M3 vs. 335is - which is faster?

acs1.35i wrote

Not agree. While the M3V8 tries to hit the 8000+ rpm (because below that, there is no torque and power), is the 335i already cruising at 5000 rev's, looking backwords waiting for that poor hard working M3V8 ...

Right - just like while your brain after smoking whatever it is you're smoking is trying like hell to figure out the difference between crankshaft torque and torque at the wheels at a given engine rpm/overall drive ratio, the rest of us are already cruising at a normal intelligence level, looking backwards at your laughable comments!

Guys, I just had to delete some more comments. Use the PM system if you want to continue this pointless discussion, but don't derail this thread any more. I'd have to resort to infractions else. Thanks!


Best regards,
south

mkoesel wrote

Here's more, I guess:

Official 2011 BMW 335is Coupe & Cabriolet info! 322hp / 332tq (369tq w/ overboost)

Meh. Why both a 6AT and M-DCT? And it appears no suspension changes or anything else that would effect performance other than the engine and transmission. Plus it only get 322hp apparently. Nothing to see here really, I guess. BMW crippled it plenty to give a comfortable distance between it and the M3.

Down on HP but not torque!. I see a "comfortable distance" between the two based on suspension/handling, but certainly not on power. As I said in the past, the two models are too close in power, soon to be rectified with the next iteration M3.

335lvr wrote

Down on HP but not torque!. I see a "comfortable distance" between the two based on suspension/handling, but certainly not on power. As I said in the past, the two models are too close in power, soon to be rectified with the next iteration M3.

Wish I had a dollar for every 335i driver who doesn't understand the difference between force and torque.

MVF4Rrider wrote

Wish I had a dollar for every 335i driver who doesn't understand the difference between force and torque.

I don't necessarily agree with that opinion, I have shown on an more than a few occasions that below the equivalent to 6000rpm the M3 isn't as strong as people think. The point of this engine is to keep it on the boil to get anywhere near it's best and used as such then it truly is impressive.

footie wrote

I don't necessarily agree with that opinion, I have shown on an more than a few occasions that below the equivalent to 6000rpm the M3 isn't as strong as people think. The point of this engine is to keep it on the boil to get anywhere near it's best and used as such then it truly is impressive.

Well you're incorrect if you look at the formula for acceleration which involves force divided by mass. Engine torque alone is not a determinant of acceleration and therefore "power" as perceived by the masses. I know you still think peak HP is where you shift which also puts you in the category of those who don't completely understand all that is involved. So what I stated is correct and applicable. There's a whole sticky on this which you show this common lack of knowledge quite well.

MVF4Rrider wrote

Well you're incorrect if you look at the formula for acceleration which involves force divided by mass. Engine torque alone is not a determinant of acceleration and therefore "power" as perceived by the masses. I know you still think peak HP is where you shift which also puts you in the category of those who don't completely understand all that is involved. So what I stated is correct and applicable. There's a whole sticky on this which you show this common lack of knowledge quite well.

No not at all. There is something totally different between accelerating from 2000rpm in a given gear and accelerating from 5/6000rpm. One is where torque of FI engines live and the other is where the torque of a N/A engine lives.

The problem is that many 'young' drivers don't feel that low end torque is that important as you would never ever race using that method, which is correct. But in normal driving you use low end torque far far more then you will ever make full use or the revs, on the street in any case.

footie wrote

No not at all. There is something totally different between accelerating from 2000rpm in a given gear and accelerating from 5/6000rpm. One is where torque of FI engines live and the other is where the torque of a N/A engine lives.

The problem is that many 'young' drivers don't feel that low end torque is that important as you would never ever race using that method, which is correct. But in normal driving you use low end torque far far more then you will ever make full use or the revs, on the street in any case.

You're completely missing the point.

MVF4Rrider wrote

You're completely missing the point.

I could say the same but I much prefer to say we have a difference of opinion. That's all.

I do feel that there is a age difference here more than anything, I'm well past the point where I would openly go looking for a potential race.

footie wrote

I could say the same but I much prefer to say we have a difference of opinion. That's all.

I do feel that there is a age difference here more than anything, I'm well past the point where I would openly go looking for a potential race.

It's not opinion when it comes to force vs. engine torque to account for "power" differences between two cars. Has NOTHING to do with NA vs. FI. Point simply is too many look at engine output (even across the entire rpm spectrum) and try to assimilate that to acceleration. That's ignorant.

I don't race anyone and care less if someone in a "lesser" car wants to take off and leave me standing still. That's not an example of capability but rather an example of effort.

I'd be surprised if you are older than I, which I'm not drawing any conclusions. But since you mentioned it...

Do you still believe peak HP is the ideal shift point for any car?

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157633

See post #13

I think you are mistaking me for someone else, I didn't say shift at peak revs, I actually said that on most cars the difference in overall acceleration between the redline and say 500revs below that point isn't that great in the grand scheme of things.

P.S.
I'm a very happy bloke in his early forties who has driven hard for a lot of his life and now prefers a more relaxing driving style but still enjoys the odd occasion of blowing out the cobwebs with the mood takes me.

footie wrote

I think you are mistaking me for someone else, I didn't say shift at peak revs, I actually said that on most cars the difference in overall acceleration between the redline and say 500revs below that point isn't that great in the grand scheme of things.

P.S.
I'm a very happy bloke in his early forties who has driven hard for a lot of his life and now prefers a more relaxing driving style but still enjoys the odd occasion of blowing out the cobwebs with the mood takes me.

The link to your post #13 says different. Bottom line is there is no general rpm shift point per car that optimizes acceleration. You have to look at the force at various rpms in a given gear and the force available in the next gear to determine the optimum shift point to that next gear. For FI cars that usually varies per gear since there's such a torque fall off in the upper rpm region; therefore the optimum shift point for a given gear is not necessarily the same for all gears. That's another annoyance of FI cars. For NA cars like M cars it's easy ... redline or higher is better! That is why traditional M engines (NA) are pure art and why they represent motorsport far better than any FI could ever. M knows this, but modern times with emissions, fuel economy, and the world economy dictate differently in the marketplace. You can rest assured M is not happy with what the market and current economy is requiring them to produce for the future. But they did continue to do it their way as long as they could, which is why pristine M cars with NA engines will be the ones to own as future classics. All else are disposable and characterless in comparison. Character is what separates good cars from great cars and good engines from great engines over the course of time. Enough with that editorial...

In a way both statement of mine are the same as most car engines are roughly 400~500rpm difference between peak power and redline and the difference between holding out and changing at peak power will be very small indeed, i.e. something like 1~1.5mph difference between their respective 1/4mile peak speeds which with a car like the M3 that amounts to no greater than 1%.

If you were generalizing an opinion of FI engines then I would be in agreement, most don't have the kind of soul that an M engine has, but there are exceptions to this, the 2.5TFSI from the TT-RS is one brilliant example, that engine has so much character that it threats to over shadow the rest of the car.

Maybe you need to have a little more faith in M-Division before righting them off.

It seems that the 335is would be available only in US and Canada.


http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/246540/


"BMW plans to launch a hot new 3-series to bridge the gap between the 335i and M3 models.

The BMW 335iS will not initially be made available in the UK or Europe, however, with the firm instead selling it to US and Canadian customers.

BMW showed a similar concept with the Z4 at the Detroit motor show with the Z4 sDrive 35iS, billed as the most powerful in the range in the absence of a full M version.

The 335iS will use the 322bhp N44 twin-turbo six-cylinder 3.0-litre engine with 332 lb ft of peak torque (369 lb ft with the overboost function).

The car will get an M-sport styling package and will be the first time a standard BMW model will be offered with an optional seven-speed double clutch gearbox. When equipped with the auto’, the 335iS can get from 0-60mph in 5.0secs, with the same speed arriving 0.1secs slower with the standard six-speed manual.

Top speed will be limited to 149mph – standard BMW’s in the US are normally limited to 130mph.

A BMW source had indicated that the car will be considered for European sale after reaction to it has been gauged in the US and Canada."

brava09 wrote

It seems that the 335is would be available only in US and Canada.

And in Australia as the "340i" according to what I've read.

Most of the discussion here seems to be about engines. For day to day driving the 335i engine may or may not be more usable than the M3 engine but regardless of what engine is in the 335is it is not going to have the M3 suspension bits so the driving dynamics will not be the same.

There is more to the M3 than the V8.

CA

captainaudio wrote

Most of the discussion here seems to be about engines. For day to day driving the 335i engine may or may not be more usable than the M3 engine but regardless of what engine is in the 335is it is not going to have the M3 suspension bits so the driving dynamics will not be the same.

There is more to the M3 than the V8.

CA

+1

M3 is about the whole package, the overall feel of the thing. Comfort+Power+Sportiness

Personally I love the V8 in the M3 but I think the M division could have done even better.

M156 wrote

Personally I love the V8 in the M3 but I think the M division could have done even better.

+1

Fixed brakes for one. Can't believe BMW first put them on the 1 series (although kind of low end) and finally M put them on the X5M/X6M. BMW is way behind the competition in this regard. The M3 should have a ceramic brake option!

I also believe M still selects too tall a final drive for M cars. Do we need/want the cars geared to theoretical 200+ mph? A little bit more driven wheel force would decrease measured acceleration times and would make higher gears more usable at lower speeds thus potentially increasing fuel economy at lower than highway speeds.

CATCH_M3 wrote

I believe the 335is has an 'overboost' providing quick bursts of 369 lb-ft of torque. If so, let's say you activate it at high RPM.. Shouldn't the max HP rise higher than 335HP momentarily as well.. 335HP seems kind of low for 369 lb.ft of torque if you have it activated around say, 5500rpm. After all, horsepower is just a function of torque x RPM.

369 lb.ft @ 5500 rpm = 386 Horsepower if I calculated correctly. (I believe 335i engine holds max torque till around 5500 rpm if I remember correctly?)

I could be wrong here, but doubtful the 369 lbs ft "overboost" will be at 5500 rpms. Therefore, there would be no "overboost" in HP.
The overboost will probably be in the 3000-4000 rpm range for those quick passing situations.
And in that case, it's at a rpm low enough to not affect the peak HP numbers.


As for the comparisons of the 335is vs M3, I am shocked you guys are even "worried" about it.
The fact of the matter is stock for stock it won't be competition for the M3.

The 335is is to the 335i what the Corvette Grand Sport is to the Corvette.
The Corvette Grand Sport is not competition for the ZR-1 much less the ZO6.
The 335is is simply made to be a slightly sportier and more powerful version of the 335i, plain and simple. It will simply perform a bit better.
Instead of the 13.4-13.5 @ 105 mph 1/4 times it will probably be
13.1-13.2 @ 107-108 mph. Likewise, it's handling and braking numbers will improve a bit too.

No biggie, like some said, just enough to counter the fact the new 2010 S4 has edged out the 3 year old 335i now in acceleration and handling.
This will put the 335 back ahead of the S4 and give 335i owners/leasee's the opportunity to get into something slightly nicer and faster, if they don't want an M3.
Since the 335is is simply a N54 with a bit more boost and the requisite tuning to go along with it, you can think of it as what the 335i's acceleration was with a very mild piggyback tune on it. The 335is won't be able to be tuned anymore than a 335i can be however, since it's the same N54 engine.

acs1.35i wrote

It's an open door. We all know. I am the only one to say it out loud: the .35i is much faster than the M3. Lets face it. It's that simple. Here is just one video:
dragrace 135i vs. e92m3

These videos don't show the real deal. The M driver might not be competent.
I can post a video too-here you go !
135i disgraced by M3

The 335i is just so inferior when compared to the M3.

I think that us, the M3 owners, should just disregard this type of threads... comparisons with inferior cars. I mean, it's nothing of benefit for us the owner of the "real thing".

^agree. it's like compare a 911 s or turbo to a gt3. totally different animal although they look very similar.