTs. If one did and removed confounding variables I'd be willing to be you would find mpg MT > mpg AT.

I would agree with you. Overall, I'd guess sticks do a little better than autos. My point is that difference is a small one. Inconsequential, in my mind.

On another level entirely, I hope you see how stupendously inconsequential this discussion/argument is. If you want to call a particular box an automated manual, that's fine with me. Because these boxes are new, it's OK to do some differentiation. The word "automated" does it for me.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

As an aside, your assertion that 99.9% of folks agree with you is pretty silly, since roughly that percentage of drivers only tend to know whether they're driving an automatic or not, and have no idea at all how it works. I would venture to guess that at least half of the readers on this site have no clear idea of how an automatic works.

Indeed, I would revise my previous comment about 99.9% to say 99.9% of car enthusiasts.

[OBI_agent]

Ppl.....I think the best comparison would be when the M3 sedan comes out.....till then M3 coupe has nothing to do with c63 amg. And I would also choose the M3 becauseeeeee.........................ITS AN M3....high revving great sounding better moving M3:rocks:

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The classification of an automatic transmission depends on whether or not you have to shift it. If you don't have to shift, it's an automatic. I'd use all caps as well if I thought it would make this simple and obvious point any better.

Furthermore, just because automatics started with a planetary gear setup (and most torque-converter automatics still use this design), there's no reason to define the genre this way. As a for instance, are CVTs not automatics?

As a comment on lightness and efficiency, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a lighter, more efficient transmission than the automatic in the Toyota Prius.

Bruce

PS - You and I are going to disagree forever on this point, and also on your opinion of the "lossy nature" of an automatic. That's yesterday's news when you take a look at the current offerings. Probably the best evidence of this is that autos typically hold their own in the EPA ratings. Some are a little better, and some are a little worse, but they're certainly efficient.

Thats YOUR definition, but it's wrong. A manual transmission cannot shift itself, unless it has an outside source do so. SMG had a linkage not of cables, but of electrical wire, that sent instant signal from the driver to actuators that made the gear shifts for the driver when he triggered them. Since the actuators are physically shifting the transmission for you, it also feathers the clutch.

Once the linkage to the tranny was made electrical (instead of mechanical) you could have a mini-computer enabled to shift those actuators for the driver if they didn't want to shift themselves. Even though when in that mode, it shifts with no driver interaction, it is still 100% manual gearbox. A computer is doing the shifting.

In an Automatic, it works just the opposite. The automatic gearbox changes gears without driver interaction, and only when "sport mode" is engaged, is the driver able to over-ride/interfere and limit the shifts to only the gear he wants. Automatics have no clutch and arn't 100% mechanical but fluid driven and have torque converters.

Mechanically there are quit different, technically aswell. An automatic will shift with no outside source, it's uses hydraulics and spring valves, electro-mechanical servos..etc. Yet, the only oil in a manual gearbox is for lubrication.


Your doing yourself a grave injustice thinking an automatic in "sport mode" is the same thing as SMG or DSG...!








-Garrett

Post script: CVT's are neither, their CVT! Obviously, there are no gears, just gear ratios. No shifting, yet they way they are engineered to operate, by nature is automatic. Whats your point?

Also, under your definition, if you had your passenger shifting gears for you, that car now is an automatic..?