|
|
11-24-2009, 04:49 AM | #155 |
Live for today tomorrow never comes
2010
Rep 9,522
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 05:26 AM | #156 |
yodog
201
Rep 5,025
Posts |
The 255/35/19 INVO's rubbed in the front when making a full left turn. But now that they are about 70% gone, they do not rub anymore. The 285/30 INVO's have too much clearance and actually looks ugly IMO.
I shouldn't rub with the 245/35 + 295/30 combo. I bought these over the RE-11's mainly because the RE-11's had 285/35 and I felt I would rub for sure with those, but now I'm not 100% sure.
__________________
2009 E92 M3 | Alpine White | Black Extended | Advan RS | Turner Test Pipes | Dinan Axle-Back | OETuning | Eibach Springs | UUC SSK | VRS Front Lip | VRS Type I Diffuser | Matte Black | RPi Scoops | MS Filter | Yokohama AD08 | F1 Pinnacle Special Thanks: Gintani | OETuning | eAs |
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 05:52 AM | #157 | |
Live for today tomorrow never comes
2010
Rep 9,522
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 06:27 AM | #158 | |
Captain
57
Rep 807
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 06:35 AM | #159 |
yodog
201
Rep 5,025
Posts |
I'm not too experienced with winter tires but I believe those tires are good for light snow but still perform decent in the dry compared to other all seasons.
__________________
2009 E92 M3 | Alpine White | Black Extended | Advan RS | Turner Test Pipes | Dinan Axle-Back | OETuning | Eibach Springs | UUC SSK | VRS Front Lip | VRS Type I Diffuser | Matte Black | RPi Scoops | MS Filter | Yokohama AD08 | F1 Pinnacle Special Thanks: Gintani | OETuning | eAs |
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 07:58 AM | #160 | |
4th down; 4th quarter? Renegade.
93
Rep 3,853
Posts |
Quote:
This is really comical at this point. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 08:39 AM | #161 |
demoted
460
Rep 1,174
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 08:56 AM | #162 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
Anyway, yes of course vehicle speeds, gear ratios, and the gear the car happens to be in matter. Regardless, the data posted by Footie indeed do say something about what happens every day if you don't put the car in proper gear. I think his post was relevant given this thread is about the so-called lack of low end torque, which obviously applies to driving situations in which people are not putting the car in the optimal gear. I still think the car does very well under those conditions too (as long as you floor it)--just not as well as the C63, but hey, why is that surprising?
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 09:20 AM | #163 |
PCA, BMWCCA
103
Rep 2,058
Posts |
175 actually in my Z4 M (5th gear). I've done upwards of 190 mph on 2 wheels. For sure I'm far more comfortable at triple digit speeds than before I lived in Germany.
__________________
'08 Carrera S 6MT Guards Red/Black ext leather, Carbon fiber pkg, sport exh, sport chrono +, PASM, Nav, Bose, 19" forged turbos, red tranny tunnel
'07 MV Agusta F4 1000 R 1+1, Corse Red/Silver, RG3 race pipes and factory race ECU |
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 09:24 AM | #164 | |
demoted
460
Rep 1,174
Posts |
Quote:
Unfortunately, the timing of the development cycle of the M3 led to a missed opportunity - a direct injection naturally aspirated V8 which would likely address the two major weaknesses of the s65 engine - poor fuel efficiency and relatively weak low end torque. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 09:36 AM | #165 | |
Private First Class
2
Rep 183
Posts |
Quote:
I love the C63 engine, but prefer the M3 chassis and gearbox (DCT). The C63 is too hard for British minor roads. Footie, reference a recent comment about British roads, you obviously don't get time to go out looking for drivers' roads. Hence choosing the XF, a very pleasant commuting car. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 09:46 AM | #166 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
lucid,
You at least see what I was trying to show with that data, it's wasn't to somehow make out that the S65 was a badly conceived motor, just to show that it's not the best solution if you sole intent is to drive the car as a daily commuter. There is no doubt it's a serious performer when used to it's full potential and probably no one would deny that it doesn't hit well above it's weight but all I was trying to show is it ain't perfect. I pretty sure that all the issues I am concerned about will be addressed with the new engine and if the rumour mill is correct I doubt you N/A die-hards will have anything to worry about with regards to throttle response either. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:09 AM | #167 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
You are quite right about the C63, I almost bought one prior to the M3 but didn't like the gearbox nor the ride. Apart from that I actually thought it was a better alternative for me but for those two issues that totally put me off. Regarding the Jag, the pipe and slippers are with me as I speak. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:12 AM | #168 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
Again, stock vs stock, the M3 does better than a 335 in producing torque at the wheels--even when not revved high--in traffic or elsewhere as long as you don't really lug the engine by staying below 2000 rpm. I haven't owned a 335, but have spent time in it, and the numbers are pretty valid IMO. A tuned 335 is probably a different story, but then we are comparing apples and oranges because you can also tune the M3 to get more torque out of it.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:16 AM | #169 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:23 AM | #170 | |
Major
65
Rep 1,211
Posts |
Quote:
Like the example I gave above, 300 ft-lbs@3800 rpm is more than enough torque to haul a 6000 lbs trailer comfortably uphill in the mountains considering my manager's Tacoma 4.0 Liter V6 does that with 266 ft-lbs@4000 rpm when his truck weighs 4200 lbs.
__________________
""A great sounding, responsive, high-revving, naturally aspirated engine is part of the DNA of a thoroughbred sports car. No two ways about it."
- Lamborghini on turbocharging |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:24 AM | #171 | |
demoted
460
Rep 1,174
Posts |
Quote:
By the way, your definition of optimal gear doesn't take into account fuel efficiency which is irrational in the context of commuting. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:29 AM | #172 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:54 AM | #173 |
4th down; 4th quarter? Renegade.
93
Rep 3,853
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:56 AM | #174 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
233
Rep 1,772
Posts
Drives: 328it, RIP M3, E46 Sold
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 39°27'33"N 77°58'04"W W. Virgina, Kansas
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 10:57 AM | #175 | ||
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
As an example, most people would use 3rd gear as an overtaking gear (I know I do), so lets say you are doing 30mph sitting behind a slow group of cars (approx 4-5 in total) and want to overtake the lot of them, at the point you pass the final car you are probably doing about 90mph. In both the TT-RS and C63 you will have completed this exercise 1.4~1.5s quicker than you would have in the M3. And the same thing will be true in 4th at even higher speeds. Between 50~110mph in 4th both the TT and C63 will do this 1.8s quicker than the M3. I could go on but I hope you are getting the point I am making. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2009, 11:25 AM | #176 | |
demoted
460
Rep 1,174
Posts |
But...but...
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|