Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

Sorry but the car makes more then enough low end torque at 2500-3000rpm. 230-240lb.ft. @ the wheels is more then enough low end torque.

What you are probably feeling is short gearing combined with a low internal interia engine which causes the car to rev to 4k extremely fast vs others.

lucid wrote

Who changed his mind Foot based on the limited responses to this thread so far?

By whom exactly? The folks who never really floor the thing and make comparisons on that basis (I am not saying that has anything to do with the OP just to be clear)? Or by folks who normally drive 600hp Vipers?

Don't get me wrong, there are things that are "wrong" with this car, but this really is not one of them IMO.

exactly! this car is meant to be revved up, there are no bugs or defects this is how the car is suppose to be....some people should have done more test driving/shopping around before purchase IMO

lucid wrote

We've been through this several times in several threads. The car has plenty of torque above 2000 rpm thanks to its relatively aggressive gearing which its wide rev range allows for, but you need to use the pedal. Part-throttle response might seem weak, but why use part throttle if you want to go fast? Actually, the car has so much torque at the wheels that I think it is pretty much useless on the street unless you want to get arrested or kill someone. There are various comparison charts published on this in the forum based on actual wtq numbers. I agree with MVF4Rrider though as in it depends on what the basis for comparison is. Of course, there are cars out there with more wtq than the E92 M3, but that doesn't mean the M3 is low on torque or anything.

Finally a brain emerges

Most people who think they want more power have probably never even tapped in to what they have. I just spent the last 5 years in Germany and spent countless miles at very high triple digit speeds and never once thought the power of my M car was inadequate. M cars come alive at speeds over 130 mph and that's the speeds in which non-M cars like the 135i/335i die (from experience driving a 135i 4,000 total miles in Germany--terrible car at high speeds!). In fact, my Z4 M was so planted at high speed that most owners of new M3s in my M club were hesitate to keep up. In the twisties, see ya! Anyone who thinks the new M3 lacks torque is probably driving in too high a gear for the speed they're driving and throttle response performance they desire. If so, you bought the wrong car for your driving style.

I think that the real issue here is not torque by itself, is the way drivers want to feel the torque/accelaration.

The reality is that the M3 has enough torque for what it is, a relatively small V8, at a wide power band. Now, if the idea is to feel -again- a push by just showing the foot at the gas pedal then that's not going to happen.

Of course, when the expected twin turbo F30 M3 shows up with at least 400lbft at just 2000-3000RPM then all these discussions will be a thing of the past. In the meantime, either adapt and learn how to drive the M3 or just accept that this is not the car that you thought it was supposed to be.

Azorean wrote

That's exactly why I passed on the M3 and purchased the 335d which for everyday city driving is the ultimate car:

"On the dyno, we found out why the BMW felt so fast. Rated at 265 hp and 425 lb-ft at the crank, the little 3.0L inline-six in the 335d actually made 258 hp and 421 lb-ft at the wheels, making the crankshaft numbers closer to 300 hp and 525 lb-ft."

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/0912dp_2009_bmw_335d/diesel_engine.html

The 36 MPG average that I'm getting is a bonus.

the 335d has more torque than an M5

PencilGeek wrote

Dinan makes a 3.45, 3.62 and 4.10.

DiffsOnline.com makes just about anything you want. They have about 10 different ratios to choose from for the E9X M3.

OK, but considering the standard final drive is 1:3.85 then the 4.10 is the only one you listed which will actually increase torque--to improve acceleration, throttle response, etc. The car is already geared to go a theoretical 200 mph, so the others are useless for street cars all things considered.

MVF4Rrider wrote

OK, but considering the standard final drive is 1:3.85 then the 4.10 is the only one you listed which will actually increase torque--to improve acceleration, throttle response, etc. The car is already geared to go a theoretical 200 mph, so the others are useless for street cars all things considered.

Good grief...

kmarei wrote

the 335d has more torque than an M5

Engine only (which is meaningless). But the low rpm characteristic on the diesel engine and standard gearing is why the M5 will leave it standing still (after it stops ripping the rubber off the tires first). Some of you still don't get why engine specs (alone) mean nothing when comparing car performance. If your argument contains peak power numbers then you have much to learn.

Lemans_Blue_M wrote

Good grief...

What's good grief about that? Do you want to lower torque output and therefore make the car slower?

PencilGeek wrote

That would be this thread...right here.

That is one of them.

I had these in mind when comparing the M3 to the competition:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157633
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107532&highlight=335+driver+test+drive

Mixja's thread is the most informative in this regard. Actually, this discussion made be realize that it should be a sticky since the question comes up often.

I kept reading simular thread online, which began to concern me once I had ordered my E92. I only drove the car stock for 1 hour, but after I did the Dinan mod treatment, all I can say is, WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I get the issue, but my M3 goes sideways at any RPM, period. Just tap the throttle. It's quite frankly a monster. My son and I ran the F430 against the M3 for 5 seconds, and I'll tell you, I think the M3 will walk away for the my Ferrari on the low end. Maybe even the high end.

Even though the car is a dream stock, I've never owned a car that responds so well to mods, which is pretty crazy considering it's not a Turbo.

MVF4Rrider wrote

Sorry, but this is an example of how little people understand about how the engine and gearing together create driving dynamics and affect acceleration. To speak to engine torque character alone without consideration to gearing is worthless when making comparisons to other cars as above. The M3 is making exponentially more torque at 2,500 rpms to redline than the 335i, which is why it's quicker. Not engine torque alone, but the total torque that matters.

I thought we were talking low end torque? You know, the around town grunt that most people think of as horsepower? I'm afraid I don't see your point or why I need to be sorry about anything.

The M3 and the 335i have the same transmission ratios in 6mt.

The M3 will never make more torque than it does at 2850 rpm because thats its max torque peak and it is flat through 6300 rpm.

How does an M3 make exponentially more torque than a 335i under 3000 rpm when their max torque output is within 5 ft lbs of each other and the 335 is already making 300 ft lb at 2500 rpm?

I agree that at different rpms - ie higher - the M3 will be making more torque across the rev range but who cares. I made a subjective comment as to how the car feels around town.

I've owned both, although I'd never say the 335 is a superior car or the M3 lacks torque the point was about the delivery - the 335i spools up in a heartbeat and has lots of twist. The M3 doesn't really come alive until you are over 3000 rpm. Off the line a lazy M3 driver can get beaten by a Camry hybrid until the car spins up. That was my point.

What's the line, people want horsepower but they buy torque?

I recall a similar post over on the cca web-site where you told a number of cca members how stupid they were and then ultimately agreed to disagree?

I can't decide if you are trying to educate, humiliate or troll for a fight?

Opinion doesn't have to be fact and fact doesn't have to be opinion. The OP asked if people noticed a lack of low end grunt - in comparison to the two other cars he mentioned the M3 does take slightly longer to get on the boil.

Its not all about the math.

I own both cars at the moment and both are still bone stock (not by choice). Either my 335 is weak or the motor in my M3 is a Superstar. I will admit that when I first test drove an M3, I was not that impressed. The car I tested did not have the requesite 1200 miles, so I kept it under 5000 rpm. My seat of the pants dyno told me there was no difference between my 335 and the M3....none at all.

The sound was intoxicating as was the difference in handling. This and the hope that it would be a beast above 5000 rpm kept me interested enough to purchase the M3.

When I picked up my car in Munich.....wow it pulled much harder than my 335. When I finally got it above 5000 rpm...wooohooo. Just today, I needed to make a pass and got on the gas.....the sound and sudden acceleration scared my wife, who had never really heard the motor used in "anger".

I never look forward to driving the 335 like I do with the M3.

jbeene wrote

The M3 and the 335i have the same transmission ratios in 6mt.

The M3 will never make more torque than it does at 2850 rpm because thats its max torque peak and it is flat through 6300 rpm.

The final drives are different, so the total reduction is different. M3 does put down more torque at the wheels above 2000 rpm than a 335 at WOT, stock vs stock. If you click on the second link I posted, you'll see 15 pages of discussion on all of this and other factors, such as "jerk" vs acceleration, what dyno number do and do not tell, etc.

Azorean wrote

That's exactly why I passed on the M3 and purchased the 335d which for everyday city driving is the ultimate car:

"On the dyno, we found out why the BMW felt so fast. Rated at 265 hp and 425 lb-ft at the crank, the little 3.0L inline-six in the 335d actually made 258 hp and 421 lb-ft at the wheels, making the crankshaft numbers closer to 300 hp and 525 lb-ft."

http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/0912dp_2009_bmw_335d/diesel_engine.html

The 36 MPG average that I'm getting is a bonus.

Enjoy your diesel... I'll keep my M.

MVF4Rrider wrote

Sorry, but this is an example of how little people understand about how the engine and gearing together create driving dynamics and affect acceleration. To speak to engine torque character alone without consideration to gearing is worthless when making comparisons to other cars as above. The M3 is making exponentially more torque at 2,500 rpms to redline than the 335i, which is why it's quicker. Not engine torque alone, but the total torque that matters.

I think what you're getting at here is thrust - the force at the driving wheel - not torque. Anyway, you're wrong. The major difference is that with the 335i the thrust is much greater below 2500 rpm but falls off rapidly above 6000rpm.

jbeene wrote

Its not all about the math.

An M3 will beat a Dinan 335i - even in a straight line - from a standstill because of power squat. But having owned both there's no doubt that the 335i punches holes in traffic much more effortlessly than the M3. All of this can be mathematically modeled - in theory.

jbeene wrote

I thought we were talking low end torque? You know, the around town grunt that most people think of as horsepower? I'm afraid I don't see your point or why I need to be sorry about anything.

The M3 and the 335i have the same transmission ratios in 6mt.

The M3 will never make more torque than it does at 2850 rpm because thats its max torque peak and it is flat through 6300 rpm.

How does an M3 make exponentially more torque than a 335i under 3000 rpm when their max torque output is within 5 ft lbs of each other and the 335 is already making 300 ft lb at 2500 rpm?

I agree that at different rpms - ie higher - the M3 will be making more torque across the rev range but who cares. I made a subjective comment as to how the car feels around town.

I've owned both, although I'd never say the 335 is a superior car or the M3 lacks torque the point was about the delivery - the 335i spools up in a heartbeat and has lots of twist. The M3 doesn't really come alive until you are over 3000 rpm. Off the line a lazy M3 driver can get beaten by a Camry hybrid until the car spins up. That was my point.

What's the line, people want horsepower but they buy torque?

I recall a similar post over on the cca web-site where you told a number of cca members how stupid they were and then ultimately agreed to disagree?

I can't decide if you are trying to educate, humiliate or troll for a fight?

Opinion doesn't have to be fact and fact doesn't have to be opinion. The OP asked if people noticed a lack of low end grunt - in comparison to the two other cars he mentioned the M3 does take slightly longer to get on the boil.

Its not all about the math.

I'm trying to educate. You guys need it. The fact is the OP is complaining about something he doesn't understand, as do many of you. You still are arguing engine specs (because you're conditioned to) and not taking into consideration gearing. HP is irrelevant for any discussion about acceleration, grunt, throttle response, etc. It's all about multiplied torque amounts at various rpms in each gear. And yes you are correct, it's not all about math. Other things come into play, which is traction, clutch strength, tire grip, vehicle weight and aerodynamics. But the math makes up most of the equation to determine acceleration, which is what the OP is concerned about. The fact remains that the M3 is producing more multiplied torque at very low rpms than the other 2 cars he mentioned (comparatively by rpm in each and every gear). Multiplied torque (not HP, not peak anything) is what affects acceleration, grunt, etc. I can only assume he's looking for more inspired acceleration at low rpms in the cruising gears at normal regulated city speeds. For example, 4th gear at 40 mph (35 mph speed zone). That's not the M3s preferred territory. In essence, don't be lazy...down shift before gunning it. The N54-equipped cars allow the driver to get away with decent acceleration (to a point) without first down shifting, but the engine torque falloff is so severe after 5,000 rpms that it makes for a less enthusiastic drive overall. I know from experience, and in Germany where I could actually use these cars to the maximum. If you like the acceleration characteristics of the N54, then you're a driver than doesn't spend much time at high rpms (where you would be very disappointed). You may as well buy a 135i/335i with an automatic transmission. What's the point of having control of the gearbox if you're only going to use a small part of the powerband?

You say the M3 and 335i have the same gear ratios in 6MT. Well, gearbox ratios are only 1 of 3 gearing components. The rear diff and rear tire circumference are the other two and each is very important and at no time can any be considered without the other two.

I didn't know the final drive on the DCT and 6MT are different. What's the final drive of the DCT? I just assumed the DCT car was quicker than the 6MT due to not having to lift the throttle under acceleration during gear changes.

BTW, I'm not a new M3 hater by any means if anyone thinks that. I like the car. I didn't find it as much fun in Germany after driving one upon release so I cancelled my order and bought a new Z4 M instead. Fun doesn't necessarily equate to the fastest. None of these 4 wheel things are fast no matter what you do to them (FI, etc.)...at least compared to my 2 wheel missile. As for FI for an existing M car, I really don't see the point. It just makes you [more] lazy. If you want/need better acceleration, grunt, etc., the best way to achieve it without upsetting the balance of the car is with a rear diff change to increase multiplied torque--which is power to the ground. I prefer making changes that don't affect engine reliability.

Anyway...

Add an xpipe + tune + pulleys and the low end torque is improved HUGE

MVF4Rrider wrote

I'm trying to educate. You guys need it. The fact is the OP is complaining about something he doesn't understand, as do many of you. You still are arguing engine specs (because you're conditioned to) and not taking into consideration gearing. HP is irrelevant for any discussion about acceleration, grunt, throttle response, etc. It's all about multiplied torque amounts at various rpms in each gear. And yes you are correct, it's not all about math. Other things come into play, which is traction, clutch strength, tire grip, vehicle weight and aerodynamics. But the math makes up most of the equation to determine acceleration, which is what the OP is concerned about. The fact remains that the M3 is producing more multiplied torque at very low rpms than the other 2 cars he mentioned (comparatively by rpm in each and every gear). Multiplied torque (not HP, not peak anything) is what affects acceleration, grunt, etc.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. HP is irrelevant?!?... LOL ok... how bout I suggest a race you take a diesel making 600lb.ft. at 2400rpm and ill take an f1 v8 making 220lb.ft. @ 18000rpm and well see who wins.

You're also wrong... the 335i makes more wheel torque around 3000rpm then the e92 m3... that takes into account everything.

Now if you take the entire area under the torque curve then you realize why the m3 shines... Due to its flat torque curve and high redline it makes a ton of torque under the curve vs. other cars which have much higher peak torque numbers.