Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.
I'm not particularly into torque as opposed to horsepower, but put it this way:
If the current M3 made the same torque per liter as the last M3, it would peak at 335 pound feet instead of 295 pound feet, "simple as that". And no, it wouldn't have to sacrifice that terrific top end rush.
I personally thought the 2004 M3 that graced our garage had a less steep torque curve at the low end, and didn't feel as lazy as the current model does down in that range  but I admit that part of that may be because of the extra 200 pounds or so they piled onto the new one.
I like turbos, too, but your either/or statement above is just so much crap

Rather than bashing him, although I have always understood that mathematically speaking, graph area under the curve is what matters the most and not peak numbers, but just for giggles, why don't you give some real world examples of which cars have immense highrpm torque curves, rev up to 8400  8500 rpm and produce that much torque/liter down at a low ~3000 rpm?? just like you said, E90 M3 should have had 335 ftlbs of torque assuming the E46 M3 made 260 ftlbs from a 3.2 Liter engine (which is 84 ftlbs/liter for the E92/E90). Give me
ONE example of a highrevving car that produces 84 ftlbs/liter at ANY rpm, let alone at a low 2000  3000 rpm. ONE! and I will stand corrected.
This has been a known fact in order to bring the peak torque down low and produce more usable torque in the low and midrange, you MUST sacrifice the top rpm torque curve, which would make it futile to have a redline. Technology using (VarioCAM, VANOS, VVT etc.) can somewhat make it better, but it will almost never eliminate that in N/A highrevving engines.
E46 M3 peaked at 5200 rpm in terms of torque 80% of which is available only at 1800 rpm while the E90/E92 peaks only at 3900 rpm. 90% of which is available only at 1800 rpm. See the difference there??? PEAKINESS! The E90/E92 is far less peaky than the E46 yet it has a much higher redline because it produces more usable torque at high rpms resulting in a higher redline. In other words, the E90/E92 has a far broader powerband than the E46 ever had due to the immensely wide area under the torque curve that is completely flat.
For example, in this dyno of an E46 M3 vs 335 vs E92 M3 done on the same day and sametime:
http://mmm.os.org.za/d/17991/DSC04302s.jpg
E92 M3: 360 WHP, 266 ftlbs@3750 rpm 67 ftlbs of wheel/torque/liter @
3750 rpm
E92 335: 281 WHP, 286 ftlbs@3700 rpm
European E46 M3 (343 HP, not 333 HP): 295 WHP, 238 ftlbs@5000 rpm 74 ftlbs of wheel torque/liter @
5000 rpm
At 1800  3700 rpm, the E46 makes FAR less than the 266 ftlbs of wheel torque E90 is making. I can guarantee on dynos, it would be no higher than 190  205 ftlbs of wheel torque in the 1800  3700 rpm rev range. So low end and midrange wise, the E90 is far ahead of the E46. So again that begs the question, how did you come up with the 335 ftlbs of torque required for the E92 M3 using the torque/liter of E46 M3 as a basis???
E92/E90 M3 is making 266 ftlbs of wheel torque starting a at a low 2000  3000 rpm. That is more than your TL Type S produces at the CRANK PEAK while weighing an almost identical ballpark 3600 lbs weight figure. How do you live with your TL Type S then???
So according to your implications that M3 makes no torque, your TL Type S probably has a miserable existence especially if it is an auto slushbox that cannot even get out of its own way for the life of its driver.
Since the V8 is a derivative of the M5 V10 (producing 383 ftlbs of torque from 5.0 Liter at a peaky ~6100 rpm), I am absolutely sure if M3 was not tuned for a broader torque curve, it could have easily produced 320  325 ftlbs of peak torque at 6100  6500 rpm, but would have sacrificed a lot of torque down low making it a top end monster, but a total dog in everyday driving, which the M5 had gained reputation for.
Many of the stock dynos I have seen of North American E46 M3 show peak torque of 220  230 ftlbs of wheel torque at around 5100  5500 rpm (assuming a 280  290 whp dyno) while the E90/E92 M3 with a much higher redline (8400 rpm vs 7900 rpm) dynos at 265  270 ftlbs of wheel torque at a low 3500  3800 rpm (assuming around 350  360 wheel HP dyno).
At the end of the day, much rather cut with the theoratical bullsh*t and give some real world examples of ANY 4.0  4.2 Liter highrevving engine (atleast 8250  8400 rpm) that produces that much torque (335 ftlbs).
I will begin here:
M3 4.0 Liter V8: 295 ftlbs@
3900 rpm (redline: 8400 rpm) 74 ftlbs/liter
Audi FSI 4.2 Liter V8 (RS4): 317 ftlbs@
5500 rpm (redline: 8250 rpm) 75 ftlbs/liter
Let's look at some other high revving engines:
Porsche Carrera GT: 5.7 Liter V10 435 ftlbs@
6100 rpm (redline:8500 rpm) 75 ftlbs/liter
Ferrari F430: 4.3 Liter V10 490 V8 340 ftlbs@
5250 rpm (redline: 8500 rpm) 78 ftlbs/liter
Lamborghini Gallardo 5.0 Liter V10 376 ftlbs @
4400 rpm (redline: 8500 rpm) 74 ftlbs/liter
Aston Martin V8 Vantage 4.3 Liter V8 300 ftlbs @
5000 rpm (redline: 8000 rpm) 69 ftlbs/liter
M5/M6 V19 : 4.0 Liter V10 383ftlbs @
6100 rpm (redline: 8250 rpm) 76 ftlbs/liter
From these examples above, M3 produces a healthy footlbs of torque per liter comparable to most other highrevving engines, yet is able to attain the peak at a much lower rpm than any of these exotic examples here. The difference is that M3 sacrificed some top end torque to attain a much flatter torque curve with a much more usable midrange.
Like I mentioned, I would actually like to see some proof of a highrevving car that produce gobbs of torque down low yet have an immense highrevving capacity and top end torque (say, just like you said 84 ftlbs/liter).
Now in the lowrevving S5 model, the Audi FSI 4.2 Liter V8 makes 355 HP, but makes more torque than the R8 or the RS4 at 325 ftlbs at guess what?? 6800 rpm! Does that make the S5 make more drivable in the city? Maybe? Does it have equal or more top end than the Audi R8 and RS4 variant of the 4.2 Liter V8??? HELL NO!!! Those two cars slaughter the S5 in an allout race.
All in all, if M3 had produced more torque down low, it would have sacrificed a lot of highrpm torque, which would have resulted in a much lower redline around 7800  7900 rpm.
BMW was shooting for a more aggressively tuned highrevving M car with a high redline, but without compromising on the lowend torque too much. Too bring the peak torque down low, it ended up producing a lower number for the peak torque, yet it produced it across an incredibly wide rev range. 90% of M3's 295 ftlbs peak torque comes in at 1800 rpm and stays at 90% until 8300 rpm for a full 6500 rpm. A powerband of 6500 rpm is no ordinary feat.