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) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
INDustry distribution
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-27-2013, 04:37 PM   #23
Azlondon
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: E92 M3 ESS 650
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: London

Posts: 33
iTrader: (0)

Kryptonite? ?

Seriously, I think the stock exhaust. Compared to its rivals it's very underwhelming.
Azlondon is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 04:39 PM   #24
Eau Rouge
Captain
 
Eau Rouge's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida's Emerald Coast

Posts: 915
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 BMW E92 M3  [4.50]
More seats than M3 owners have friends.
__________________
Eau Rouge is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:08 PM   #25
klammer
Brigadier General
 
Drives: 11 spc gry m3 e90, 07 X5
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: chicago

Posts: 3,224
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by davesaddiction View Post
Weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quiksi View Post
the d-bag behind the wheel
+1000000
__________________
mods: akra evo, dinan 3.45 diff, ess akra tune, dinan stg.3, Alcon bbk, HRE P40
klammer is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:08 PM   #26
Thebigbus
Private
 
Thebigbus's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 e90 M3 DCT
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Central Texas

Posts: 87
iTrader: (0)

Weight, ride height, and stock exhaust is too quiet for me

I don't get the torque thing. It accelerates like a maniac, and loses traction easily. I love having to rev it. Beats my old LS2 engine any ol day
Thebigbus is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:10 PM   #27
jphughan
Brigadier General
 
jphughan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011.75 M3 E92 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Austin, TX

Posts: 3,265
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thebigbus View Post
Weight, ride height, and stock exhaust is too quiet for me

I don't get the torque thing. It accelerates like a maniac, and loses traction easily. I love having to rev it. Beats my old LS2 engine any ol day
Ride height as in too low or too high? I personally find it low enough to feel great cornering while still high enough that I'm not constantly scraping.

As for exhaust, I agree you don't hear a lot of exhaust sound, but you get plenty of intake and engine sound any time you're running more than 50% throttle -- which is kind of cool, lets you have a sleeper car when driving calmly and a monster when driving harder. I haven't looked into aftermarket exhausts, but if more exhaust noise would mean hearing less of the sweet intake and engine noise, I'm not sure I'd want that tradeoff.
__________________
11 M3 E92 Le Mans | Black Nov w/ Alum | 6MT | Premium 2 | Convenience | 19" | EDC | Prem Audio | Moonroof | BMW Apps | Vorshlag Adjustable Camber Plates | StopTech ST-60 380mm BBK | Castrol SRF Fluid | ModMyNav.com rear camera | OEM Euro Sunglasses Holder
jphughan is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:12 PM   #28
blankstar43
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2012 e92 M3
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: VA

Posts: 436
iTrader: (2)

when i first got the car i would have said torque..but after going to the track a few times i would now say weight.
__________________
2012 JZB/Fox Red M3 DCT - Akrapovic Evo exhaust, painted reflectors, CF gills, gloss black grills
blankstar43 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:13 PM   #29
Mahzari
Captain
 
Drives: poorly
Join Date: May 2010
Location: California

Posts: 670
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jphughan View Post
That would definitely help traction in 1st and 2nd, but fatter tires means a lot more unsprung weight, which adversely affects handling as well as acceleration in scenarios that aren't traction-limited. Given that the car is intended to be used as a track monster and not a drag racer, I think BMW was wise to restrain themselves on tires. The C7 Corvette will have smaller tires than the C6 despite having more power for precisely this reason.



Can't have an engine that delivers high torque and high redline with linear power delivery all the way to the top at the same time, at least not without going into exotic territory. Here again I think BMW made the right call given the track intent of the car. Keeping this car in the upper rev ranges (where there's plenty of torque) and listening to it scream like a banshee on the track is when you truly understand what this car is about, and is precisely why I believe M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their car so great or why it was designed the way it was. Torque is available on the 335i and 335d. And before you jump in and point out that the next M3 will be FI, I think that's due mainly to increased regulations around fuel consumption and emissions, and the fact that too many M3 buyers DON'T track and thus just want a torque-y city cruiser. If it weren't for said regulations and the market demand from the legions of customers who never use this car for its intended purpose, I think BMW would have absolutely stuck to NA, maybe using something like the 4.4-liter V8 from the M3 GTS for the next generation.



Agree 100%.



Agree with this too, though I'm told a BBK solves brake issues -- if you're willing to spend a few grand.
Finally a response with a bit of logic and thought.

I'd go with less weight: it improves relative horsepower/torque, mpg, and cornering. There, all of your flaws are fixed by this one change.
__________________
2012 328i Sport Line: H/K + SA
Mahzari is offline   Iran
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:15 PM   #30
thegeneral101
Colonel
 
Drives: '13 M3 LRE,'13 750Li
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Miami/Michigan

Posts: 2,301
iTrader: (0)

TORQUE

but with that said, I like the high revving aspect so less torque is fine I guess. Still a weakness in my mind, even though I will gladly put up with it.
__________________
thegeneral101 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:16 PM   #31
bsiciliano
Captain
 
Drives: 2011 M3 Convertible
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Los Angeles

Posts: 634
iTrader: (4)

Weight
__________________
2011 E93 - Space Gray - 6MT/Silver Novillo/
OE Tuning/Gruppe M Intake/ACS Springs/Vorsteiner CF Type I Rear Diffuser/Textured Matte Black Custom Powdercoated OEM 359s/Painted Reflectors/Matte Grille, Hood Vents and Side Markers/Arqray Race Exhaust/MS Pulley
bsiciliano is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:21 PM   #32
MineralWeiss
USAF Retired
 
Drives: 2011 BMW M3
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Oklahoma City

Posts: 249
iTrader: (0)

I think a car of this cost and performance, should come with multi-piston brake calipers.
MineralWeiss is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:23 PM   #33
quadpipes
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: '11 E92 M3 IB/Beige,M-DCT,ZCP
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Missippi USofA

Posts: 291
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jphughan View Post
Can't have an engine that delivers high torque and high redline with linear power delivery all the way to the top at the same time, at least not without going into exotic territory. Here again I think BMW made the right call given the track intent of the car. Keeping this car in the upper rev ranges (where there's plenty of torque) and listening to it scream like a banshee on the track is when you truly understand what this car is about, and is precisely why I believe M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their car so great or why it was designed the way it was. Torque is available on the 335i and 335d. And before you jump in and point out that the next M3 will be FI, I think that's due mainly to increased regulations around fuel consumption and emissions, and the fact that too many M3 buyers DON'T track and thus just want a torque-y city cruiser. If it weren't for said regulations and the market demand from the legions of customers who never use this car for its intended purpose, I think BMW would have absolutely stuck to NA, maybe using something like the 4.4-liter V8 from the M3 GTS for the next generation.
+1. This is basically a good analysis/statement. About the only part I respectfully disagree with is where you say that ///M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their cars so great...I do not track. But there is absolutely no doubt that I fully understand what makes my car so great. In fact, I just got back from a spirited drive - and I get it.

As for the other statements on exhaust noise, consider that the next ///M3 and M4 (F80/F82) will likely have engine/exhaust noise generated by an electronic gizmo and piped into the cabin - just like the current F10 ///M5. I'd rather hear my S65 sing naturally - albeit a bit louder - than listen to a simulated noisemaker...

Back to the original question on the current M3's biggest weakness. I guess I would have to say I haven't found one yet.
quadpipes is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:23 PM   #34
dtmwerksm3
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 09 M3 DCT Alpine White/Fox Red
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: San Diego, CA

Posts: 288
iTrader: (0)

Torque & Weight

If you say MPG you've obviously bought the wrong vehicle.
__________________
2012 BMW S1000RR Racing Red/Alpine White
2009 BMW M3 Coupe Alpine White on Fox Red, DCT - ESS | Turner Test Pipes | Macht Schnell Stg 2 | OEM Performance Splitters, Spoiler & Mirror Caps | 3D Design Diffuser
2003 BMW M3 Carbon Black on Black, 6MT - DPE | B&G | K&N | JL AUDIO - Sold
1995 BMW M3 Coupe Cosmos Black on Black - Sold
dtmwerksm3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:31 PM   #35
jphughan
Brigadier General
 
jphughan's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011.75 M3 E92 6MT
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Austin, TX

Posts: 3,265
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by quadpipes View Post
+1. This is basically a good analysis/statement. About the only part I respectfully disagree with is where you say that ///M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their cars so great...I do not track. But there is absolutely no doubt that I fully understand what makes my car so great. In fact, I just got back from a spirited drive - and I get it.
The M3 is a total blast on spirited drives, and it's definitely easy to see how great it is in that setting compared to say a 335i -- no question about it. But as big a difference as there is between a 335i and an M3, there's AT LEAST that large a difference between an M3 experienced on back roads and an M3 experienced on the track. I live in Austin where there are ENDLESS back country roads that are absolutely amazing for spirited drives and absolutely traffic-free. It's fabulous -- but it's also absolutely nothing like driving this car on a track. The fact that you take your car on spirited drives on back roads definitely means you understand more of what your car is about than the tragically high percentage of owners who doom their M3s to being driven exclusively on city streets and freeways, but you're still only seeing less than half of the total picture.

You can respectfully disagree, but I respectfully point out that if you've never taken your car to the track, you don't have the necessary data to support your position. I challenge you to find anyone who HAS tracked their car who shares your belief -- though you should have no problem at all finding people who thought as you do UNTIL they tracked their car. If you're concerned about tracking your own car for whatever reason, I'd suggest going to a track event as a spectator; it typically only costs maybe $25-50 and often allows you to catch rides with instructors and advanced students. Ride along with someone in an M3 and then try to come back here saying the M3 can fully be appreciated on spirited drives on public roads. And then imagine how much more fun and appreciation for the M3 you'd have gotten out of that track experience if you'd been the one behind the wheel. There's always M School if you want to avoid using your own car -- and if you read M School reviews on this forum, you'll find that lots of other people who thought they already knew what their M cars were about had their eyes opened by that experience. And it only gets even more fun and eye-opening the better you get as a driver.
__________________
11 M3 E92 Le Mans | Black Nov w/ Alum | 6MT | Premium 2 | Convenience | 19" | EDC | Prem Audio | Moonroof | BMW Apps | Vorshlag Adjustable Camber Plates | StopTech ST-60 380mm BBK | Castrol SRF Fluid | ModMyNav.com rear camera | OEM Euro Sunglasses Holder

Last edited by jphughan; 02-27-2013 at 06:28 PM.
jphughan is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:32 PM   #36
Sapper_M3
Lieutenant
 
Sapper_M3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2012 E92 M3, ZCP
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Missouri

Posts: 479
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by davesaddiction View Post
Weight.


In my opinion, if the E9X M3 were 500 lbs lighter, it would be twice as amazing a vehicle.

As a side note, I don't even consider torque to be a weakness on the M3.

Some points often overlooked on this torque issue:
1) Peak torque is far more significant as a marketing tool than a performance metric (M could have engineered an engine for a peak torque of 350 lb-ft to make armchair racers happy....and still make it slower in acceleration than the current engine at 295 lb-ft peak torque); to understand engine torque, you NEED to see the torque curve.
2) Gearing makes engine torque largely irrelevant. The M3 is geared short for this very reason.
3) The M3 is able to leverage near peak torque over a wide band of engine speed.

I can't help but think that the majority of people screaming "I NEED MORE TORQUE" are comparing vehicle spec sheets, and they find themselves disappointed with the number 295 lb-ft, without actually concerning themselves with performance figures (which are, really, the ONLY figures that matter).

Some food for thought: The 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 (ignore the fact that, in both luxury and refinement, these vehicles are light years apart) is almost exactly the same weight as the M3 (lighter, depending on the figures you use), has nearly the exact same rated horsepower at the crank, and has nearly 100 lb-ft MORE peak engine torque than the E92 M3. The Mustang, however, is NO faster 0-60 mph (worth noting because people still care about 0-60, despite it being more of a traction test than anything at these power levels) and is no faster in the 1/4 mile. Do we want "MORE TORQUE!" to make our cars faster, or to be able to brag about "400 lb-ft of TORQUE!" to our friends?
Sapper_M3 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:38 PM   #37
aussiem3
Major
 
aussiem3's Avatar
 
Drives: Goggomobil
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kangaroo land

Posts: 1,480
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2007 E92 M3  [0.00]
2011 F25 X3 30d  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapper_M3 View Post


In my opinion, if the E9X M3 were 500 lbs lighter, it would be twice as amazing a vehicle.

As a side note, I don't even consider torque to be a weakness on the M3.

Some points often overlooked on this torque issue:
1) Peak torque is far more significant as a marketing tool than a performance metric (M could have engineered an engine for a peak torque of 350 lb-ft to make armchair racers happy....and still make it slower in acceleration than the current engine at 295 lb-ft peak torque); to understand engine torque, you NEED to see the torque curve.
2) Gearing makes engine torque largely irrelevant. The M3 is geared short for this very reason.
3) The M3 is able to leverage near peak torque over a wide band of engine speed.

I can't help but think that the majority of people screaming "I NEED MORE TORQUE" are comparing vehicle spec sheets, and they find themselves disappointed with the number 295 lb-ft, without actually concerning themselves with performance figures (which are, really, the ONLY figures that matter).

Some food for thought: The 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 (ignore the fact that, in both luxury and refinement, these vehicles are light years apart) is almost exactly the same weight as the M3 (lighter, depending on the figures you use), has nearly the exact same rated horsepower at the crank, and has nearly 100 lb-ft MORE peak engine torque than the E92 M3. The Mustang, however, is NO faster 0-60 mph (worth noting because people still care about 0-60, despite it being more of a traction test than anything at these power levels) and is no faster in the 1/4 mile. Do we want "MORE TORQUE!" to make our cars faster, or to be able to brag about "400 lb-ft of TORQUE!" to our friends?
Couldn't agree more. 100%. It's all about bragging rights rather than useability and that too on a daily basis. A fair amount of unhappy ///3 owners. Wonder why they bought an ///3 in the first place.
__________________

2007 E92 6MT - Silverstone II with /// Performance Exhaust with ACM Test Pipes and BPM Sport Stage II Dev-Tune - Proper engine warm up, 12-monthly oil change, Castrol TWS 10w-60
2011 F25 X3 3.0d
aussiem3 is online now   Australia
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:41 PM   #38
llis
octane chick
 
llis's Avatar
 
Drives: Ms
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Colorado

Posts: 1,131
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2003 BMW M5  [0.00]
2002 BMW 530i (fs)  [0.00]
2013 BMW M3  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jphughan View Post
...I believe M3 owners who never take their cars to the track will never truly understand what makes their car so great or why it was designed the way it was....
I 1000% agree. If you haven't tracked, you haven't really tested the limits, even if you do "spirited" street driving, even if you drive like an asshat.
__________________

2013 E92 ///M3 ZCP 6MT Speed Yellow 2003 E39 ///M5
llis is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:41 PM   #39
e92livin
Captain
 
e92livin's Avatar
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Toronto

Posts: 787
iTrader: (4)

Torque, it should have atleast 350-390tq
e92livin is online now   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:44 PM   #40
weaksauce
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2008 e92 M3 6MT SSII
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Atlanta, GA

Posts: 221
iTrader: (0)

Cup holders do not hold 64 oz drinks. Stupid German cars.
weaksauce is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:44 PM   #41
Thebigbus
Private
 
Thebigbus's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 e90 M3 DCT
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Central Texas

Posts: 87
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jphughan View Post
Ride height as in too low or too high? I personally find it low enough to feel great cornering while still high enough that I'm not constantly scraping.

As for exhaust, I agree you don't hear a lot of exhaust sound, but you get plenty of intake and engine sound any time you're running more than 50% throttle -- which is kind of cool, lets you have a sleeper car when driving calmly and a monster when driving harder. I haven't looked into aftermarket exhausts, but if more exhaust noise would mean hearing less of the sweet intake and engine noise, I'm not sure I'd want that tradeoff.
Just a SMIDGE too high. I'd say a good 1/4" to 3/8" drop all around would be perfect. But all in all, it's not terrible.

I agree with you on the intake sound. It's magical. I'm not a big "loud exhaust guy". I'm quite conservative, FWIW. I just want a BIT more of a mix between induction sound and exhaust, and in my E90, the exhaust is pretty mute, even with the windows down, for some reason.

On my last car -- a 2006 GTO -- I went with headers and a catless setup, but kept the OEM stock mufflers, as it was the perfect balance to me.

I think for our cars, from what I've heard, I may either go catless in the future with stock catback, or go with the Megan Racing exhaust for "bang for buck". We'll see.

all in all, it's still a MARVELOUS car, IMO. If it weighed around 3300 lbs, would be darn near perfect for me.
Thebigbus is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:45 PM   #42
Ezio
Colonel
 
Ezio's Avatar
 
Drives: 2013 E92 M3
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MI

Posts: 2,417
iTrader: (0)

The reason it lacks Torque is because how engine is designed. Its small, light, high revving etc. Look at formula one engines, small light weight, high revving etc

Both lack low end power, but rev very fast and high. Not many engines are like this, be happy trust me.

people who say it lacks Torque, do not understand its a 4L v8 that revs to 8000RPM + its not making any Torque lol and BMW made a very impressive engine
Ezio is online now  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:46 PM   #43
Thebigbus
Private
 
Thebigbus's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 e90 M3 DCT
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Central Texas

Posts: 87
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapper_M3 View Post


In my opinion, if the E9X M3 were 500 lbs lighter, it would be twice as amazing a vehicle.

As a side note, I don't even consider torque to be a weakness on the M3.

Some points often overlooked on this torque issue:
1) Peak torque is far more significant as a marketing tool than a performance metric (M could have engineered an engine for a peak torque of 350 lb-ft to make armchair racers happy....and still make it slower in acceleration than the current engine at 295 lb-ft peak torque); to understand engine torque, you NEED to see the torque curve.
2) Gearing makes engine torque largely irrelevant. The M3 is geared short for this very reason.
3) The M3 is able to leverage near peak torque over a wide band of engine speed.

I can't help but think that the majority of people screaming "I NEED MORE TORQUE" are comparing vehicle spec sheets, and they find themselves disappointed with the number 295 lb-ft, without actually concerning themselves with performance figures (which are, really, the ONLY figures that matter).

Some food for thought: The 2011 Mustang GT 5.0 (ignore the fact that, in both luxury and refinement, these vehicles are light years apart) is almost exactly the same weight as the M3 (lighter, depending on the figures you use), has nearly the exact same rated horsepower at the crank, and has nearly 100 lb-ft MORE peak engine torque than the E92 M3. The Mustang, however, is NO faster 0-60 mph (worth noting because people still care about 0-60, despite it being more of a traction test than anything at these power levels) and is no faster in the 1/4 mile. Do we want "MORE TORQUE!" to make our cars faster, or to be able to brag about "400 lb-ft of TORQUE!" to our friends?
(Double Werd)
Thebigbus is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2013, 05:50 PM   #44
Carl L
Captain
 
Carl L's Avatar
 
Drives: 09 E92 M3 Jerez/Beige DCT
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: CA

Posts: 657
iTrader: (0)

I do not think the car is undertired and like the balance and grip provided by the 245/265s which, with a softer track compound, are plenty even for the track. The next model will come with 255/275, adding weight to my view that wishes for 295s do not take into account the negatives, one of which is weight, of wider tires.

I also do not think the car is lacking for torque. The torque curve of this engine is very useable.

Only weak points, in my opinion, are 1) fuel economy where perhaps a lower ratio 7th gear would have helped here as 7th is never needed as a performance gear save for top speed runs where the limiter cuts in early in rev range of 6th anyway. And 2) weight, where 300 lbs less would've made this car even more special.
__________________
09 M3 E92: Jerez/Bamboo
-prev M-car: 08 M5
F80 M3 on order
Carl L 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 04:42 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