Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[Salespunk]

I saw a chart where they compared TQ at the wheels between a Z06 and our cars. End result was very similar between the two. Do you really need to spin the tires more in first and second?

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by lucid

Footie, my drivetrain is bone stock except the exhaust, which is for sound really. I don't see the point of spending money and risking my warranty to get another 40hp out of a car that already has 414hp. The car does not have any torque issue as far as I am concerned. That is in people's heads. If you start thinking that way, even 400 ft lbs will not be "enough".

+1, as always, well said.

Cheers,
e46e92

[MrHarris]

I put 285s on the rear and my tires easily spin. 295s going on next!

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by e46e92love

+1, as always, well said.

Cheers,
e46e92

I agree. 400+ horsepower is plenty for the street. My engine is stock. I might get an axle-back exhaust for some more sound, but other than that, I don't even see the point of adding a filter to get 5hp.

[RichB]

I had a 2002 540iA with 326ft/lbs torque and 290HP that would push the passengers head back to the headrest with little throttle. The torque was very impressive. It was not as quick to the normal benchmarks as the 335i (0-60, etc), but hitting the gas at speed (name it...20, 30, 60, 80, etc) the 540i would be more impressive at accelerating. I was somewhat disappointed with the t-lag of the 335i. It took some getting use to "only" having 300 ft/lbs using turbos. Once I got used to the 335i, I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was much more fun than the 540i. Smaller, lighter weight and manual tranny also helped the 335i driving exp.

I took euro delivery of an e90 M3 last week and drove for 600 miles in Germany. I currently own a 2007 335i that I put 41K miles on it over the 3 year life. Both cars are 6MT. I came back home to the 335i and felt it had a bit more torque at the low end. Besides the initial pull at take off, the M3 is much more exciting to drive. Don't get me wrong. The 335i has a wonderful, smooth, exciting engine. I highly recommend it.

IMO. The engine in the M3 is so much more impressive and more exciting to drive. The throttle is more responsive. Hitting the throttle 1/4 or so in the M3 at 80 and 100MPH would cause the car to "jump" forward. I tried the same blip of the throttle in the 335i and it was just noise. The lag was apparent. I was surprised at the pull in 6th gear in the M3.

The M3 is not all about the engine. When I started researching the new M3, I was thinking that was quite a $$ premium for .5 or so seconds faster going from 0-60. As I drove the M3 for more miles last week, I really had a greater appreciation of it being more of a drivers car than the 335i. It is hard for me to think of the right words...the 335i is a very refined for the normal Joe who wants nice acceleration, handling, and a smooth ride. Compared to the M3, it has a more relaxed personality. Maybe a bad description, but the 335i is more pedestrian compared to the much more lively M3. The M3 has a more complete package for the enthusiast...steering response, LSD, addicting engine sound, throttle response, sport seats, great steering wheel, brakes, and very balanced handling.

I drove the AMG Benz prior to getting the M3. Tons and tons of torque. Not as balanced as the M3. It has torque, but I did not find it is as appealing. I do not think I would want to take it around a track. I imagine the brute force on a nose heavy car would be much harder for me to control. See the YouTube videos where the Top Gear and Fifth Gears car guys driving the M3 and AMG. My driving skills are not as good and they had a b*tch of a time keeping the AMG on the track.

You will not go wrong with the 335i or M3. For me (an enthusiast), the M3 is a much more exciting ride.

[ChitownM3]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Do you only use 1st gear

Do you have a brain? Think about it, how does the M3 match a c5 z06 from 0-100 (requires 3 gears) when it weighs 400 lbs more?

[erio]

I'm not sure why people have been so critical of the s65 engine/e9x M3 than any of the previous generations. This is hands down the best performing M3 to date. I definitely don't recall seeing this much debate with the e46. The purpose of the NA M has not changed...no FI needed.

There is much in terms of unrealistic expectations from people new to M cars. I think it may be related to all the competition out there and hyper from FI/"low end torque." This is a daily driver's track car and NOT for drag racing around town. As has been previously stated, too much low end torque is not always a good thing when you want maximum traction. Just my two cents.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by lucid

Thanks for the data Footie, but they don't in anyway contradict the wheel torque calculations that have been presented or how they were interpreted. If you look at Mixja's plots, you'll see that the C63 has an edge. Duh. Nobody stated that it wouldn't; you can't make up for that kind of difference in displacement, and that has nothing to do with the M3 being high revving etc. I did say that there will always be cars with more torque at the wheels and the C63 is one of them. That doesn't mean that the M3 lacks low end torque.

And, I don't see the point of the TT-RS comparison. That's not competition; it's a tiny 2-seater that weighs 400 lbs less. Of course, it will post the type of acceleration figures you presented. The cars are in different classes. You can say so is the 335 (despite the fact that it is a 4 seater and weighs about the same), but people keep on bringing it up. RS4 is probably the best basis for comparison.

I still maintain that most of the complaints around the "lack of low end torque" is an artifact of people's unwillingness to use the throttle pedal. I can see why people migth be hesitant; WOT is much louder. It does get in the way as it attract too much attention during daily driving. Or they might be comparing the part-throttle response to a turbo car. Use the pedal, and the more torque that you'd know what to do with on the street is there.

Where Footie's data utterly failed is there's no consideration to the rpm each car's engine is spinning (which would vary from car to car at fixed miles per hour thresholds) and being in the appropriate gear to optimize acceleration. What that data showed me is the M3 undoubtedly was producing less multiplied torque at its rpm for that gear and mph, thus the slower times to greater mph thresholds. There's no requirement to be in the exact same gear as the competition at a fixed mph. If you want to compare roll-on acceleration, let the car driver use the optimum gear to best exploit the package. He concludes the lowest rpms is the M3's engine's best range of performance vs. the competition, and the S65 is found "wanting" at higher rpms. YGTBSM! In those comparisons, the M3 had not yet reached the beginning of the power band.

Reading through the last 3 pages of this thread still shows without any doubt people don't understand the affect of all gearing variables on acceleration. People are still comparing power graphs and quoting max torque and HP figures as a basis to compare the torque (grunt) characteristic of a car...which is utter nonsense. If you think the M3 hasn't enough low-end torque, then you're right to a point. And that point is 2,500 rpms. The M3's gearing and S65's torque power curve make for a car that comes alive at 2,500 rpms through redline. If you're under 2,500 rpms and you want grunt, then you're not driving it appropriately. And yes, the 335i has lots of multiplied torque under 2,500 rpms which is why it feels fast. But the M3 produces MEASURABLY more total torque in ALL gears than the 335i at 2,500 rpms and above. Mainly because of this is why the M3 is quicker. End-o-story.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by John@BMW

its threads like this which make BMW say, "hey! we should take our high strung chain saw //M engines and make a lower reving turbo motor cause our customers dont want to haul ass on a race track, they want to haul ass to starbucks in the city without moving a finger or thinking."

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by erio

I'm not sure why people have been so critical of the s65 engine/e9x M3 than any of the previous generations. This is hands down the best performing M3 to date. I definitely don't recall seeing this much debate with the e46. The purpose of the NA M has not changed...no FI needed.

There is much in terms of unrealistic expectations from people new to M cars. I think it may be related to all the competition out there and hyper from FI/"low end torque." This is a daily driver's track car and NOT for drag racing around town. As has been previously stated, too much low end torque is not always a good thing when you want maximum traction. Just my two cents.

You're right on. I don't know about the E92 M3 as best to date. Certainly the most refined as it should be. Definitely the most technically capable. It's weight works against it, and it's too luxurious...which is an increasing departure from traditional BMW sport-mindedness. I would argue the best to date should be measured against the competition at that period of time. I can't imagine BMW making a new M3 and going backward in performance. So of course it's more capable. But you have to acknowledge the E46 M3 CSL is still faster around tracks than the E92 M3, and not just marginally. But of course the new lightweight beefed up power M3 (I forget what it's called) that the US will never see should FINALLY best the E46 M3 CSL. That I'm sure is the best M3 to date as you define it.

[swamp2]

I only have a few comments to add. I'll keep it as brief as possible.

• Engine torque specs do not really matter, only force delivered to the ground (not torque but torque x wheel radius actually). I think most of us finally get this and agree to it. However, don't forget that it is actually force to the ground divided by weight that is even more important.
  
  
• In the effort to keep things as simple as possible and to boil down performance to a single value rather than have to have curves for each gear peak hp to weight is a great figure, the best in fact. The reason is that for sporty cars those with higher redlines and more aggressive gearing typically have high peak power and lower torque (relatively speaking). Vehicles with lower redlines and more torque will naturally be accompanied by lower overall gear ratios. Classic examples here are M3 vs. LS3 Corvette. If they M3 had a bit closer weight and just a bit more peak hp (to match the Vette) they would perform nearly identical. However, as you can see from their torque specs and redlines they go about it very differently. As memeber BruceA has aptly pointed out many times peak hp is sort of a "short cut" number to describe the effect of torque combined with gear multiplication. Now that is not to say you can't imagine a situation where an OEM really got the gearing wrong for the best acceleration, they do sometimes sacrifice here and there and won't follow this "formula" for non performance cars. Peak hp (per weight) is not a perfect short cut to torque, torque multiplication and redline but it is the best number when you want a single number.
  
  
• FD ratios: This was brought up. I have debated this topic extensively here on the forum. Don't get sucked into believing you can always improve many or most performance metrics with a higher FD diff. Recall the adage "there is no such thing as a free lunch". That is true here as well. With the higher FD ratio you do get more in gear torque but you also have to shift earlier meaning while you have already shifted to 2nd your buddy with stock FD is still in 1st with way more acceleration. Duplicate this across each gear change and you have a series of important penalties. The only thing you get for sure with a diff is better in gear performance from speed 1 to speed 2. You may or may not get a noticeable improvement in other metrics that require one or more shifts. For the M3 (stock) I do not think there is much to be gained with a diff mod. Search if you really want to read all the gory details of that debate....

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I only have a few comments to add. I'll keep it as brief as possible.

• Engine torque specs do not really matter, only force delivered to the ground (not torque but torque x wheel radius actually). I think most of us finally get this and agree to it. However, don't forget that it is actually force to the ground divided by weight that is even more important.
  
  
• In the effort to keep things as simple as possible and to boil down performance to a single value rather than have to have curves for each gear peak hp to weight is a great figure, the best in fact. The reason is that for sporty cars those with higher redlines and more aggressive gearing typically have high peak power and lower torque (relatively speaking). Vehicles with lower redlines and more torque will naturally be accompanied by lower overall gear ratios. Classic examples here are M3 vs. LS3 Corvette. If they M3 had a bit closer weight and just a bit more peak hp (to match the Vette) they would perform nearly identical. However, as you can see from their torque specs and redlines they go about it very differently. As memeber BruceA has aptly pointed out many times peak hp is sort of a "short cut" number to describe the effect of torque combined with gear multiplication. Now that is not to say you can't imagine a situation where an OEM really got the gearing wrong for the best acceleration, they do sometimes sacrifice here and there and won't follow this "formula" for non performance cars. Peak hp (per weight) is not a perfect short cut to torque, torque multiplication and redline but it is the best number when you want a single number.
  
  
• FD ratios: This was brought up. I have debated this topic extensively here on the forum. Don't get sucked into believing you can always improve many or most performance metrics with a higher FD diff. Recall the adage "there is no such thing as a free lunch". That is true here as well. With the higher FD ratio you do get more in gear torque but you also have to shift earlier meaning while you have already shifted to 2nd your buddy with stock FD is still in 1st with way more acceleration. Duplicate this across each gear change and you have a series of important penalties. The only thing you get for sure with a diff is better in gear performance from speed 1 to speed 2. You may or may not get a noticeable improvement in other metrics that require one or more shifts. For the M3 (stock) I do not think there is much to be gained with a diff mod. Search if you really want to read all the gory details of that debate....

Haven't I been saying this? Well said nonetheless. On the 3rd point, a shorter FD ratio will make the car faster...period. However, when measuring the performance gain against artificial timing constraints (ie, 0-62), too short a gear may cause that extra shift which could adversely affect that time. BUT...there are no stop watches I'm aware of where I travel so that point is essentially worthless in every situation I ever encounter in the real world. I personally don't advocate for radical gear changes. Going up one step (ie, from 3.62 to 3.91 in my cars) will improve acceleration performance without shortening the gears to a point you're noticeably having to change gears more often. It only makes a 200 rpm difference at cruising speeds in top gear. It also doesn't make for an additional change in 0-62 times (if that's a concern), but does shave a half-second which is extremely appreciable. For real world driving, that bit of extra grunt helps when passing other drivers, mid range throttle response, and just makes the whole driving experience a bit more pleasurable.

[footie]

MVF4Rrider,

If you had bothered to read most of the stuff I wrote on this subject you would know that the data I supplied had nothing to do with being in the right gear, but all to do with driving the car leisurely, which happens to be what 95% of people do on a daily basis.

That is all I have never complained about towards the M3 and it's lack of torque, when you are REALLY on it the M3 engine is a total masterpiece and would probably rev till it burst. But bumming along at a leisurely on part throttle it's no where near as good as some other rivals that are even equipped with N/A engines and even less brilliant against ones which are forced.

Everyone, get with the program. Not me nor the OP are complaining about what the M3 is capable of doing when the throttle is pinned.

P.S.
Swamp is someone I respect and value his opinion but we don't always have to see eye to eye or even have to try and convince the each other that our opinion is the right one, I have the opinion that the M3 is lacking something on part throttle which will be cured with the next M3.

[smmmurf]

Man, I just got back from driving my car on Sport Plus and thought there was too much response at part throttle. I had to tune down the throttle map to regular Sport in order to drive it smoothly around town.

If you feel you don't have enough torque:

A) Use the Sport/Sport Plus throttle setting.

and/or...

B) Hold lower gears longer.

[footie]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

Man, I just got back from driving my car on Sport Plus and thought there was too much response at part throttle. I had to tune down the throttle map to regular Sport in order to drive it smoothly around town.

If you feel you don't have enough torque:

A) Use the Sport/Sport Plus throttle setting.

and/or...

B) Hold lower gears longer.

Sport Plus is a gimmick/toy that most serious drivers leave turned off. In fact I would never use either it or the Sport setting as both offer little to no control over the early part of the throttle.

It's another complaint I have with some modern cars but better to save that discussion for another thread.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by footie

If you had doubted to read most of the stuff I wrote on this subject you would know that the data I supplied had nothing to do with being in the right gear, but all to do with driving the car leisurely, which happens to be what 95% of people do on a daily basis.

Maybe where you're from. I just spent the last 5 years living in Germany and Germans and me included drive the piss out of cars on A and B roads. Even where I now live in the US my daily commute includes a largely untraveled 10 mile stretch of amazing sweepers where I see triple digit speeds at various spots when desired, even through nice corners. If you own a M3 and drive it high gears at posted city speed limits, then you bought the wrong car. Personally I don't drive in top gear at 50 mph. I don't like lugging the engine. Ultimately I found your data quite useless, and seriously incomplete (and that's being nice). Just about all those mph increases in the given gears would lug the engine.

Ultimately, I appreciate BMW's efforts to produce an engine that is capable of such high redline with appreciable torque that can be magnified through gearing to give drivers both low rpm grunt and high rpm thrust. I for one will not be happy when BMW produces low-tech FI M-engines which trade the high end thrust for legal city speed power bias. M engines are for those that willingly rev the engines as intended, not for those that drive for economy. And I'm not sure why you think BMW turbos are miserly at the pumps. I never got much more than 21 mpg (non-imperial) in the 135i I put 4,000 miles on in Germany. It was quite the gas pig for something that thrilled so little at the upper half of the rev counter.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by smmmurf

Man, I just got back from driving my car on Sport Plus and thought there was too much response at part throttle. I had to tune down the throttle map to regular Sport in order to drive it smoothly around town.

If you feel you don't have enough torque:

A) Use the Sport/Sport Plus throttle setting.

and/or...

B) Hold lower gears longer.

Are there actual map differences in the E92 M3 between sport modes and normal? There's no map difference in either of my cars, sport mode just opens the throttle bodies more aggressively at initial gas pedal positions. Which means, I could do the same as sport mode with a heavier foot. But I agree, in sport mode on my cars it makes it easier to get off the line.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

Sport Plus is a gimmick/toy that most serious drivers leave turned off. In fact I would never use either it or the Sport setting as both offer little to no control over the early part of the throttle.

It's another complaint I have with some modern cars but better to save that discussion for another thread.

Sure, a lot of dealers falsely describe the POWER button by statingthat it does more than it actually does ("It makes the car gain 100HP!"). However, I think it's quite practical in the E90. I always left it off in my E46, but the E90's sport setting is quite useful. NORMAL is great for pushing the car down the boulevard, and Sport is awesome for the open road.

Throttle mapping is like mouse sensitivity except for your right foot. It doesn't make the car any faster, but it does remap the throttle for different response. It is one inherent advantage of electronic throttle over cable throttle.

What do you have a problem with, the throttle position map of the NORMAL setting or the actual acceleration capability at lower RPM's? It seems like you have more of a problem with the stock NORMAL map than the car's potential itself.

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Are there actual map differences in the E92 M3 between sport modes and normal? There's no map difference in either of my cars, sport mode just opens the throttle bodies more aggressively at initial gas pedal positions. Which means, I could do the same as sport mode with a heavier foot. But I agree, in sport mode on my cars it makes it easier to get off the line.

The throttle position sensor readings are translated to wider throttle openings. It does not change the engine map (i.e. making timing more aggressive or whatever else). Full throttle equals full throttle on both settings, but my rough estimate is that 25% throttle on POWER is like 40% throttle on NORMAL and 50% throttle on POWER is like 70% throttle on NORMAL.

This engine is excellent. I love the naturally aspirated response and the ability of this engine to sing at 8,400 RPM. Sure, you can't expect it to have power at 1100 RPM in 4th gear, but that's why you have 6 gears and not just 1.

[footie]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Maybe where you're from. I just spent the last 5 years living in Germany and Germans and me included drive the piss out of cars on A and B roads. Even where I now live in the US my daily commute includes a largely untraveled 10 mile stretch of amazing sweepers where I see triple digit speeds at various spots when desired, even through nice corners. If you own a M3 and drive it high gears at posted city speed limits, then you bought the wrong car. Personally I don't drive in top gear at 50 mph. I don't like lugging the engine. Ultimately I found your data quite useless, and seriously incomplete (and that's being nice). Just about all those mph increases in the given gears would lug the engine.

It's as plain as day that where you live and have lived are totalled different to most of the UK where all forms of speed cameras are present. I would imagine that if you get clocked by the police or a speed camera the most that will happen to you is a modest fine and sent on your way, where as here a fine is the least of your concern, lost of licence and possible prison sentence is on the cards if the speed is high enough.

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Ultimately, I appreciate BMW's efforts to produce an engine that is capable of such high redline with appreciable torque that can be magnified through gearing to give drivers both low rpm grunt and high rpm thrust. I for one will not be happy when BMW produces low-tech FI M-engines which trade the high end thrust for legal city speed power bias. M engines are for those that willingly rev the engines as intended, not for those that drive for economy. And I'm not sure why you think BMW turbos are miserly at the pumps. I never got much more than 21 mpg (non-imperial) in the 135i I put 4,000 miles on in Germany. It was quite the gas pig for something that thrilled so little at the upper half of the rev counter.

Who said anything about low tech.

[-=Hot|Ice=-]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Maybe where you're from. I just spent the last 5 years living in Germany and Germans and me included drive the piss out of cars on A and B roads. Even where I now live in the US my daily commute includes a largely untraveled 10 mile stretch of amazing sweepers where I see triple digit speeds at various spots when desired, even through nice corners. If you own a M3 and drive it high gears at posted city speed limits, then you bought the wrong car. Personally I don't drive in top gear at 50 mph. I don't like lugging the engine. Ultimately I found your data quite useless, and seriously incomplete (and that's being nice). Just about all those mph increases in the given gears would lug the engine.

Ultimately, I appreciate BMW's efforts to produce an engine that is capable of such high redline with appreciable torque that can be magnified through gearing to give drivers both low rpm grunt and high rpm thrust. I for one will not be happy when BMW produces low-tech FI M-engines which trade the high end thrust for legal city speed power bias. M engines are for those that willingly rev the engines as intended, not for those that drive for economy. And I'm not sure why you think BMW turbos are miserly at the pumps. I never got much more than 21 mpg (non-imperial) in the 135i I put 4,000 miles on in Germany. It was quite the gas pig for something that thrilled so little at the upper half of the rev counter.

Because you drove 155MPH on the autobahn.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by MrHarris

I put 285s on the rear and my tires easily spin. 295s going on next!

Which make of tyres are on the rears now then please.

[MrHarris]

Originally Posted by johnbmw6

Which make of tyres are on the rears now then please.

Nitto INVO's (fail tires IMO for the M3)

AD08's on today! 295's! Should be much better (I'm hoping)