|
|
05-14-2008, 08:49 AM | #23 | |
Major General
543
Rep 5,498
Posts |
Quote:
And PS, R&T rated the Merc engine the highest which makes no sense due to the points you made... Jason
__________________
Instagram: jellismotorwerks |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-14-2008, 02:32 PM | #24 |
Moderator
7538
Rep 19,368
Posts |
This has actually been the topic of some debate. Don't have a link, but search and you might find the thread. There may even be a standing bet on this, can't remember if it ever came to that.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2009, 03:42 PM | #25 |
Registered
6
Rep 4
Posts |
torque!
What is interesting is that despite all that torque and big displacement of AMG engines like C63,their torque curves(which is never as flat as M3) and tall gearing results in Flexibility times which are not quite impressive considering their big engines.
A good example of this is SPORT AUTO: M3 sedan 6-speed vs C63 AMG 7-speed M3 :80-120km/h in 6th gear (which is its TOP GEAR) 7.4 s C63 :80-120km/h in 6th gear 8.3 s Another one SPORT AUTO CLS63 vs M5 M5:80-120km/h in 7th(top gear) 9.3 s CLS63:80-120km/h in 6th(not top gear) 9.9 s So despite all those differences in torque and engine size,the M5 is more flexible than CLS63 even in a gear higher!! The fair comparison is M5 in 6th gear vs CLS63 in 6th gear which is: M5:80-120km/h in 6th 6.9s and CLS63:80-120km/h in 6th 9.9s Therefore, it is better to consider the torque at wheel and not only compare cars on the basis of their flywheel torque because in that case we are neglecting the huge effect of GEARING in performance of a car. If only engine size and flywheel torque was important,then the FERRARI F430 could never be faster than a CORVETTE C6(404hp). So M cars are excellent combinations of low-end grunt and high-rpm power. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2009, 07:42 PM | #26 |
Private First Class
13
Rep 114
Posts |
road and track, car and driver and motor trend have real begun to become a pile of crap lately. are there any good car magazines left?
__________________
Naveen
WANTED: Audi S4<Audi S5<BMW M3 sedan<Audi RS5 |
Appreciate
0
|
04-10-2009, 09:35 PM | #27 |
Captain
75
Rep 724
Posts |
Road & Track couldn't possibly favor any BMW because it's published by the same company who publishes Car & Driver, which of course we all know is absolutely biased in favor of BMWs. Hachette Filipacchi can't have two magazines that allow BMW to win, because that would be like putting all their eggs in one basket
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-11-2009, 08:33 AM | #28 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
It's clear you've been having fun analyzing this, reminding me of some of the fun I had awhile back. However, you can simplify your thoughts a bit on this. What it comes down to is that, at any given speed, the car that is making better power to weight will accelerate faster at that point than the car making less power to weight - and that's it. Torque doesn't matter, gearing doesn't matter, rpm doesn't matter, etc. It's just how much power at that point vs how much weight. The M3 is fast because it makes a lot of power, and in a race, you're never going to put yourself at a disadvantage by being down on power. You just rev the hell out of it and keep it as close to the power peak as you can. The (minor) knock on the M3 is that it feels a little lazy at low rpm compared to some of the competition. No biggie, though. You just downshift or hold a gear longer so as to keep the tach needle over there on the left-hand side of the dial, and you're good to go. That costs you a second or so in a passing situation out on the highway, though, but I'm sure the 4.6 stroker kits now on the market will fix that right damn now. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|