Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Not quite sure I understand. You seem to put for the pervasive opinion that having to drive "on full boil" is a disadvantage with the M3, but now you freely admit driving another car in a similar "slightly off boil" fashion results in the same performance penalties. Surely driving the the classis contrarily designed car, the Corvette at shift point or throttle openings less than ideal for it will result in the same reduction in performance.

No swamp, what I am saying is that wringing the neck in most cars yeilds very little improvement and I reckon the M3 should show similar difference as I stated above.

If I am wrong in this opinion then what that proves is that the M3 doesn't have a powerful torque band, even up at approx. 5k rpm which would be roughly the rev point after an up shift to the next gear if you shifted at about the 7800rpm point.

Hope this explains better.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

So, after 20 pages of bickering, do we conclude the M3 is not a daily driver?

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

So, after 20 pages of bickering, do we conclude the M3 is not a daily driver?

Not in the least!It is still a great daily driver and as a matter of fact it excels at everything that it does

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

The handmade engine for the Grand Sport, hand-built where they put the Z06 and ZR1 engines together (manual tranny) might just avoid the piston slap issues so many of 'Vette's exhibit.

Both my Vette and GTO had piston slap. At least until the LS2, GM reportedly had the worst engine torelances of any manufacturer. To its credit, it fitted skirted pistons on the LS3, supposedly eliminating piston slap, but am not sure tolerances were improved. I had a more embarrassing problem than piston slap (which only occurred on starts below 50º, which is not that cold), and it was a super noisy valvetrain; again, due to lousy tolerances. This only happened on the GTO, but sounded like an old truck with 150K miles on it. This is obviously hit and miss, as other identical cars were quiet, but I didn't know until I pulled in my garage, with a hot engine. Honestly, I'm done with GM.
And the interior is just awful; I don't care if it's still considered good by GM standards; it's crap IMO. And not only the materials (which is partially fixable), but the components and design. The Vette still has good things, I'm sure, but to me the only one is a tall 6th, and its corresponding good mileage, but the roar on the highway was deafening. The only way I'd buy another Vette is if no other car was available with a NA V8 (or NA Porsche H6) AND 6MT, but hope that's not the case. Rather spend a bit more for a car like the M3 all day long. I bought the Vette thinking it was the better value, and lost my a$$ in the process. But if you're okay with its rental car interior, noisy (and old-tech) engine, noisy interior, and cheesy fenders on the Grand Sport, it's a great performance bargain.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by footie

What tolerances must GM not have to cause piston slap, this is unreal, I have never heard this in any German or British or other car I have ever driven or owned. I know that it's only really likely to be a problem with a cold engine but next time I'm in the US and hire a car I will definitely be listening out of this in the future.

No doubt the wife will wonder what the fu@k is up with me.

If relatively dim memory serves, this was a problem with some of the 5.7 liter Z06 engines from around 2002 or so. Some of those engines also had oil control problems associated with extremely low-tension scraper (oil control) rings. Chevrolet repaired or replaced the faulty units.

Over the years, I've heard of quite a few instances of piston slap with a cold engine, mostly in very high performance variants - but I apparently didn't file any memories associated with any given manufacturers.

[alms21]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

So, after 20 pages of bickering, do we conclude the M3 is not a daily driver?

Drive a 997S and then hop into an E92 with EDC and it feels like a Cadillac. Hell yes, it's a daily driver. I can't wait until I'm out of my 997S and into one.

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

I like the 'Vette, and would consider one for my next car in the future for "something different" in a couple of years. I've driven the Grand Sport as well, and it's nice, and the low weight is indeed noticeable compared to the M3. It does all the things you note very well, no disagreement here.

However, the interior, while nice for GM, is pretty tacky. (I suppose you could use what you save on vs. an M3 to upgrade it...) The handmade engine for the Grand Sport, hand-built where they put the Z06 and ZR1 engines together (manual tranny) might just avoid the piston slap issues so many of 'Vette's exhibit. Then again, maybe not. But let's say it does for the sake of discussion. Then you'd have a pretty sweet ride, along with the Z06 brake package, brake ducting (two things, better brakes and duct-work the M3 could certainly benefit from).

But after driving it, I certainly didn't feel like my M3 was a "Miata". Sure, hit the spurs at 2,500 RPMs and you're gone--but put the M3 in the proper gear with some revs and it's gone too. The Grand Sport is about .4 seconds faster that the M3 with DCT 0-60, but the M3 is by no means "slow" in my book. But the steering felt a bit numb to me and the interior just turns me off. I can see the attraction of this car, but I don't find it that far in another league. Good? Yes. Different? Yes. Worth considering? Sure. Another league? Meh. Quality, interior, feel, reliability are all considerations and on those counts I think the M3 has it beat.

All of that said, yes, I think it's the car for you. Why not get one for a weekend toy and use the M3 for DD and kid transport? (Isn't GM offering something like 0% financing on these?)

Ok, maybe Miata was a little harsh, but really, who wants to drive around in the upper RPM range all the time, it gets tiring in day to day traffic, plus you get a lot of funny looks and attitudes because people think you are being an ass or trying to race them.

The M3 motor is great in its own way, but it belongs on a race track, for day to day driving it needs more low-end torque

[gthal]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

Ok, maybe Miata was a little harsh, but really, who wants to drive around in the upper RPM range all the time, it gets tiring in day to day traffic, plus you get a lot of funny looks and attitudes because people think you are being an ass or trying to race them.

The M3 motor is great in its own way, but it belongs on a race track, for day to day driving it needs more low-end torque

Even at low RPMs, who needs more torque for around town, city driving? How does anyone else, in almost any other car, actually get from point A to point B?

IMO, the M3 has TONS of torque for beating around town. Sure, the vette has more on tap down low in the RPM range but, again, when does anyone REALLY need more than an M3 offers unless you are racing or driving very aggressively? And when that is the case, why is keeping the engine in its sweetspot a problem?

My current car is a G37 coupe with way less torque than the M3. I have driven M3s on various occasions and they offer far better usable torque than the G37. I can honestly say that the G37, even with less usable torque than the M3, squirts in and out of traffic with ease compared to 90% of cars out there. IMO, the M3 is a good combination of usable, everyday power and torque with an absolutely perfect engine when you are pushing it hard at high RPMs. If someone "needs" more torque in daily driving than an M3 offers, then they should be on a track or secluded road because they are hauling as$

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by gthal

Even at low RPMs, who needs more torque for around town, city driving?

I do.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

I do.

Again, sell your car and get some thing different. Next time, avoid a high-revving car since it will always feel strongest in top rpms and test drive the car properly and make sure you drive under 2500 rpm for 90% of your time to make sure you have the torque below 2000 rpm you need.

Again, for the M3, 300 ft-lbs@3900 rpm is enough to tow a 6000+ lbs trailer uphill to the mountain, if the car has tall gearing and towing suspension.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Again, sell your car and get some thing different. Next time, avoid a high-revving car and test drive the car properly and make sure you drive under 2500 rpm for most of your time to make sure you have the torque below 2000 rpm you need.

My daily driving days are over this month. I wouldn't have bought the E92 M3 for commuting - even with the DCT.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

My daily driving days are over this month. I wouldn't have bought the E92 M3 for commuting - even with the DCT.

Well I am having a problem also understanding the bitching about no torque.Did you not read the specs or try one before you bought it?I knew 8 months before I got mine that it would be a rever compared to the N54 especially after speaking to a friend that had an inside track to the Motorsport guys.I have had my car 2 full seasons and I have never been disapointed by the s65's performance as it is exactly as what I expected to be.It performs exactly like I expected a 4 litre V8 with over 400 horsepower to be.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Well I am having a problem also understanding the bitching about no torque.Did you not read the specs or try one before you bought it?I knew 8 months before I got mine that it would be a rever compared to the N54 especially after speaking to a friend that had an inside track to the Motorsport guys.I have had my car 2 full seasons and I have never been disapointed by the s65's performance as it is exactly as what I expected to be.It performs exactly like I expected a 4 litre V8 with over 400 horsepower to be.

I had 400,000 kilometers over eight years in previous M3s and did 1000 kilometers of commuting in an E90 6 MT. I knew what I was buying, and I didn't buy it for commuting. My Dinan tuned 335i was an unparalleled car for commuting, but then the S4 I tested wasn't chipped. Both are stealthy hooligans with great gas mileage and don't require much anticipation to manoeuvre quickly in traffic. The E92 M3 is great, given a little room or driven with some intensity.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

I had 400,000 kilometers over eight years in previous M3s and did 1000 kilometers of commuting in an E90 6 MT. I knew what I was buying, and I didn't buy it for commuting. My Dinan tuned 335i was an unparalleled car for commuting, but then the S4 I tested wasn't chipped. Both are stealthy hooligans with great gas mileage and don't require much anticipation to manoeuvre quickly in traffic. The E92 M3 is great, given a little room or driven with some intensity.

If you knew what you were buying,why are you bitching about the lack of torque?Just wondering!

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by footie

If I am wrong and the M3 shows a greater difference between the two then it just shows how much of a benefit FI will give the M3 of the future.

Not necessarily. You're assuming BMW would just turbo a high revving race engine on par with the current NA S motors. They haven't done that yet, and that sounds very expensive for a niche road car. BMW also have to concern themselves with homologation for the racing series they wish to be involved. If BMW goes FI in the M3, I bet they follow the Porsche playbook with a big turbo(s) to enhance upper end power (perhaps at the expense of low end power). Could you be happy with that? Ultimately I'd like to see the M3 shrink in size and weight and still fitted with a high-revving NA motor. I'd also like to see a new smaller lighter weight 1 series with high-revving 4 banger with sequential turbos so there's power on top. Something similar to the Audi S3 motor, which lacks substantial power down low (no problem...rev it!).

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by footie

If I am wrong in this opinion then what that proves is that the M3 doesn't have a powerful torque band, even up at approx. 5k rpm which would be roughly the rev point after an up shift to the next gear if you shifted at about the 7800rpm point.

2800 rpm drop? In all gears?? Might want to practice that a bit. 1st to 2nd drops just under 6K when shifting at redline (6MT M3). Each up shift from there leaves the rev counter higher and higher in the next gear. 5th to 6th looses only about 1K. With S engines the more revs before shift the quicker the car. More revs equals higher terminal speed per gear as well. Certainly there's no reason to shift under redline (ie, 7800 rpms) if chasing maximum acceleration. Luckily this is S-engine territory. No wonder you're dissatisfied with the M3.

[xxe92xx]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

If you knew what you were buying,why are you bitching about the lack of torque?Just wondering!

this is the question!

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

Both my Vette and GTO had piston slap. At least until the LS2, GM reportedly had the worst engine torelances of any manufacturer. To its credit, it fitted skirted pistons on the LS3, supposedly eliminating piston slap, but am not sure tolerances were improved. I had a more embarrassing problem than piston slap (which only occurred on starts below 50º, which is not that cold), and it was a super noisy valvetrain; again, due to lousy tolerances. This only happened on the GTO, but sounded like an old truck with 150K miles on it. This is obviously hit and miss, as other identical cars were quiet, but I didn't know until I pulled in my garage, with a hot engine. Honestly, I'm done with GM.
And the interior is just awful; I don't care if it's still considered good by GM standards; it's crap IMO. And not only the materials (which is partially fixable), but the components and design. The Vette still has good things, I'm sure, but to me the only one is a tall 6th, and its corresponding good mileage, but the roar on the highway was deafening. The only way I'd buy another Vette is if no other car was available with a NA V8 (or NA Porsche H6) AND 6MT, but hope that's not the case. Rather spend a bit more for a car like the M3 all day long. I bought the Vette thinking it was the better value, and lost my a$$ in the process. But if you're okay with its rental car interior, noisy (and old-tech) engine, noisy interior, and cheesy fenders on the Grand Sport, it's a great performance bargain.

I wouldn't get rid of the M3 for it that's for sure! But in a few years, if they've depreciated down to almost nothing, I'd consider one as a next car and mod the hell out of for some fun at the drag strip. I haven't played that game yet, and a nice cheap 'Vette might be the ticket.

From what I hear it's not hard to get some serious gains for cheap with one. And the interior wouldn't matter one bit. Would I want to drive it on a road course, auto cross it, or take it for "spirited" drives? Nope. That's what the M3 is for! But as a modded little drag car for fun and to see what that's all about it might be interesting!

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

Ok, maybe Miata was a little harsh, but really, who wants to drive around in the upper RPM range all the time, it gets tiring in day to day traffic, plus you get a lot of funny looks and attitudes because people think you are being an ass or trying to race them.

The M3 motor is great in its own way, but it belongs on a race track, for day to day driving it needs more low-end torque

Okay, fair enough re: the Miata. But like I've said before in this thread, it's about personal preference and driving style. If you like major low-end torque the M3 simply is not the car for you. If you need a DD, one that can carry the kids and has some kick/fun in it, and are a low-end torque guy the E90 335i/d or the 535 or other choices, from Benz or Audi, are far better picks if you want to stay with something German.

And like I've said before, there's nothing "wrong" with preferring low-end torque nor is there anything wrong with liking more of a top-end engine with the S65s characteristics. I had 335i with a piggy, and got the M3 to replace it in a large part due to the S65 characteristics. The 335i had tons of low-end torque, damn quick, and easy as pie to drive in traffic or around town and zip in/out of traffic, and it bored the hell out of me! No top-end, no high redline = no fun for me.

But that's just me. I'm a high-rev junky and that's my thing. It's been that way since I got my Integra GSR (no low-end at all but a great 8K redline and VTEC in the upper revs) way back in the 90s. I've tried other things like the 335 but they just don't "work" for me (including American V8s).

But for some folks, and I'm pretty sure you're in this crowd, an engine with the S65 characteristics is downright annoying, boring, and just plain lacking. That's cool. But that means the M3 isn't a good fit for what gives you joy in driving. Again, nothing wrong with that but simply put the car is a bad fit for you (and a great fit for me).

As for day to day driving, the M3 has plenty of "go" for me even at lower revs. But I drive like grandpa around town and in traffic! I'm just too busy trying to not get killed by some texting teen (or soccer mom talking on a cell phone) who are not actually driving but working on their next accident to even think of driving fast. And there's simply too much traffic to zip around much without either being an ass or being reckless. The car has plenty of torque even at low revs for the conditions I face when driving around town. On the other hand there are plenty of open back-roads where I live with plenty of twists and turns...and the M3 is just a hell of a lot of fun in those conditions (or at the track like you say).

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Not necessarily. You're assuming BMW would just turbo a high revving race engine on par with the current NA S motors. They haven't done that yet, and that sounds very expensive for a niche road car. BMW also have to concern themselves with homologation for the racing series they wish to be involved. If BMW goes FI in the M3, I bet they follow the Porsche playbook with a big turbo(s) to enhance upper end power (perhaps at the expense of low end power). Could you be happy with that? Ultimately I'd like to see the M3 shrink in size and weight and still fitted with a high-revving NA motor. I'd also like to see a new smaller lighter weight 1 series with high-revving 4 banger with sequential turbos so there's power on top. Something similar to the Audi S3 motor, which lacks substantial power down low (no problem...rev it!).

I know you weren't asking me, but yes, I could be happy with that. Lighter weight and upper-end power sounds fine to me. I'm not anti-FI, I simply like the driving dynamics of an engine like the S65. Preserve that and if the FI is precise and dynamic it sounds interesting. I'm not going to pretend given the oil situation or tree-hugger regulations in the US/Europe we're going to escape it. But how that eventually is played out in a M car will determine if I'm interested in the car or not. If it's done right the potential for power-economy and a thrilling driving experience could be very interesting. (Hey, I've got an open mind....!)

[footie]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

2800 rpm drop? In all gears?? Might want to practice that a bit. 1st to 2nd drops just under 6K when shifting at redline (6MT M3). Each up shift from there leaves the rev counter higher and higher in the next gear. 5th to 6th looses only about 1K. With S engines the more revs before shift the quicker the car. More revs equals higher terminal speed per gear as well. Certainly there's no reason to shift under redline (ie, 7800 rpms) if chasing maximum acceleration. Luckily this is S-engine territory. No wonder you're dissatisfied with the M3.

I couldn't actually recall how much it dropped between the shifts (remember I sold my car several months ago) so I picked that figure as a rough estimate..................sue me for this dreadful error.

In any case the point I was making was a valid one in that stretching the engine to the very end of it's redline yields a very little overall gain, which is the case with most FI engined cars and should hold to true for the M3, though if it doesn't then it's proof positive that the M3 does lack torque even at less than modest revs.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by xxe92xx

this is the question!

My commute ends December 31. I bought the M3 because it has a brilliant chassis - and is the best all around car on the road, especially with the DCT. But it simply isn't the best high performance commuter.