Why did you leave the M3?

[KennyPowers]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

I think those that like that feeling of torque all the time mostly drive in a straight line. Thats where torque makes a car more enjoyable to drive. The M3 is sublime coming out of corners and the power is just perfect. Lets face it. People buy great cars for the wrong purpose all the time. I'm actually in the process of removing my supercharger because all the extra power makes the car feel very unbalanced (at least that's one of the reasons).

do not understand this

why can a car not do both? it doesnt have to be one or the other.

[KennyPowers]

Originally Posted by Vic311

OT but what are you other reasons?..I am a big proponent of not adding extra power by supercharging and rather mod by adding lightness and extracting the existing power from the engine.. hence getting better power to weight ratio and maintaining the N/A configuration

I am of the opinion that supercharging the M3 really transforms the car and not necessarily for the better. I am sure this will create a stir, but oh well..

IDK, the cool thing about a centrifugal SC (and the weakness, depending on what you like) is that they boost in a linear fashion, building towards redline. so the powerband looks exactly like stock in its shape, just a lot more power and pulls harder near redline.

it is a weakness in that it does not really have the low end gain that a positive displacement blower has.

just depends what you like.

whether an SC is too much power for the m3 on a certain track depends on the track and the driver.

[sycd]

Never had a problem with the torque of the m3 with dct. As someone said its hard enough to keep traction as it is. I do a lot of city driving and never had a problem, and I don't feel like I have to rev the hell out of it to get it moving.

I had a 335i and that engine was falling on its face very quickly and wasnt much fun to drive.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

IDK, the cool thing about a centrifugal SC (and the weakness, depending on what you like) is that they boost in a linear fashion, building towards redline. so the powerband looks exactly like stock in its shape, just a lot more power and pulls harder near redline.

it is a weakness in that it does not really have the low end gain that a positive displacement blower has.

just depends what you like.

whether an SC is too much power for the m3 on a certain track depends on the track and the driver.

That's what they sell you but it's not really true. Sounds like you never had a supercharged e92 m3 and haven't taken one to the track.

[KennyPowers]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

That's what they sell you but it's not really true. Sounds like you never had a supercharged e92 m3 and haven't taken one to the track.

I had a supercharged e46 m3. Same type of kit, same concept.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

I had a supercharged e46 m3. Same type of kit, same concept.

Well you must have not have tracked it that much. That's where you really feel the drawbacks of a supercharger.

[Dre01SS]

Originally Posted by Optherion

Just like women. The crazy psycho ones are sometimes the hottest

Haha so true; can't stand them but can't let them go either

Interesting points of view here, with torque really seeming to be the one major (while polarizing) issue. Great discussion so far!

[Skullbussa]

Originally Posted by Mmmm3333

The "lack of low end torque" is not a design flaw.....it was THE design criteria for the BMW engineers. BMW likes to make their M cars in the same spirit as the F1 cars, just with the practicality of carrying 4/5 passengers. .

So BMW engineers decided to use F1 power delivery in a 5 seater, daily driver car? The M3 is not a sports car, it is confusing that BMW engineers supposedly had the intention of replicating the powerband of a pure track car on a car that will spend 99.99% of its life on public streets.

I reject the notion this was BMW's intention. If so, why replace it with a turbo engine in the next M3? Remember, this next engine will make roughly the same horsepower - the difference is that it will make over 100+ more ft.lbs of torque. Clearly BMW is correcting what they consider to be a mistake.

[Skullbussa]

Originally Posted by Optherion

LOL. If i leave the forums, its because of moronic comments from users, not based on my ownership of vehicles. I joined this forum a year before I ever purchased a M3. I owe this forum credit to every single mod I ever purchased.

+1

I like the discussions here which is why I keep coming back.

I've owned BMW's all my life and I am sure I will own BMWs again. But right now you have to admit that things are looking kinda rough. Audi and Mercedes are coming on strong and the Americans are building better cars than they ever have in my lifetime.

[keno]

Originally Posted by Skullbussa

So BMW engineers decided to use F1 power delivery in a 5 seater, daily driver car? The M3 is not a sports car, it is confusing that BMW engineers supposedly had the intention of replicating the powerband of a pure track car on a car that will spend 99.99% of its life on public streets.

I reject the notion this was BMW's intention. If so, why replace it with a turbo engine in the next M3? Remember, this next engine will make roughly the same horsepower - the difference is that it will make over 100+ more ft.lbs of torque. Clearly BMW is correcting what they consider to be a mistake.

I think most people on this forum would agree that the decision to go with turbocharging of future M cars is the result of meeting new regulations and improved gas mileage - NOT to correct a "mistake".

[brava09]

Originally Posted by keno

I think most people on this forum would agree that the decision to go with turbocharging of future M cars is the result of meeting new regulations and improved gas mileage - NOT to correct a "mistake".

Indeed. The M3 V8 engine has won several engine of the year titles, not only is not a mistake, it's a masterpiece.

I'm pretty sure the next M3 turbo engine will not live to the standards set already by the existing V8.

[NHman]

Originally Posted by keno

I think most people on this forum would agree that the decision to go with turbocharging of future M cars is the result of meeting new regulations and improved gas mileage - NOT to correct a "mistake".

+1

Watch, the following generation will have a hybrid powertrain (Mi3/4...).

[soberin]

Originally Posted by Skullbussa

So BMW engineers decided to use F1 power delivery in a 5 seater, daily driver car? The M3 is not a sports car, it is confusing that BMW engineers supposedly had the intention of replicating the powerband of a pure track car on a car that will spend 99.99% of its life on public streets.

I reject the notion this was BMW's intention. If so, why replace it with a turbo engine in the next M3? Remember, this next engine will make roughly the same horsepower - the difference is that it will make over 100+ more ft.lbs of torque. Clearly BMW is correcting what they consider to be a mistake.

Or they are on this forum and BMW is responding to what we tell them was a mistake.

[KKM3]

Originally Posted by brava09

Indeed. The M3 V8 engine has won several engine of the year titles, not only is not a mistake, it's a masterpiece.

I'm pretty sure the next M3 turbo engine will not live to the standards set already by the existing V8.

Yes exactly. The current engine is a gem, something very special. The upcoming line of m cars with have the run of the mill 4, 6, and 8 cylinder FI engines with few revisions and a more boost. Nothing special about low revving FI motors.

[krnnerdboy]

If they really wanted to keep the "gem" they could've saved a lot of money by just adding direct injection. Exactly what gm is doing with there ls3....

[swanson]

a bunch of sensitive people here

[Mmmm3333]

Originally Posted by Skullbussa

So BMW engineers decided to use F1 power delivery in a 5 seater, daily driver car? The M3 is not a sports car, it is confusing that BMW engineers supposedly had the intention of replicating the powerband of a pure track car on a car that will spend 99.99% of its life on public streets.

I reject the notion this was BMW's intention. If so, why replace it with a turbo engine in the next M3? Remember, this next engine will make roughly the same horsepower - the difference is that it will make over 100+ more ft.lbs of torque. Clearly BMW is correcting what they consider to be a mistake.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention to the new CAFE requirements.....BMW is doing the turbo primarily for gas mileage while maintaining/improving performance. Without that requirement, I would think the progression would be a larger V8, then perhaps an even higher revving V8, then maybe even a V10 ( while M5/6 goes V12). BMW M division chief has been quoted that the new turbo M engines will have a "higher" redline in keeping with the M traditions.

It's not about what BMW engineers can or cannot do.....it's about what they WANT to do for the M brand. And for the M brand, they want to have high revving linear engines.

I do agree with you on one thing - M3 is not a sports car.....it's a sports sedan/coupe with many of the fantastic characteristics of a single seat, open wheel, formula race car. Look at the history of the M cars and you'll see that BMW has not strayed much from their original intention.

[M3NNIS]

I left the m3 because every topic on the m3 post goes Off topic.

[Skullbussa]

Originally Posted by keno

I think most people on this forum would agree that the decision to go with turbocharging of future M cars is the result of meeting new regulations and improved gas mileage - NOT to correct a "mistake".

That's a convenient excuse. Curious that the engineers who developed the N54 saw these shocking new regulations coming from miles away but the S65 engineers did not.

Occam's Razor principle, however, would lead me to believe that perhaps BMW just made a disappointing engine. I find it exceptionally hard to believe that they would throw all of that money into developing an engine that they knew they would not be able to use for more than 4-5 years. Terrible return on investment. The idea that BMW is pulling the S65 from the M3 line simply due to CAFE is a dubious assertion. It is far, far more likely that the S65 is being pulled because it pales in comparison to the powerplants employed by all of its peers and in fact is completely outshined by a truck engine (Ford's 5.0) that makes more power and more torque all over the powerband.

There is absolutely nothing that says that a high-revving engine cannot also be a turbocharged one. Why on Earth is this forum fixated on the idea that turbo engines are low-class workhorse engines meant for the masses?

[Vic311]

Originally Posted by buschy

I left the m3 because every topic on the m3 post goes Off topic.

[TTG]

Originally Posted by radiantm3

Well you must have not have tracked it that much. That's where you really feel the drawbacks of a supercharger.

So all of a sudden we must track the car to enjoy it fully??? I dont get this at all..... If I am buying a performance car... I want it to perform at a stop light as well. C63 and E63 do smoke the crap out of our cars in conditions that most people drive them at 97% of the time.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by TTG

So all of a sudden we must track the car to enjoy it fully??? I dont get this at all..... If I am buying a performance car... I want it to perform at a stop light as well. C63 and E63 do smoke the crap out of our cars in conditions that most people drive them at 97% of the time.

I never said that. If you want straight line speed the C63 is the better car. Seems like you should have gotten one of those if you want to be fast in 97% of your driving conditions. The m3 shines in the corners because it's so balanced.

I was talking about the downside of superchargers at the track before to make a point that more power isn't always a good thing if it isn't done the right way.