The advantages of a NA engine?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

16/24 vs. 14/20 for the E92 M3 (official numbers)...

Current EPA figures for our 2004 E46 M3 come in at 15/22.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Personally, I have never seen a turbo torque curve that isn't about as flat as Kansas. As an example, the 300 HP bimmer six makes peak torque in a perfectly flat plane from down in the teens to what, 5000 rpm or so? This is mostly because they manage boost to do just that.

I think you need to look a lot harder. In my evaluation a flat torque curve for a turbo is the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Although the 335i is fairly flat up to about 5k it falls like a rock off a cliff after 5k. Overall that makes the curve not so flat in my evaluation. Other common cars we all like to chat about exhibit similar or worse flatness. Below are dynos for the GT-R, HPF E46 M3 turbo (two stages), Evo X and B8 S4 (all turbo charged just in case somebody (not you Bruce!) did not already know). I absolutely do not call these torque curves flat.

Last but not least as a reference is a good old stock E92 M3 dyno. That is a flat torque curve.

Sorry they are not all the same scale and size, I just quickly grabbed a few online.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Current EPA figures for our 2004 E46 M3 come in at 15/22.

Believe what you want. They probably factor in very high mileage and poor tune conditions to suggest some sort of diminishing value over time/condition. If anything, fuel economy should get better as the motor wears in (to a point). Not worse provided the car is keep in good tune and maintained properly. Ultimately I'll drive my M3 all day long in heavy city traffic and never come close to 15. Perhaps 15 if I never used the tallest 3 gears. There is an absolute measurable difference in fuel economy between these two M3s. To suggest they are all of the sudden "close" in comparison is just wishful thinking for those suffering with consumption averages in the teens. If the Germans made such a claim of the E46 M3's current fuel economy I might actually ponder the accuracy. No matter though, I know I don't drive for optimal fuel economy and my averages are no where close to 15/22. Not to mention, my car operates at 2,000 ft above sea level and in a very hilly environ. Neither of which are ideal for optimal fuel economy.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Believe what you want.

Wait a minute. You say the official numbers for the E46 M3 are 16/24, I correct you with the current EPA figures, and you say "Believe what you want"? What the hell are you talking about? The current EPA figures are 15/22, and trust me, there ain't no conspiracy. Get a grip.

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

They probably factor in very high mileage and poor tune conditions to suggest some sort of diminishing value over time/condition.

Jesus. They don't factor in anything. They just adjust the numbers according to the latest "adjustment factors", pushed by congress. My '07 TL Type S went from 20/29 (on the window sticker) to 16/26 due to the latest adjustment. All cars got adjusted the same way. This is in an attempt to make EPA numbers more closely adhere to what folks actually get.

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

If anything, fuel economy should get better as the motor wears in (to a point). Not worse provided the car is keep in good tune and maintained properly. Ultimately I'll drive my M3 all day long in heavy city traffic and never come close to 15. Perhaps 15 if I never used the tallest 3 gears. There is an absolute measurable difference in fuel economy between these two M3s. To suggest they are all of the sudden "close" in comparison is just wishful thinking for those suffering with consumption averages in the teens. If the Germans made such a claim of the E46 M3's current fuel economy I might actually ponder the accuracy. No matter though, I know I don't drive for optimal fuel economy and my averages are no where close to 15/22. Not to mention, my car operates at 2,000 ft above sea level and in a very hilly environ. Neither of which are ideal for optimal fuel economy.

I never kept records on our E46, but I'd be willing to bet that my overall average with the car would be somewhere between 21 and 22 mpg, because I always average just under the current highway rating under the current scheme. Before this latest EPA move, I averaged pretty much right between the city and highway ratings, on a bunch of cars.

So your rant is just that. You get close to the highway rating on your car. So what. I do that on every car.

Sheesh.

[mtla4]

I did not read the thread but I'll chime in....SOUND. Period . Period

[V1.47fan]

The S65 runs much cooler than the N54,especially on a low speed, high rpm course (with very little relative wind going through the intercooler and or oil cooler).On a hot day,i see a lot of FI car guys putting ice or spraying the heat soaked intercooler. I like the fact that I don't have to do that.

[Dodge2Dub]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Other common cars we all like to chat about exhibit similar or worse flatness. Below are dynos for the GT-R, HPF E46 M3 turbo (two stages), Evo X and B8 S4 (all turbo charged just in case somebody (not you Bruce!) did not already know). I absolutely do not call these torque curves flat.

B8 S4 is supercharged, not turbocharged. It's FI, sure, but not directly relevant to your point.

[V1.47fan]

I've never understood why so many people want more torque,if you get more torque than what's required for the weight of the vehicle then it becomes counter productive.I thought BMW M philosophy was to keep the torque low on the S65.

In F1,the 18,000 rpm NA V8 engine produces +700hp with low torque 202 ft-lb, even with the super sticky slicks,they don't want too much torque that'll overwhelm the tires,upset the chassis. And the torque builds up slowly, not a la N54's torque curve.

If you're about road racing taking ideas from F1 makes more sense than drag racing, with car with so much torque that lift the front end when they launch.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I think you need to look a lot harder. In my evaluation a flat torque curve for a turbo is the exception to the rule rather than the rule. Although the 335i is fairly flat up to about 5k it falls like a rock off a cliff after 5k. Overall that makes the curve not so flat in my evaluation. Other common cars we all like to chat about exhibit similar or worse flatness. Below are dynos for the GT-R, HPF E46 M3 turbo (two stages), Evo X and B8 S4 (all turbo charged just in case somebody (not you Bruce!) did not already know). I absolutely do not call these torque curves flat.

Last but not least as a reference is a good old stock E92 M3 dyno. That is a flat torque curve...

I admit the GT-R curve was a wake-up for me. I've never seen a factory curve like that. Although still pretty flat, It's nothing like the Audi 2.0 or Mazdaspeed 3, etc., curves I had in mind when I wrote about Kansas.

On the other hand, the aftermarket turbo M3 doesn't count, and what's with the supercharged Audi?

Lastly, if you won't acknowledge that the bimmer 6 has a flat torque curve, you and I really shouldn't bother discussing this any more. If your standard of a flat torque curve is the current M3, then so be it, but that's ridiculous. You might just as well say that nothing has a flat torque curve except your car.

Really?

[persian54]

I just got a 335D loaner... and I must admit, it's not nearly as fun to drive, I hate the step (even though I thought it was so amazing when I had it on my 335..), i don't understand how the gearing in the D works.... but got damn after 2k RPM the thing hauls asssssss

It's raining like hell and I haven't done much driving, but from 20mph to 40mph thing hauls and I'm not even going WOT (i dont speed during the rain..)

it's smooth and MPG is amazing

it'd be a great DD

[persian54]

Originally Posted by Brunotheboxer

Cause the competition has caught up and is now walking the M3.

I hate reviews and magazine reports etc so I don't follow them much, so I must ask:

Who has beaten the M3 in reviews?

[Jaypod]

Originally Posted by Brunotheboxer

Cause the competition has caught up and is now walking the M3. Dont give me the fuel economy rubbish.

Why not just turbocharge a V8 in the M3 if this was the case? Do a little research.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Brunotheboxer

Cause the competition has caught up and is now walking the M3. Dont give me the fuel economy rubbish.

Try again!

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Brunotheboxer

Cause the competition has caught up and is now walking the M3. Dont give me the fuel economy rubbish.

And no my 335is is not better than an M3,

On a track.

Yeah, I know you 335 guys always worry about "walking" a car or who is faster. Can you point to where any car in the M3's class has been seen as a better car? OK... the C63 AMG and CTS-V are faster... agreed, show me where anyone has said "better".

Also, just because M will turbocharge the F3X platform doesn't necessarily mean it will be faster in a straight line or "walk" the competition. The M3 has not ever been built to do that... not saying it won't, just saying that a turbo doesn't mean it will.

But hey, if walking away from another car on the highway floats your boat then that's OK. You might want to look at other manufacturers for your next car but you should definitely own the car that makes you the happiest.

[Brunotheboxer]

Ask yourself this question and really answer it honestly.

True or false? The next gen. M3 with two turbos will be better than the current e9x M3 in EVERY aspect. Good luck and pleasant dreams...

By the way the M3 cant even walk over a Mustang GT on a track any more..

Do the research.

[Dodge2Dub]

Originally Posted by V1.47fan

I've never understood why so many people want more torque,if you get more torque than what's required for the weight of the vehicle then it becomes counter productive.I thought BMW M philosophy was to keep the torque low on the S65.

For DD duty, but you can't have the best of both worlds. Either you want low end torque for the street or high end Hp and the associated stability and control for the track.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by Brunotheboxer

Ask yourself this question and really answer it honestly.

True or false? The next gen. M3 with two turbos will be better than the current e9x M3 in EVERY aspect. Good luck and pleasant dreams...

By the way the M3 cant even walk over a Mustang GT on a track any more..

Do the research.

Yes, the next M3 will likely be better than the current version. You are missing the point. It is NOT just because they slap on a turbo. It is because EVERY interation of the car has improved on the last. BMW could make the F3x M3 better whether they stayed NA or turbo. The choice to go turbo is not because it is the only way to get better performance it is because of economics!! Not sure why this is eluding you...

On the Mustang, yes it is now effectively the same performance as an almost 4 year old platform M3... I would have been shocked if others hadn't eventually caught up to the M3. Not sure what you are saying here or why it is relevant.

Bottom line is that no one (i.e. car reviews) are saying the RS5, AMG, IS-F or Stang are better overall cars and they are ALL newer platforms that by all rights SHOULD be better but they aren't. Not saying some are not as good at this point, again, they damn well should be given how long the E9x M3 has been on the market.

The next M3 will perform better, yes. Eventually others will catch up and surpass it again, yes. None of that is solely because a turbo is added to the mix because this would have all happened regardless. Please don't ask others to "do the research" when, in reality, you're the one that needs to spend some more time doing some reading. I know you love turbos because your car has them but they are NOT needed to get better performance but they do make it much easier to attain this in a package that is more economical from a mileage and efficiency perspective. That is what others were saying to you above.

Let me say it again... BMW could improve on the performance regardless of their choice between NA or turbo. HOWEVER, going turbo allows them to achieve this while also improving economy... i.e. gas mileage for one thing. This is what was said above that you then tried to shoot down. So, one of the main reasons for going turbo is to improve gas mileage. Fuel economy is what is largely driving the turbo decision because BMW could easily improve performance and "walk the competition" without one but they need it improve performance AND efficiency and a turbo makes that easier to do.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by V1.47fan

I've never understood why so many people want more torque,if you get more torque than what's required for the weight of the vehicle then it becomes counter productive.I thought BMW M philosophy was to keep the torque low on the S65.

In F1,the 18,000 rpm NA V8 engine produces 700hp with low torque 202 ft-lb, even with the super sticky slicks,they don't want too much torque that'll overwhelm the tires,upset the chassis. And the torque builds up slowly, not a la N54's torque curve.

If you're about road racing taking ideas from F1 makes more sense than drag racing, with car with so much torque that lift the front end when they launch.

Wrong just so wrong. More torque at a given rpm always gives more hp always. F1 cars make that minimal amount of torque because they are limited to 2400 cubic cm of displacement. Factor in the gearing an f1 car runs and the torque at the wheels should be significantly higher than most powerful street cars.

Intentionally lowering engine torque because a car is traction limited is like amputating your legs at the knees because you've out grown a pair of jeans.

[V1.47fan]

Originally Posted by Serious

Wrong just so wrong. More torque at a given rpm always gives more hp always. F1 cars make that minimal amount of torque because they are limited to 2400 cubic cm of displacement. Factor in the gearing an f1 car runs and the torque at the wheels should be significantly higher than most powerful street cars.

Intentionally lowering engine torque because a car is traction limited is like amputating your legs at the knees because you've out grown a pair of jeans.

You don't want more power/torque than the chassis can handle...
Even the F1 3.5L turbocharged engines of the past were designed and geared for low torque at the wheel,way less torque than you can find in a 700HP tuned/modified 2 liter evo engine.

[V1.47fan]

Originally Posted by Dodge2Dub

For DD duty, but you can't have the best of both worlds. Either you want low end torque for the street or high end Hp and the associated stability and control for the track.

I don't plan on pulling a boat with the M3. talking about the higher torque of the turbocharged engines of the past, "Piquet said that the car had so much power and wheelspin that he wouldn't power out of a corner, but had to wait until the car was pointing down the straight before lighting up the rear tires."

[saeedg48]

the powers predictable and linear which makes for more control while .. power-sliding

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Brunotheboxer

Seems a lot of you are in fact threatened by this car I guess.

Nobody is threatened by it. In fact, many members on this forum are the first to admit when a car is a better bargain, a better performer, etc. than the E9X M3. With that being considered, members here are also willing to call out people spreading misinformation. The reality is that the 335i/is is a nice car, BUT it is no M3. It may be priced closer to an M3, but in terms of all-around performance parameters it isn't in the same league. That's an objective assessment!