Quote:
Originally Posted by SYT_Shadow
When I hear you or Ian talk about this I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
I did dozens of road trips in both cars and there was never the slightest doubt of which car was faster at any and all rpms. There isn't a single rpm where the E46M felt faster than the E9X.
I tracked both cars in the same day many, many times. Again, never got the impression the S65 required extra revving to move.
I have a 6MT M3 as well as a DCT. Neither one feels 'slow' or not suited to street use. 4000rpm WOT in 6th gear feels quite fast, well in the realm of getting arrested for display of speed or whatever.
Have you weighed yours? Because I've weighed my E46 and E92, back to back, same scale, both cars completely OEM, both full tanks of gas. The E46 is 3500# and the E92 is 3600#. There's a 100lb difference between them.
I give zero credence to the weights published on forums, where people are using 'around 1/4 of a tank of gas' or removing carpeting or other retardedness.
|
Good stuff.
It's pretty common to hear from M3F guys that the E9XM feels "gutless". I wouldn't call it gutless but it definitely doesn't' have the same midrange response at all.
There just isn't a lot going on between 4 and 5k in the 90M and that range is very strong in the 46M. That's all I'm saying. This is really my biggest problem with the E9XM - if it had a bit more oomph between 4 and 6k it would literally be perfect. Mind you - my 46M is a very healthy example and my E90M is a bone stock '08, so.....
But yeah, I was guessing on the weights - I would say my butt dyno tends to agree with your readings in that the E9XM really doesn't feel much heavier than the 46M... only just notably so. It also doesn't feel much bigger either, just a tiny bit.