Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[Serious]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Sorry, but you're wrong. The force at the driving wheel is called torque--it's the measure of the "real" power applied to the ground. At 2,500 rpms this multiplied torque (which is what mostly affects acceleration) of the M3 overtakes the N54-equipped cars and never falls underneath all the way to redline in every gear. Another goofy characteristic of the N54-equipped cars is that optimum shift points are different in each gear (except 1st and 2nd). If you redline the N54-equipped cars in every gear you won't accelerate as quickly as if you knew the optimum shift points (which is more or less a 500 rpm step down starting in 3rd gear). This is due to the massive torque falloff, which is essentially 100 lb-ft of torque above 5500 rpms!!! That's massive and why N54-equipped cars are not fun to redline. You can easily feel the torque fall off as the rate of acceleration diminishes with increased rpms. Even tuners that find much more peak power can't do anything about the massive torque drop in the same range. The motor simply can't handle M kind of power at high rpms. Those tuned engines are a bit quicker, but not as much as they'd make you think. Here again an example of how peak power figures can't be directly translated to acceleration. But the market would disagree. Then again, the market isn't very knowledgeable.

sorry but no... just no.

The m3 does not make more "wheel torque" or whatever the hell you're trying to say after 2500rpm... go look at a dyno graph... THATS WHEEL TORQUE... which is the end all be all.

As for short shifting a 335i you have it completely ass backwards... if anything you would short shift 1st and possibly 2nd to maintain traction... every other gear should pull to redline. Again its the delta between area's under the curve.

[Technic]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

The DCT has an axle ratio of 3.15. Sure you can punch holes in traffic with an M3 by revving the whee out of it and guzzling gas.

Isn't that the whole concept of the V8 in the M3? I still don't understand what is really the criticism here, that the M3 is not what it should be for some drivers? It really bugs me that the M3 does not have the trunk capacity of my old MKV GTI as well, that does not mean that there's something wrong with the M3 not having a hatch...

This is the same criticism about the Honda Civic Si and the S2000, that they need to be insanely high rev'ed to move the suckers down the street. Well, that's the whole design idea...

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Sorry, but you're wrong. The force at the driving wheel is called torque--it's the measure of the "real" power applied to the ground. At 2,500 rpms this multiplied torque (which is what mostly affects acceleration) of the M3 overtakes the N54-equipped cars and never falls underneath all the way to redline in every gear. Another goofy characteristic of the N54-equipped cars is that optimum shift points are different in each gear (except 1st and 2nd). If you redline the N54-equipped cars in every gear you won't accelerate as quickly as if you knew the optimum shift points (which is more or less a 500 rpm step down starting in 3rd gear). This is due to the massive torque falloff, which is essentially 100 lb-ft of torque above 5500 rpms!!! That's massive and why N54-equipped cars are not fun to redline. You can easily feel the torque fall off as the rate of acceleration diminishes with increased rpms. Even tuners that find much more peak power can't do anything about the massive torque drop in the same range. The motor simply can't handle M kind of power at high rpms. Those tuned engines are a bit quicker, but not as much as they'd make you think. Here again an example of how peak power figures can't be directly translated to acceleration. But the market would disagree. Then again, the market isn't very knowledgeable.

What you're calling multiplied torque is converted to thrust at the driving wheels. But never mind that. We're basically in agreement: the M3 has a broader power band, but it starts higher than the 335i's. The biggest problem with the tuned N54 engines isn't just shifting - as in more shifts or unpredictable shift points - but squat induced power losses. The chassis can't handle the enormous torque.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by seriousm3

sorry but no... just no.

The m3 does not make more "wheel torque" or whatever the hell you're trying to say after 2500rpm... go look at a dyno graph... THATS WHEEL TORQUE... which is the end all be all.

Actually, it does.

Dyno graphs posted on the internet almost never display actual wheel torque. They factor the gearing and final drive back in. A simple proof is that actual wheel torque reads in the thousands ft-lbs in most gears, not hundreds. Crank torque reads in the hundreds.

Download one of these and you'll see:
http://rri.se/popup/performancegraphs.php?ChartsID=768

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by seriousm3

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. HP is irrelevant?!?... LOL ok... how bout I suggest a race you take a diesel making 600lb.ft. at 2400rpm and ill take an f1 v8 making 220lb.ft. @ 18000rpm and well see who wins.

You're also wrong... the 335i makes more wheel torque around 3000rpm then the e92 m3... that takes into account everything.

Now if you take the entire area under the torque curve then you realize why the m3 shines... Due to its flat torque curve and high redline it makes a ton of torque under the curve vs. other cars which have much higher peak torque numbers.

Dude, please. You're just guessing and stabbing at bits and pieces of all this. I've mapped it all out in torque tables for each and every gear at every rpm in consideration to all gearing variables. Believe me, you have nothing to teach me. By the way, I used the true wheel torque values per rpm for comparison purposes (as independently measured by the only true source in Europe (Sweden) which is accurate beyond reproach and the source for engine output European periodicals use), which are very different than "stated" power figures. Give it up...or at least open your mind so you can learn something. You're STILL debating engine power specs and trying to make that mean something about acceleration. WHY????

Not to mention, what you state about flat torque curve and high redline and trying to relate that to anything without proper data is my point of how you're just guessing. I think you have a bit of an understanding, but you're making far too many assumptions. You cannot look at power graphs (of different cars) alone and correlate that to acceleration, or make comparisons, regardless of peak powers. And HP is totally irrelevant to determining acceleration. HP is just a devised attempt to try to have one power figure to give one the idea of power while taking into consideration engine torque spread and the redline rpm. But stating HP figures is a lot easier than trying to explain all about multiplied torque as the real determinant of power as we define it and understand it.

Anyway, moral of the story is the M3 has plenty of power starting at 2,500 rpms. More than the other 2 cars. That is what you call undisputable fact.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by lucid

Actually, it does.

Dyno graphs posted on the internet almost never display actual wheel torque. They factor the gearing and final drive back in. A simple proof is that actual wheel torque reads in the thousands ft-lbs in most gears, not hundreds. Crank torque reads in the hundreds.

Wow...another intelligent being

Yes, in the thousands in lower gears. Higher gears reduce the multiplication affect.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by Technic

Isn't that the whole concept of the V8 in the M3?

Quite frankly, BMW has done a good job of selling a comparatively unimpressive engine. For instance their claims that it's more fuel efficient than the 3.2 liter straight six are just plain false. I've been happy with each of the three M3s I've owned, but I'll likely be happier with the F30 than with the E92.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

What you're calling multiplied torque is converted to thrust at the driving wheels. But never mind that. We're basically in agreement: the M3 has a broader power band, but it starts higher than the 335i's. The biggest problem with the tuned N54 engines isn't just shifting - as in more shifts or unpredictable shift points - but squat induced power losses. The chassis can't handle the enormous torque.

Definitely the chassis has issues. But the real issue is the weak-ish clutch. And yes, the 135i/335i definitely needs more spring rate to keep the drive wheel (singular) from hopping about under hard acceleration. Then again, my M3 needs the same but not to the same extent. Another thing I found disappointing with the FI N54 is the less than predictable tendency to kick the rear loose on low speed tight turns like roundabouts. I find linear power far more usable. I have 4,000 miles in a 135i in Germany. Didn't much like it. Plus, it doesn't tack well at speeds over 140 mph. Not sure exactly why, but keeping it where you wanted it was not very M-like. That car absolutely needs coilovers for a lower CG at a minimum.

[TailHappyM3]

Originally Posted by kmarei

the 335d has more torque than an M5

And 3X the fuel efficiency.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Quite frankly, BMW has done a good job of selling a comparatively unimpressive engine. For instance their claims that it's more fuel efficient than the 3.2 liter straight six are just plain false. I've been happy with each of the three M3s I've owned, but I'll likely be happier with the F30 than with the E92.

On a bench test it might be more fuel efficient (block to block). But when you mate it to the drivetrain, chassis and everything else you can easily get a different spec. Never trust anything marketing puts out.

[michaeldorian]

When arguing torque multiplication, doesn't that apply to the other cars we are also comparing too and making it a mute point? Aggressive gearing + 1K more RPMs can't surely make up for the 70-100 lbs more torque in the comparing car can it?

[xxe92xx]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Quite frankly, BMW has done a good job of selling a comparatively unimpressive engine. For instance their claims that it's more fuel efficient than the 3.2 liter straight six are just plain false. I've been happy with each of the three M3s I've owned, but I'll likely be happier with the F30 than with the E92.

i wish u could have ur turbo m3 now

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by footie

I said roughly the same thing a few months ago and quite a few people really disliked the suggestion. It's funny how people opinions have changed with so many now in agreement.

That's why I think the next M3 will be received so well.

Maybe people just get tired of posting on the same tired topics ; )

[Pimp Star]

Some of you guys aren't really understanding... Torque as a number that the engine produces is not the end-all-be-all. It is important, but there are many other factors that cause a car to BE fast (one thing) and FEEL fast (another thing). For starters, let's think about a quick accelerating car, like a Formula 1 car. Their engines produce less than 300 pounds feet of torque. Cool. BUT, they have a very, very high redline and therefore can have very aggressive (big number, big multiplier) gears and a very large final drive ratio. This means that this torque gets multiplied by a bigger number and then a bigger number hits the road. So, while the headline number that American companies brag about is... "small"... it still puts a lot of power down and moves quickly.

Additionally, on the M3, the whole point and design of the engine is to... REV IT. Unlike turbo cars, which are fine with a 6,000 or 7,000RPM redline this V8 was built to rev and sing. You do not want an M3 to have a lot of low-end power because this means at part throttle and off the line you will have wheel spin. A linear delivery and less torque down low will allow for easier launching and throttle modulation. So, complaining about buying a more expensive M3 and having no low end torque is insane. (Who the hell wants low end torque? The trade off is no top end power.) Save your money and chip a 335i or wear a hat and call yourself silly.

Honestly.

[330CIZHP]

Unimpressive?? Really?? Rather than M_philosophy of high-revving, 100+ HP/Liter engines with sonorous engine notes and lofty redline, if torquey, no engine/exhaust note to speak of, low-revving and fuel efficient engines is your thing, you would be much happier looking outside BMW since that is what F30 M3 would be and there is nothing unique about that.

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Quite frankly, BMW has done a good job of selling a comparatively unimpressive engine. For instance their claims that it's more fuel efficient than the 3.2 liter straight six are just plain false. I've been happy with each of the three M3s I've owned, but I'll likely be happier with the F30 than with the E92.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Quite frankly, BMW has done a good job of selling a comparatively unimpressive engine. For instance their claims that it's more fuel efficient than the 3.2 liter straight six are just plain false. I've been happy with each of the three M3s I've owned, but I'll likely be happier with the F30 than with the E92.

LOL.

This thread is awesome.

[Nawaaz]

I couldn't imagine an M3 with loads of low-end torque.

I'd take a high-revving engine over a 'torque monster' any day.

[xxe92xx]

Originally Posted by Singletrack

LOL.

This thread is awesome.

i agree

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

When arguing torque multiplication, doesn't that apply to the other cars we are also comparing too and making it a mute point? Aggressive gearing + 1K more RPMs can't surely make up for the 70-100 lbs more torque in the comparing car can it?

Put it this way, the 135i/335i have more peak engine torque than the typical E46 M3 Coupe. Yet the M3 is quicker and at the same time geared for a higher theoretical top end. So why is the M3 quicker? Because its gearbox delivers more multiplied torque to the ground and the power is usable to redline in every gear. When you say "70-100 more torque" are you referring to to peak torque? Bottomline is you can't look a power graph and determine anything. You have to plot each car's power (multiplied torque) in each gear to get the real idea which car should be quicker. You can also compare the same car but change the rear diff ratio to see the % increase in power. I usually factor in car weight differences as well to make it more realistic. Ultimately naturally aspirated M cars appear down on torque which makes people assert things like the OP did, when in fact due to gearing it's not down on torque at all. That was my point to all this. Forums and the market make people believe a lot of stuff that just isn't that accurate or complete.

Ultimately, I define cars by the smile factor they give to me. Chasing higher HP numbers is pretty adolescent, costs a lot, yields very little, and typically imbalances the overall package considerably. Now that I'm back in the States, I see absolutely no reason to have big power in your car. But I do see certain mods as refining or correcting something that was decided by BMW for the masses. For example, the 3.62 rear diff in both my M cars was I think a bad choice by the M division. The 3.91 would have been perfect, and given both my cars the grunt it should have to take full advantage of the engine's power delivery. It also would have spaced its performance more nicely against non-M variants. I'm sure BMW chose this ratio for fuel economy and for longevity/warranty reasons. Perhaps even liability reasons? That and giving the car a better suspension (KW V2 coilovers will do) and it's essentially a perfect road car. I still look at E46 M3s as more desirable than the E92 M3. Of course the E30 M3 to me is most desirable. The Euro E36 would be too, but certainly not the US E36 M3.

BTW, I had a friend in Germany that is now in Japan. He (a doctor) has a E46 M3 with the ESS FI and the car has nearly 700 HP. I'm sure it was a missile on the Autobahns, but mechanical grip is a limiting factor you can't defeat as are speed limiting tire constraints. I doubt he ever drove it over any speed I obtained in my Z4 M. Hell, even the BMW motorsport Z4 M is only rated at 400 HP (and it comes with the 3.91 rear diff ratio BTW). How much power do road cars really need...especially in the US? Whatever my engines put out is plenty for me (multiplied by a shorter final gear though ) ideally...

[michaeldorian]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Put it this way, the 135i/335i have more peak engine torque than the typical E46 M3 Coupe. Yet the M3 is quicker and at the same time geared for a higher theoretical top end. So why is the M3 quicker? Because its gearbox delivers more multiplied torque to the ground and the power is usable to redline in every gear. When you say "70-100 more torque" are you referring to to peak torque? Bottomline is you can't look a power graph and determine anything. You have to plot each car's power (multiplied torque) in each gear to get the real idea which car should be quicker. You can also compare the same car but change the rear diff ratio to see the % increase in power. I usually factor in car weight differences as well to make it more realistic. Ultimately naturally aspirated M cars appear down on torque which makes people assert things like the OP did, when in fact due to gearing it's not down on torque at all. That was my point to all this. Forums and the market make people believe a lot of stuff that just isn't that accurate or complete.

Ultimately, I define cars by the smile factor they give to me. Chasing higher HP numbers is pretty adolescent, costs a lot, yields very little, and typically imbalances the overall package considerably. Now that I'm back in the States, I see absolutely no reason to have big power in your car. But I do see certain mods as refining or correcting something that was decided by BMW for the masses. For example, the 3.62 rear diff in both my M cars was I think a bad choice by the M division. The 3.91 would have been perfect, and given both my cars the grunt it should have to take full advantage of the engine's power delivery. It also would have spaced its performance more nicely against non-M variants. I'm sure BMW chose this ratio for fuel economy and for longevity/warranty reasons. Perhaps even liability reasons? That and giving the car a better suspension (KW V2 coilovers will do) and it's essentially a perfect road car. I still look at E46 M3s as more desirable than the E92 M3. Of course the E30 M3 to me is most desirable. The Euro E36 would be too, but certainly not the US E36 M3.

BTW, I had a friend in Germany that is now in Japan. He (a doctor) has a E46 M3 with the ESS FI and the car has nearly 700 HP. I'm sure it was a missile on the Autobahns, but mechanical grip is a limiting factor you can't defeat as are speed limiting tire constraints. I doubt he ever drove it over any speed I obtained in my Z4 M. Hell, even the BMW motorsport Z4 M is only rated at 400 HP (and it comes with the 3.91 rear diff ratio BTW). How much power do road cars really need...especially in the US? Whatever my engines put out is plenty for me (multiplied by a shorter final gear though ) ideally...

Thanks for taking the time and providing a detailed response. Yes, what I was talking about was peak horse power. I guess instead of arguing the numbers, I think what the OP means is that, the way car puts it's power down, the butt dyno tells us that the car feels "slow and sluggish" at daily driving RPM's.

You really never get that burst of power feeling, as the torque is so linear. Less informed people who drive a 335 and M3 back to back, many times say the 335 feels faster. Just the nature of the way the car delivers power.

You mentioned and recommended a 3.91 diff for this car. I don't see anyone making final drives in the ratio. What do you think of 4.10? Is that too high? I'm considering that as my next mod after suspension.

[e46e92love]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Quite frankly, BMW has done a good job of selling a comparatively unimpressive engine. For instance their claims that it's more fuel efficient than the 3.2 liter straight six are just plain false. I've been happy with each of the three M3s I've owned, but I'll likely be happier with the F30 than with the E92.

Not that this is the only ridiculous thing said in this thread, just the higher end of ridiculous.

Actually, if we delete every post in this thread accept for Lucid's and PG's, then this would be a thread full of accurate and useful information, but since we can't, it isn't.

Cheers,
e46e92

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

You mentioned and recommended a 3.91 diff for this car. I don't see anyone making final drives in the ratio. What do you think of 4.10? Is that too high? I'm considering that as my next mod after suspension.

I recommend going up to the next shorter diff and no more. For my cars it would be the 3.91, not the 4.10 (stock is 3.62). The less mature choice is to look at this as purely a bang for the buck expense. Since both cost the same, why not get the 4.10? Better bang for the buck, right? Well for my cars the 4.10 is overkill. I already suffer from loss of good traction due to the slick streets here in the west. But more than that, too short a final gear will make you change gears far more frequently, make it harder to rev match when downshifting, eat rear tires, and have the car revving a lot more at highway speeds which just diminishes fuel economy/range to a point it's ridiculous. The point is to have the right gearing for a road car considering all the pros and cons. Sometimes that means it won't be the gearing that makes the car the absolute quickest. I don't race anyone so the 4.10 would provide no advantage for me. The general consensus in the E46 M3 world is 3.91 for FI cars, 4.10 for NA. That's all childish to me.

With that I'm dragging my old bones to bed. Cheers!