Would you go from your M3 to an IS-F?

[gthal]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

So our cars put more torque to the wheels than a vette but you want a car with MORE torque.

I just wish guys would be accurate in their descriptions of what they want: what you are looking for a is a lazier engine that will FEEL faster and take less effort to drive fast.

Cheers,
e46e92

Engines with more torque are not necessarily "lazier" and they don't just "feel" faster. Those are fanboy comments.

Large displacement engines allow you to have immediate torque available everywhere in the RPM range and don't rely on gearing as much to get torque to the wheels. More torque available more of the time which is what some people like. I get the gearing discussion (and I'm not one of those guys who says the M3 doesn't have enough torque) but after owning a car with gobs of torque and also the M3, there is a REAL difference 90% of the time in regular driving situations. If you don't believe it you haven't experienced it or have blinders on. Also, using the C63 as an example, the biggest issue at the track is managing the torque and not breaking traction all of the time (this is with wider tires than stock)... that was NOT the case in the M3 unless I was in first gear. This was actually a plus for the M3 at the track IMO... it was easier to get the power down (maybe the M3 driver wants a "lazier" car at the track ).

So, you can say you like the way the M3 delivers its torque and that's fine. Other cars do, in fact, have more torque available to the wheels MORE of the time (maybe not all of the time). That doesn't mean that in certain circumstances (speed and gear) that the M3 isn't similar/more torque to the wheels but there is less of that time "available" to a driver outside of a track environment unless you are racing all of the time. No one who has owned an M3 and then a larger displacement car (C63, Z06, etc) would call the M3 a torque monster because it isn't.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by gthal

Engines with more torque are not necessarily "lazier" and they don't just "feel" faster. Those are fanboy comments.

Large displacement engines allow you to have immediate torque available everywhere in the RPM range and don't rely on gearing as much to get torque to the wheels. More torque available more of the time which is what some people like. I get the gearing discussion (and I'm not one of those guys who says the M3 doesn't have enough torque) but after owning a car with gobs of torque and also the M3, there is a REAL difference 90% of the time in regular driving situations. If you don't believe it you haven't experienced it or have blinders on. Also, using the C63 as an example, the biggest issue at the track is managing the torque and not breaking traction all of the time (this is with wider tires than stock)... that was NOT the case in the M3 unless I was in first gear. This was actually a plus for the M3 at the track IMO... it was easier to get the power down (maybe the M3 driver wants a "lazier" car at the track ).

So, you can say you like the way the M3 delivers its torque and that's fine. Other cars do, in fact, have more torque available to the wheels MORE of the time (maybe not all of the time). That doesn't mean that in certain circumstances (speed and gear) that the M3 isn't similar/more torque to the wheels but there is less of that time "available" to a driver outside of a track environment unless you are racing all of the time. No one who has owned an M3 and then a larger displacement car (C63, Z06, etc) would call the M3 a torque monster because it isn't.

Type 7 paragraphs of arguments if you would like, if what you said was true, stock 335i's (I have owned a modded one that still was not faster than my current ride) would smoke the ///Ms......I will leave Bruce or SWAMP to throw three books worth of technical data to back up my argument. People like you are why BMW ///M is headed to lazy FI engines that my grandmother could drive fast. Really is a shame.

Cheers,
e46e92

[lenzm3edan]

IS-F is a great car with excellent reliability, love the looks of it and the power, the only downside to the IS-F to me was no 6spd manual option. I would not consider it as an upgrade to an M3 though.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by m3alabama

This is neglecting taking into account a car's powerband when under heavy throttle which is when most people care about wanting more torque and to go faster.

Its actually pretty simple. Large displacement or FI engines produce a lot of ENGINE torque at much lower RPMS. So that is why this is considered "lazy" in that you can be at the bottom RPMS and still have a decent amount of torque.

However when you plant the throttle in an m3 for example, the revs never dip below 6k (or barely) So the "low end" lack of torque is meaningless because when you want to move fast and plant the throttle, you live above 6k inherently due to its powerband. At 6k and above, the engine output combined with the gearing puts down the torque throughout its whole power band.

What you need to do, which I have done, is compare the AUC for each cars powerband.

A vette for example may have a lot of torque at 1.5-4k but under throttle you will never see under 4k and will be living at 5k-7k. It has good torque there as well but that is the torque you would compare at the wheels to the m3's torque in its power band.

Quite frankly I could care less when I am at part throttle if I have 500 foot pounds of torque. When I plant the throttle 3/4 the way or more, than I want access to power and that is what you get in any car-put it into its power band as long as you shift and are in the right gear.

That is reason a 335 has a bit more torque down lower than the m3, but niether car lives down there when under throttle except for being initially off the line. Look at the powerband of 5-7k of the 335 and realize its torque curve is falling off fast.

If someone had a mathmetical program I wish they could accurately give you an example comparing the c63, vette and the m3. I believe the c63 will still put down more wheel torque than the m3 even with all the gearing and powerband into account but it would not be much. And I know from my own calculations the m3 does put down more wheel torque than the vette in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. After that its closer.

I realized this is an arguement that I will never win and there are so few people that really "get" this but oh well!

There are at least two of us on the boards who get it

Cheers,
e46e92

[gthal]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

Type 7 paragraphs of arguments if you would like, if what you said was true, stock 335i's (I have owned a modded one that still was not faster than my current ride) would smoke the ///Ms......I will leave Bruce or SWAMP to throw three books worth of technical data to back up my argument. People like you are why BMW ///M is headed to lazy FI engines that my grandmother could drive fast. Really is a shame.

Cheers,
e46e92

Rereading your post, I think I misinterpreted what you meant by a "lazy" engine.

And just to clarify, "people like me" aren't why BMW is going FI. I happen to like the S65 exactly the way it is and wouldn't change it. I have always said the S65 had lots of torque and for the way this car was designed to be used is an amazing engine. I also happen to like having a lot of torque available all of the time (even when not pushing the car hard) but that doesn't mean I think BMW should change the M3's focus. If you want to blame someone for BMW's FI direction, blame the US and Canadian governments and those who influence the cost of oil.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by gthal

Rereading your post, I think I misinterpreted what you meant by a "lazy" engine.

And just to clarify, "people like me" aren't why BMW is going FI. I happen to like the S65 exactly the way it is and wouldn't change it. I have always said the S65 had lots of torque and for the way this car was designed to be used is an amazing engine. I also happen to like having a lot of torque available all of the time (even when not pushing the car hard) but that doesn't mean I think BMW should change the M3's focus. If you want to blame someone for BMW's FI direction, blame the US and Canadian governments and those who influence the cost of oil.

My bad dude, came off too aggressive......just tired of people (not you) who want what a 335i is great for, but need the ///M symbol on the back. Instead of leaving the ///M line as a more focused line and a more difficult line to drive (i.e. higher revving engines, etc.) they have just made it so anyone who wants to just slam the gas and go can buy it.

For the ///M5, I think FI makes PERFECT SENSE. In fact, lets be honest, the e60 was a huge divergence from previous ///M5s in that it was so high-strung. The current one is like the EPIC e39 in that it can be driven fast and well on a track, but still act as a VERY comfortable executive sedan that doesn't have to scream to move, which is important when using it for work/business.

I hear ya points though.......I do here them. Just wish they would leave the ///M3 and all future smaller ///Ms (1 & 2 series and perhaps future revival of the ///M-coup) as higher strung, more challenging cars.

Cheers,
e46e92

[Dntlvet]

Originally Posted by Darth One

lemme think about that for a sec...

.

.

.

.


HELL NO

Let me think for a sec ...
Absolutely yes if you can afford it. It is very fast.
Very nice car. Kyle Bush likes it.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by m3alabama

To be honest I think even bmw would "like" to do that but it is way more costly to even consider that. Having to make a purely dedicated m3 engine. Couldn't be shared with the 1M or x3m because people would complain. THe m5 would be turbo as it is, and that leaves a ton of R and D for one car. Atleast with the S65, it used 95 percent of the R and D from the s85 which went into 2 cars. So that basic S85/65 platform got 3 M cars worth of use over it over 10 years.

I think the best option and least costly to please everyone would be to offer to engine choices in an m3 just like they do in a 328 v. 335. One turbo inline 6 and one upgraded version of an S65. I know that would never happen but too bad.

Its sad to think in a few years you will never be able to get a high revving bmw engine again. Ferrari and lambo probably are not far behind and eventually no more high revving. That is why keeping the m3 for me is an absolute must and it will never leave my stable. How nice it feels after driving turbo cars to jump in and feel and hear the 8400 rpm v8.

I think Ferrari and other exotics will always have high-revving because their customers are not looking for a lazy daily driver.

As far as ///M3 having different engines, I think it would work, and they could use the S65 from the GTS and make it like Porsche does with their 911s and Turbo (GT2 & GT3).

Cheers,
e46e92

[Cdnrockies]

Originally Posted by Doughboii

Many great cars to choose from, just up to personal preference!

This.

It's great that we have so many choices for fun cars at the moment. My F was absolutely bulletproof and a ton of fun. Had zero complaints and actually made a pretty decent amount of cash back when I sold it. I miss it already...lol.

[JOM3JO]

Just sold e92 m3 6MT,thinking to replace ISF or C63,test drive the C63,build quility and looks i Dont like(i only do like the exhaust sound of C63),ISF bulid qulity i think is much better M3 or C63,i do feel on straight-line ISF pull bit faster(maybe more tq?)than M3......in the end i deicede to wait for newer ISF or M3........Not fan of Mbenz...

[thefinalprestige]

...but just not good enough to beat the m3. Quoting Top Gear. "The Lexus is brilliant on a lot of things, the m3 is brilliant on everything..."

I would have most problems with that the Lexus is heavier, and the pipes are fake. Could not live with that. That would even be considered ridiculous where I come from. Guess thats why you never see Lexus's within sport cars communities?

Open track days (for whatever sport cars) attract Porsches, BMW´s, MB´s, Corvettes, Ferraris, GTR´s and maybe a Lambo or two. Audis to be seen rarely. Never seen a Lexus...

Just my 2c.

[JOM3JO]

yes...for track day M3 is best for sure(well balance car,)...But M3 is brilliant on everything?? i dont think so,personally i think as for Daily drive i would choose ISF over M3.

Just my 2c.

[1911]

The Lexus seems way to much like a car you would buy for your wife if you wanted something that she can drive and you can still get away with driving on weekends. I have driven it before and it was hell a fun, but then I caught a glimpse of it in the reflection of a building as I drove by and couldn't help but think aww what a cute car (that chick must be hot). Then noticed, crap Im driving that. It was enough for me not to buy. Maybe your more a a man than me and can get away with it, I just couldn't do it. Good luck either way.

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by thefinalprestige

...but just not good enough to beat the m3. Quoting Top Gear. "The Lexus is brilliant on a lot of things, the m3 is brilliant on everything..."

I would have most problems with that the Lexus is heavier, and the pipes are fake. Could not live with that. That would even be considered ridiculous where I come from. Guess thats why you never see Lexus's within sport cars communities?

Open track days (for whatever sport cars) attract Porsches, BMW´s, MB´s, Corvettes, Ferraris, GTR´s and maybe a Lambo or two. Audis to be seen rarely. Never seen a Lexus...

Just my 2c.

ive never seen a mercedes at a track day either. see quite a few tuned s4s though. also a few cts-v's.

[CCLSVTM3]

It's funny I came across this post and read what I originally posted cause last night I traded in my M3 for a 2011 ISF. While I do miss and will always miss the M, I'm very happy and impressed with the ISF. Very comfy, seats are awesome, and it is def fast..... Love the interior and nav. I like it better then the I drive. Plus last night while driving home I saw 24.4 mpg. The only weird thing is that modding the ISF is minimal. There are no tunes for the ISF, I can only look at CAI, exhaust, headers, and that's about it.... The M had more modding possibilities....

[1MOREMOD]

lack of modding options could be a god send.

[CCLSVTM3]

Originally Posted by chriszeh

lack of modding options could be a god send.

LOL, whats up Chris.... Always good seeing your posts... Yeah, I have researched and the ISF ECU is locked, no tunes available. Most guys are doing exhaust, CAI, and headers.... Then of course turbos but for mild to moderate mods, not a whole lot there.... I like it, cause I have nothing to do right now. Got the windows tinted today and thats about it...

[w00tw00t]

I'm assuming you haven't seen this yet have you ?

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by CCLSVTM3

LOL, whats up Chris.... Always good seeing your posts... Yeah, I have researched and the ISF ECU is locked, no tunes available. Most guys are doing exhaust, CAI, and headers.... Then of course turbos but for mild to moderate mods, not a whole lot there.... I like it, cause I have nothing to do right now. Got the windows tinted today and thats about it...

thanks for the kind words. the choice might save you money if you have a modding addiction like this forum tends to induce.

[CCLSVTM3]

Originally Posted by w00tw00t

I'm assuming you haven't seen this yet have you ?

Everyone has seen that video but that's his opinion. I'm not saying that the M3 handles better then an ISF. I pushed my M3 and it was amazing. The ISF is just a better fit for me..... It is still fast, handles well too

[positiveions]

umm no. I'd rather drive a C63 over that.

[NoM3ForMe]

"Full lock-up is used in 2nd gear without the tongue converter." -- from the Top Gear review.

I think this statement tells you that you should not buy an IS-F over an M3.