BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 vs....
 
Lux Angel Eyes
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-21-2008, 03:01 PM   #155
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp2
Performance tests show very closely matched acceleration figures for the cars. The M3 accomplishes this with more weight, less power, less torque and a substantially worse power to weight ratio. Could there be some advantage of the high rpm design linked to an appropriately matched transmission that contributes to making the car a much closer competitor that one might guess.
The M3's hp figure is under-rated. That's the only explanation i can think of, if it dynoed at 373hp at the wheel, that means it's only losing around 10%, that seems very low.

Last edited by gbb357; 02-21-2008 at 03:33 PM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-21-2008, 04:38 PM   #156
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,044
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
The M3's hp figure is under-rated. That's the only explanation i can think of, if it dynoed at 373hp at the wheel, that means it's only losing around 10%, that seems very low.
Your semi-sarcastic baiting is really quite annoying. Perhaps you can provide the detailed evidence and reasoning for your statement that the car is under-rated as opposed to a simple proclamation? By the way you have heard of "efficient dynamics" and BER right? Since you may have heard of these things and realizing that despite over ambitious BMW marketing there is absolutely much truth behind most of their marketing.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-21-2008, 05:06 PM   #157
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Your semi-sarcastic baiting is really quite annoying. Perhaps you can provide the detailed evidence and reasoning for your statement that the car is under-rated as opposed to a simple proclamation? By the way you have heard of "efficient dynamics" and BER right? Since you may have heard of these things and realizing that despite over ambitious BMW marketing there is absolutely much truth behind most of their marketing.
Sarcastic?! I wasn't being sarcastic at all, if i am being sarcastic i would make it clear that i'm being sarcastic. You on the other hand are easily being defensive, you are such a fan-boy it's not even funny. God forbid anything is said about the M3 that you don't agree about you easily start flaming. Settle down and take a time out will you. I'm not making any proclamation or claiming any facts, i am merely speculating. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the M3 is under-rated. BMW has been doing this for years, the 335i is under-rated as well. You did'nt have any problems proclaiming the IS-F to be under-rated and your famous "massively under-rated" post about the GTR was'nt a big deal to you either. Why should this be a big deal?
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-21-2008, 09:53 PM   #158
spearfisher
Lieutenant
 
spearfisher's Avatar
 
Drives: C6 ZO6
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL

Posts: 409
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Your semi-sarcastic baiting is really quite annoying. Perhaps you can provide the detailed evidence and reasoning for your statement that the car is under-rated as opposed to a simple proclamation? By the way you have heard of "efficient dynamics" and BER right? Since you may have heard of these things and realizing that despite over ambitious BMW marketing there is absolutely much truth behind most of their marketing.

I don't think he's being sarcastic or saying anthing bad about the new M3

they under rate the 335
they say 0-60 in 5.3 and it does it in 4.8

http://www.autospies.com/news/2007-B...a-Ringer-8674/

so if the new M3 cuts a couple of tenths of the 0-60 and dynos with more HP, you should be happy
I don't think that's a bad thing, my car is rated at 436, with the optional exhaust, I would have been very pleased if they under rated it and when I went to dyno my car it made 420 horses at the wheel.
spearfisher is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 06:20 AM   #159
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,044
iTrader: (1)

BMW always under specs acceleration. I don't have a huge problem with that. They want a time that most drivers can obtain with out destroying their car. That is simple.

The power under-rating thing is an entirely separate topic. Under-rating power or torque to not cool, appropriate nor honest. I don't agree with BMW doing this as they clearly have done so with the 335i (save the E46 M3, and E92 M3 reputation and status.... ugh). However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the M3 is under-rated. There is evidence that it has an efficient chassis and drivetrain (typical BMW) as well as things like BER that contribute to a low loss system. I am a BMW fan but never a fan boy. gbb - your accusations here are stale, unsubstantiated and getting so f^&*ing old, just drop it. If there was evidence of the M3 being under-rated I would be the first to identify it and want to discuss it. You just don't get curiousity, skepticism and fairness when you see it. Your comments here are nothing but pure emotion and baiting and you are 100% inaccurate as well calling my post a flame. I have flamed you much in the past with plenty of reason to do so. You know 100% why you posted what you did.

I continue to stand by the overall evidence and conclusion that both the IS-F and GT-R are very likely under-rated.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 08:18 AM   #160
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
BMW always under specs acceleration. I don't have a huge problem with that. They want a time that most drivers can obtain with out destroying their car. That is simple.

The power under-rating thing is an entirely separate topic. Under-rating power or torque to not cool, appropriate nor honest. I don't agree with BMW doing this as they clearly have done so with the 335i (save the E46 M3, and E92 M3 reputation and status.... ugh). However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the M3 is under-rated. There is evidence that it has an efficient chassis and drivetrain (typical BMW) as well as things like BER that contribute to a low loss system. I am a BMW fan but never a fan boy. gbb - your accusations here are stale, unsubstantiated and getting so f^&*ing old, just drop it. If there was evidence of the M3 being under-rated I would be the first to identify it and want to discuss it. You just don't get curiousity, skepticism and fairness when you see it. Your comments here are nothing but pure emotion and baiting and you are 100% inaccurate as well calling my post a flame. I have flamed you much in the past with plenty of reason to do so. You know 100% why you posted what you did.

I continue to stand by the overall evidence and conclusion that both the IS-F and GT-R are very likely under-rated.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF THAT THE IS-F IS UNDER-RATED! Even after i have shown you a dynotest result of the IS-F making 333rwhp from Automobilemag, you still insist it's under-rated. That's almost 20% loss of power. You made the same claim and assumption of the GTR making around 80-110hp more when it is actually only between 20-40hp. How many times do i have to point out to you all of your wrong conclusions. And again, you did'nt have any problem claiming other cars to be under-rated without any valid proof, so don't bitch when somebody does the same with the M3, deal with it.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 10:35 AM   #161
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

So why don't you explain to us Swampy, how is it possible for the M3 that weights 500lbs heavier, makes 22hp less, and 124 lbs-ft less torque than the Vette, and yet it can be as quick as the Vette if not quicker. These are enough evidence (not proof) for me of "massively under-rating". Please don't tell me because it can rev faster and higher than the Vette. So why don't you prove me wrong, i have no problem admitting when i'm wrong and when i'm rightfully and respectfully corrected. Again, show me proof.

Basically the same attributes that Bruce had pointed out before that should give the Vette a decent advantage.
1) LS3 is slightly lighter in weight
2) LS3 is similar in overall size but not as tall, lending itself to a lower center of gravity in pretty much any car
3) LS3 makes about five percent more power (22 HP)
4) LS3 makes about 45% more torque (124 pound feet)
5) LS3 appears to have better bsfc numbers

Last edited by gbb357; 02-22-2008 at 01:04 PM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 11:47 AM   #162
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,867
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Bruce what the heck am I missing when you agreed with some (and disagreed with other) points on my list which provided advantages (in general) of high rpm engines? My review of our discussion reveals we were talking both about the specific comparison of the Vette vs. M3 engine as well as the generalities of a "high rpm design" vs. "lower rpm design". I certainly do not agree (concede) with you that there is no advantage whatsoever for the M3 design in comparing the Vette and M3 engines. Of course you must compare engines and redlines and tranmissions as matched sets which surely complicates matters. Drop the Vette engine in the M3 without changing the transmission and you have a car with a top speed less than 130 mph.
My review says that I was discussing a direct comparison, one engine to the other. That's neither here nor there, however. Just another of those annoying misunderstandings. I get about 147 MPH, by the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
How about this basic observation of the performance obtained by the systems, rather than the engines purely in isolation:

Performance tests show very closely matched acceleration figures for the cars. The M3 accomplishes this with more weight, less power, less torque and a substantially worse power to weight ratio. Could there be some advantage of the high rpm design linked to an appropriately matched transmission that contributes to making the car a much closer competitor that one might guess.
Nope. As I've mentioned several times in this forum and this string, the M3 is pretty much an overachiever. It's not directly as a result of the high rpm design, however. A cursory look at the engine speeds before and after each shift shows that the Vette still enjoys an advantage - except at higher speeds where the closer gear spacing of the bimmer (typical of Euro designs) makes it run comparatively hard against the Vette's EPA-friendly design.

I think the M3 does a little better than expected against the Vette because it has less rotating inertia at lower speeds (see Gillespie), and closer gear spacing at higher speeds.

Someone else recently wrote a semi rant against the 6-speed in the M3 (in a DCT comparison string, I think), but to me the gear spacing is classic - and classically good. The Vette box, though very heavy and with very high rotating inertia (see Gillespie), is pretty good for American roads, but it would be a lot better if they hurled the gearset from the Mustang GT500 (the supercharged one) into it. Much more intelligent gear spacing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Is there some reason that F1 cars do not use relatively low rpm designs? If such designs were better in all regards as it seems to be your contention then surely such "technology" would be used in such cars. Sure neither a Vette nor M3 is as purpose built as an F1 car but all purport to offer one of the same clear and ultimate goals - very fast around a track.
When you are restricted to particulars in a race class, high rpm equals high horsepower. My comparison was and is between specific engines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
P.S. My take on the hp per liter thing is clear (or I'll make it clear now). High hp/l is a technical achievement and engineering advantage that may or may not always translate to a concrete/real world advantage in comparison with a lower hp/l design implemented in a properly designed and matched system.
Completely agreed.

Bruce

PS - One area where I completely take my hat off to BMW with this engine is the exceptionally wide torque curve. It only drops about 11% (33 pound feet) from peak over a 4400 rpm span. Amazing! This is an engineering achievement, and perhaps a milestone. They apparently sacrificed a bit of maximum torque production (74 pound feet per liter as opposed to 82 pound feet in the E46) for this amazingly wide curve. I say This engine gets the most performance from the torque produced.

Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 02-22-2008 at 02:09 PM. Reason: Spelling
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 12:15 PM   #163
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
There may or may not be SAE papers which could shed *some* light on the subject (available for some $$), but I'm wearing a big "EMPTY" sign on my forehead at the moment.

Bruce
I'd say, max power output, durability, and emissions being on par, the engine that consistently has a higher thermal efficiency across the power output range is the "better" design since thermal efficiency is the ultimate measure of how effective an engine is in converting stored chemical energy to do mechanical work.

Generally speaking, without knowing the values of engine specific parameters for the other variables such as combustion characteristics, friction, volumetric efficiency, mass of pistons and rods, the theoretical maximum for the thermal efficiency of an IC engine is dictated by the compression ratio (specific heat of the working fluid matters as well, but that can be assumed to be the same). So whoever consistently can pull off near complete combustion with as little friction as possible and with as much air sucked into the cylinder as possible at a higher compression ratio over the power output range will have the better design.

The only piece of info we have on these engines is the compression ratio. For the 2008 Corvette, it is 10.7:1, and for the E9X M3, it is 12.0:1. But that doesn't mean too much by itself, and I doubt we will see data on all of the other variables. Regardless, the M3's higher compression ratio clearly makes some kind of a technological statement.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 01:24 PM   #164
sayemthree
Brigadier General
 
sayemthree's Avatar
 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

Posts: 4,844
iTrader: (0)

Grassroots Motorsports just tested the New 430hp Corvette. the best time 0-60 they got was 4.1 sec. BUT the AVERAGE was 4.3 sec. to me that means some runs were higher. also they hit the 1/4 mi ib high 12's.
sayemthree is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 05:56 PM   #165
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,044
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
So why don't you explain to us Swampy, how is it possible for the M3 that weights 500lbs heavier, makes 22hp less, and 124 lbs-ft less torque than the Vette, and yet it can be as quick as the Vette if not quicker. These are enough evidence (not proof) for me of "massively under-rating". Please don't tell me because it can rev faster and higher than the Vette. So why don't you prove me wrong, i have no problem admitting when i'm wrong and when i'm rightfully and respectfully corrected. Again, show me proof.

Basically the same attributes that Bruce had pointed out before that should give the Vette a decent advantage.
1) LS3 is slightly lighter in weight
2) LS3 is similar in overall size but not as tall, lending itself to a lower center of gravity in pretty much any car
3) LS3 makes about five percent more power (22 HP)
4) LS3 makes about 45% more torque (124 pound feet)
5) LS3 appears to have better bsfc numbers
Things are explained and evidence provided for you time and time again. As well, opinion and theories are revised over time. What do you do - COMPLETELY ignore both. Some hints as mentioned before: drivetrain efficiency and overall efficiency, ability of chassis to provide and maximize traction, gearing, etc. Some reasons for sure some likely/speculative. Not to mention simulation... It is time for you to learn a bit on your own.

Also with respect to your nice little list above this seems pretty much requoted direectly from Bruce's list here in this very thread. Time for some of your own thoughts and synthesis.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 08:59 PM   #166
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Things are explained and evidence provided for you time and time again. As well, opinion and theories are revised over time. What do you do - COMPLETELY ignore both. Some hints as mentioned before: drivetrain efficiency and overall efficiency, ability of chassis to provide and maximize traction, gearing, etc. Some reasons for sure some likely/speculative. Not to mention simulation... It is time for you to learn a bit on your own.

Also with respect to your nice little list above this seems pretty much requoted direectly from Bruce's list here in this very thread. Time for some of your own thoughts and synthesis.
So you don't have any proof whatsoever. Good enough for me. End of discussion as far as i'm concern. I will speculate that the M3 is under-rated and you can keep dreaming that it's not.

Last edited by gbb357; 02-22-2008 at 09:53 PM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 10:08 PM   #167
Krueger///M3
Major
 
Krueger///M3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2003 HPF 2.5, 2008 M3 (Sold)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pearl District, OR

Posts: 1,401
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2002 BMW ///M3  [0.00]
2008 BMW ///M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Things are explained and evidence provided for you time and time again. As well, opinion and theories are revised over time. What do you do - COMPLETELY ignore both. Some hints as mentioned before: drivetrain efficiency and overall efficiency, ability of chassis to provide and maximize traction, gearing, etc. Some reasons for sure some likely/speculative. Not to mention simulation... It is time for you to learn a bit on your own.

Also with respect to your nice little list above this seems pretty much requoted direectly from Bruce's list here in this very thread. Time for some of your own thoughts and synthesis.

What would be BMW's advantage in under-rating the M3? I was just wondering. Thanks.
Krueger///M3 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-22-2008, 11:13 PM   #168
E82tt6
Colonel
 
E82tt6's Avatar
 
Drives: '08 Black Saphire Z4 MC
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 2,629
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krueger///M3 View Post
What would be BMW's advantage in under-rating the M3? I was just wondering. Thanks.
So people don't whine about it making less power than it should, like the RX8 debacle.
E82tt6 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2008, 03:14 AM   #169
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,044
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
So you don't have any proof whatsoever. Good enough for me. End of discussion as far as i'm concern. I will speculate that the M3 is under-rated and you can keep dreaming that it's not.
Myself, the forum and the community will never cease to be amazed by your insight, analysis and brilliance.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2008, 10:22 AM   #170
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Myself, the forum and the community will never cease to be amazed by your insight, analysis and brilliance.
What's with this the forum and the community B.S. Looking for back up Swamp, don't try to get anybody else involve in this, you are such a p#ssy. You still have'nt answered my question, why is it okay for you to speculate and make claims, but when others do it especially about the M3, you get your panty on a bunch. My claim is nothing controversial. Close your eyes and compare two cars, one is 3700lbs and the other is 3200lbs. The heavier one has 22less hp and 124lbs-ft less torque yet it is as quick or quicker than the lighter car, would'nt logic suggest that it's probably making more power that what it's suggesting. Now open your eyes and stop being a fanboy and really think about it. Don't tell me that the M3 is so efficient on putting power on the ground that it actually erased the 500lbs, 22hp+, and 124lbs of torque advantage that the Vette has.

Last edited by gbb357; 02-24-2008 at 11:13 AM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2008, 12:47 PM   #171
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,044
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
I get about 147 MPH, by the way.
Strange, my number via CarTest is 138. That is 2008 LS3 engine only (6MT from existing car) stuffed into the M3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
I think the M3 does a little better than expected against the Vette because it has less rotating inertia at lower speeds (see Gillespie), and closer gear spacing at higher speeds.
Wasn't this the argument in favor of the 335i over the M3? The only difference there is the FD, gear ratios are identical. Furthermore if your argument favors the 335i over the M3 it would similarly favor the low rear end ratioed Vetter over the M3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
... but it would be a lot better if they hurled the gearset from the Mustang GT500 (the supercharged one) into it. Much more intelligent gear spacing.
By simulation I concur this is correct but the difference is never more than a 1/10th second to any speed up to an including 180 mph. It is also splitting hairs as to whether or not you would want the rear end ratio. Some numbers would be better others worse. Either way definitely not enough of a change to call it "better". Really splitting hairs.

One last detail. I noticed in performing sims of the M3 with the 2008 LS3 engine and transmission that the stock M3 with 6MT bests this hypothetical vehicle up to 500 in time to distance meaning of course it is physically ahead in a race, whereas the hypothetical vehicle takes all of the time to speed contests.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-24-2008, 10:02 PM   #172
spearfisher
Lieutenant
 
spearfisher's Avatar
 
Drives: C6 ZO6
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL

Posts: 409
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
What's with this the forum and the community B.S. Looking for back up Swamp, don't try to get anybody else involve in this, you are such a p#ssy. You still have'nt answered my question, why is it okay for you to speculate and make claims, but when others do it especially about the M3, you get your panty on a bunch. My claim is nothing controversial. Close your eyes and compare two cars, one is 3700lbs and the other is 3200lbs. The heavier one has 22less hp and 124lbs-ft less torque yet it is as quick or quicker than the lighter car, would'nt logic suggest that it's probably making more power that what it's suggesting. Now open your eyes and stop being a fanboy and really think about it. Don't tell me that the M3 is so efficient on putting power on the ground that it actually erased the 500lbs, 22hp+, and 124lbs of torque advantage that the Vette has.
If like the 335 the M3 is under-rated also, again I don't see that as a bad thing, why would you not want more HP than listed, again I would happy if my car had more HP than listed.

I think one thing that helps the BMW is that it puts down the power off the line better than the vette, that could also be a possibility.

a lot of people with stock vettes run 12.8-12.4 in the qtr mile with 2.0-2.1 60 foot times, I know it's tricky to get a good launch on the vette, it's too easy to sit at the line while others take off, I've seen ZO6's run high 13's because the driver could not drive. not mag publications, actual time slips at Moroso. So what if you could get that 60' to a consistent 1.8, then the average times would be 12.5-12.1.

for those of you getting M3's in FL, when you get them head up to Moroso for test and tune, and start posting actual times, that would be good info for all.
spearfisher is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2008, 04:09 AM   #173
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by spearfisher View Post
If like the 335 the M3 is under-rated also, again I don't see that as a bad thing, why would you not want more HP than listed, again I would happy if my car had more HP than listed.

I think one thing that helps the BMW is that it puts down the power off the line better than the vette, that could also be a possibility.

a lot of people with stock vettes run 12.8-12.4 in the qtr mile with 2.0-2.1 60 foot times, I know it's tricky to get a good launch on the vette, it's too easy to sit at the line while others take off, I've seen ZO6's run high 13's because the driver could not drive. not mag publications, actual time slips at Moroso. So what if you could get that 60' to a consistent 1.8, then the average times would be 12.5-12.1.

for those of you getting M3's in FL, when you get them head up to Moroso for test and tune, and start posting actual times, that would be good info for all.
Yes i understand, too much power or torque can be a disadvantage to the unexperieced driver. No matter how much power you have if you can't put it on the ground, you might as well be driving a Geo Metro. And that's where BMW shines. History and records shows that they've always have been very good and efficient when it comes to putting all that power to use. My problem with this case is just it's too good to be true. We're talking about a 500lbs difference between the two cars, that's like having 2 big football players in your car and yet it does'nt seem to make any difference at all. In regards to under-rating, some people might consider it cheating or lying and some might see it as a good thing. Personally, i don't necessarily think it's cheating if it's not too much under-rating, let's say 10% max. Because there are some or mostly legit reasons why manufacturers do this, whether it's for insurance purposes or EPA, SAE regulations whatever it is. It's not to cheat consumers, i think or i hope not. Anyway, in this case with the M3 it's actually a win win situation. Let's just say the M3 is actually putting out 450hp, (i think it's between 430-440) from a 4.0 liter V8 that is amazingly impressive and it still shows how good BMW is when it comes to putting power on the ground because it can keep up with the Vette off the line that is much lighter and has higher torque advantage and probably even beat it sometimes. So the answer is No, it's not a bad thing, not in this case at least.

Last edited by gbb357; 02-25-2008 at 11:30 AM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2008, 08:19 AM   #174
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Let's just say the M3 is actually putting out 450hp, (i think it's between 430-440) from a 4.2 liter V8 that is amazingly impressive
The displacement is 4.0 liters.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2008, 09:06 AM   #175
spearfisher
Lieutenant
 
spearfisher's Avatar
 
Drives: C6 ZO6
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL

Posts: 409
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Yes i understand, too much power or torque can be a disadvantage to the unexperieced driver. No matter how much power you have if you can't put it on the ground, you might as well be driving a Geo Metro. And that's where BMW shines. History and records shows that they've always have been very good and efficient when it comes to putting all that power to use. My problem with this case is just it's too good to be true. We're talking about a 500lbs difference between the two cars, that's like having 2 big football players in your car and yet it does'nt seem to make any difference at all. In regards to under-rating, some people might consider it cheating or lying and some might see it as a good thing. Personally, i don't necessarily think it's cheating if it's not too much under-rating, let's say 10% max. Because there are some or mostly legit reasons why manufacturers do this, whether it's for insurance purposes or EPA, SAE regulations whatever it is. It's not to cheat consumers, i think or i hope not. Anyway, in this case with the M3 it's actually a win win situation. Let's just say the M3 is actually putting out 450hp, (i think it's between 430-440) from a 4.2 liter V8 that is amazingly impressive and it still shows how good BMW is when it comes to putting power on the ground because it can keep up with the Vette of the line that is much lighter and has higher torque advantage and probably even beat it sometimes. So the answer is No, it's not a bad thing, not in this case at least.
I agree, I don't know why you would get a hard time from other members for saying that in the past.
spearfisher is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-25-2008, 09:26 AM   #176
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,867
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Strange, my number via CarTest is 138. That is 2008 LS3 engine only (6MT from existing car) stuffed into the M3.
I used the C & D "mph per 1000 rpm" numbers multiplied by 6.5. No biggie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Wasn't this the argument in favor of the 335i over the M3? The only difference there is the FD, gear ratios are identical. Furthermore if your argument favors the 335i over the M3 it would similarly favor the low rear end ratioed Vetter over the M3.
Swamp, would you just read the damned book - or at least the section covering rotational inertias? That way we can have a possibly intelligent discussion on the topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
By simulation I concur this is correct but the difference is never more than a 1/10th second to any speed up to an including 180 mph. It is also splitting hairs as to whether or not you would want the rear end ratio. Some numbers would be better others worse. Either way definitely not enough of a change to call it "better". Really splitting hairs.
There's no question that the larger drop in rpm on the 1-2 shift (with the Mustang gearset) hurts performance in any from-zero contest, but that gearset in the Vette means that on track (not drag strip), the car would be quicker, and be more pleasant on the street. As a for instance, even in a drag race, the Mustang gears mean the Vette gets livelier in the second half of the run. It of course still loses to the standard Z51-geared box, but has a higher trap speed, compared to a slower 660 foot trap speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
One last detail. I noticed in performing sims of the M3 with the 2008 LS3 engine and transmission that the stock M3 with 6MT bests this hypothetical vehicle up to 500 in time to distance meaning of course it is physically ahead in a race, whereas the hypothetical vehicle takes all of the time to speed contests.
Standard Swamp tactics. You're being disingenuous, as usual, in order to try and win a point. My sims show the Vette-engined M3 picking up about four tenths and four mph in the quarter over the standard car, with either the standard gearbox feeding to a 3.08 final drive, or with the Vette box and standard rear.

With more power and loads more torque at the same vehicle weight, the M3 can't help but be quite a bit quicker and faster with the Vette motor. The only reason it wouldn't be quicker is if it had a traction problem - which you carefully refrain from mentioning.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST