BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
EXXEL Distributions
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-23-2009, 05:00 AM   #67
Technic
Lieutenant General
Technic's Avatar
United_States
1356
Rep
12,202
Posts

Drives: 2015 320i
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale, Florida

iTrader: (18)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Pearce View Post
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 agree up to a certain point with your opinion, actually.

I think that a 4.2L would have been a much better displacement for this V8 as BMW would have achieved both 420hp and some 320lbft with a much better power band. But I think that they went for the quick and low development cost and just used whatever was ready available from the V10, and now they had to go all the way up to 4.4L in the GTS to really get this engine to perform as a V8 is expected to perform by most owners.

If RDSport can make their 4.6L conversion to behave like an M engine all the way while having some solid torque everywhere then I think that this could have been possible from BMW from the get go as well if they just wanted it to be.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 05:20 AM   #68
MrHarris
yodog
MrHarris's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
5,029
Posts

Drives: '86 Corolla
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Diamond Bar, Ca

iTrader: (5)

Garage List
2009 BMW  [5.00]
Send a message via AIM to MrHarris
I agree, it's too bad the RDSport 4.6 has a huge torque dip. Unless it's solved from ECU tuning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Technic View Post
I agree up to a certain point with your opinion, actually.

I think that a 4.2L would have been a much better displacement for this V8 as BMW would have achieved both 420hp and some 320lbft with a much better power band. But I think that they went for the quick and low development cost and just used whatever was ready available from the V10, and now they had to go all the way up to 4.4L in the GTS to really get this engine to perform as a V8 is expected to perform by most owners.

If RDSport can make their 4.6L conversion to behave like an M engine all the way while having some solid torque everywhere then I think that this could have been possible from BMW from the get go as well if they just wanted it to be.
__________________

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
      11-23-2009, 05:50 AM   #69
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
370
Rep
7,575
Posts

Drives: F90 M5 Comp
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Listen, it's not the feeling of torque that the M3 lacks but the actual quantity of it, and no amount of people posting facts and figures suggesting that it's at the wheel torque is greater will get past the fact it's slower in-gear than most of it's rivals. Be that the C63, TT-RS, IS-F or almost all it's US competitors.

Some here clearly adore the instant throttle of a well engineered N/A engine and the M3 is clearly one of the best, but compared to the latest Turbo and Supercharged units that has hit the streets in recent months I would put any of them ahead of the M3 for pure on the road entertainment, which is where most M3 owners spend most of their time.

Check out the M3 vs C63 and TT-RS to see that it's actual torque isn't really that great, or as good as some here think.

Audi TT-RS 6sp vs C63 VS M3(6sp)

IN-GEAR TIMES (3RD)
20-40 2.8 2.7 3.3
30-50 2.4 2.6 3.1
40-60 2.4 2.5 3.0
50-70 2.5 2.4 3.0
60-80 2.6 2.5 3.0
70-90 2.8 2.8 3.1

IN-GEAR TIMES (4TH)
20-40 4.3 4.7 4.2
30-50 3.3 3.9 4.2
40-60 3.1 3.7 4.1
50-70 3.3 3.5 3.9
60-80 3.4 3.5 4.0
70-90 3.5 3.5 4.2
80-100 3.7 3.5 4.3
90-110 4.0 3.8 4.5

IN-GEAR TIMES (5TH)
20-40 6.3 5.3 4.8
30-50 4.7 4.2 4.8
40-60 4.1 4.4 4.9
50-70 4.1 4.4 4.8
60-80 4.3 4.3 4.5
70-90 4.5 4.3 4.9
80-100 4.6 4.4 5.3

IN-GEAR TIMES (6TH)
30-50 8.3 5.0 6.2
40-60 6.9 5.2 6.2
50-70 5.8 5.2 5.9
60-80 5.5 5.1 5.8
70-90 5.9 5.1 5.9
80-100 6.2 5.1 6.2

Just to show how much it's lack of torque is effecting it's progress in normal daily driving I have highlighted in bold the times when the M3 proved to be quicker. Funny that it's only in the extremely low revs it's at it's best compared to these rivals and at the higher revs when most would expect the M3 to come good it's actually found wanting.

In my opinion the best thing to ever happen to the M3 will happen with the next model and the introduction of a turbo engine.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 07:00 AM   #70
JOHNBMWM5
Live for today tomorrow never comes
JOHNBMWM5's Avatar
United Kingdom
1532
Rep
9,169
Posts

Drives: 2020 LCI in Donington/Aragon
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

I am getting mine "Chipped" from the first week, this coupled with the BMC and Power Pullys should give what it needs bottom end a bit more torque.
I have the M-DCT coming which seems better in general driving than the manual. IMO
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 08:03 AM   #71
MontyRFC
Enlisted Member
United Kingdom
0
Rep
45
Posts

Drives: M3 E93, 07 S-Class, LR Disco
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Reading, UK

iTrader: (0)

This can be a pretty aggressive forum can't it? A lot of people have got tickets on themselves and their opinions don't they?!. If only all us mere mortals were as well educated as some on here the world would be a better place eh? I bet the original OP wishes he'd kept quiet!

Irrespective of everything quoted on here about torque, imo the M3 does lack low down torque, certainly when compared to its rivals as Footie points out. Yes the engine is designed to be revved, but sometimes in day-to-day driving it's not as responsive as you may like. That doesn't mean it came as a surprise to us who find it this way, nor does it mean we did not test the car or should have bought something else, it's just the way we find it. I for one, don't always want to be screaming around in the max attack gear, and sometimes I find it less responsive in the gear I'm in than I would ideally like it to be.

Just an opinion, but I'm sure the almighty on here can quickly tell me what an utter imbecile I am
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 08:12 AM   #72
Gumgardner
New Member
1
Rep
28
Posts

Drives: 2011 M3 E92
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Pittsburgh PA

iTrader: (0)

The M3 coupe has 5 less torque than my 335i sedan but is lighter. I don't see what the difference is. Is the torque being produced at different RPMs because the 335i is twin turboed? sorry for the ignorance.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 08:42 AM   #73
BimmerBoomer
demoted
BimmerBoomer's Avatar
Canada
408
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi S5 Sportback
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grimsby, Ontario

iTrader: (0)

But...but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Just to show how much it's lack of torque is effecting it's progress in normal daily driving I have highlighted in bold the times when the M3 proved to be quicker. Funny that it's only in the extremely low revs it's at it's best compared to these rivals and at the higher revs when most would expect the M3 to come good it's actually found wanting.

In my opinion the best thing to ever happen to the M3 will happen with the next model and the introduction of a turbo engine.
Bravo footie. The S65 engine just isn't getting enough work done at higher revs. This is intimately connected to the terrible fuel mileage most of the drivers here are getting.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:09 AM   #74
Gearhead999s
Major General
Gearhead999s's Avatar
743
Rep
7,882
Posts

Drives: RR Velar R=Dynamic M2C R1200GS
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

I continue to amazed by the bitching here in this thread about the S65 and lack of low end torque.The S65 is an engine that is an amazing experiance to drive every time I get to run it out in the upper reaches of the rev band.It has a useable power band of over 4000 rpm on track which makes this car very easy to drive fast.I have had cars that have very flat low end power curves with big torque and they not have the great feel that the way these cars do,that gets the excitment going when I drive this car.The fuel milege is acceptable for the level of performance that is provided but the range could be better.My wifes 335 has great fuel milege but has almost no excitment when using its available power so boosted cars are of little interest to me.
Yes there are faster cars but they are not as well balanced as all rounders as the M and I guess if you a lazy driver who does not like the shift,then the S65 will disapoint.If that is the case go get a C63 or an IS-f and save us the pain of the same threads over & over again rehashing this so called issue which is a non issue if you are a true driver.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:17 AM   #75
Singletrack
4th down; 4th quarter? Renegade.
Singletrack's Avatar
United_States
79
Rep
3,822
Posts

Drives: 09 SSII E92 M3; 12 AW X5d
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Pearce View Post
Bravo footie. The S65 engine just isn't getting enough work done at higher revs. This is intimately connected to the terrible fuel mileage most of the drivers here are getting.
If you want monster low end torque and gas mileage, then you should buy a turbo.

Also, if you drive like a mangina, you can get very respectable fuel mileage in this car.

Also, if you beat on a high HP turbo car, you will also get terrible gas mileage. Not "as" terrible, but pretty bad.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:29 AM   #76
BimmerBoomer
demoted
BimmerBoomer's Avatar
Canada
408
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi S5 Sportback
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grimsby, Ontario

iTrader: (0)

I intend to buy a turbo...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singletrack View Post
If you want monster low end torque and gas mileage, then you should buy a turbo.
The F30 M3.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:30 AM   #77
Singletrack
4th down; 4th quarter? Renegade.
Singletrack's Avatar
United_States
79
Rep
3,822
Posts

Drives: 09 SSII E92 M3; 12 AW X5d
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Pearce View Post
The F30 M3.
I'm sure it will be a great car.

I'm glad I'll have one of the last stinky, gas chugging V8s ; )
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:33 AM   #78
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
370
Rep
7,575
Posts

Drives: F90 M5 Comp
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singletrack View Post
If you want monster low end torque and gas mileage, then you should buy a turbo.

Also, if you drive like a mangina, you can get very respectable fuel mileage in this car.

Also, if you beat on a high HP turbo car, you will also get terrible gas mileage. Not "as" terrible, but pretty bad.
Actually that's a misconception. Turbo engines give over than 95% of their performance on little more than 2/3 of the throttle, don't ask me why, but drive like this they still return incredible mpg, it's only when you floor it to the full does the mileage hit the dirt. In fact Autocar are running a TT-RS at the moment which is averaging close on 30mpg and that's regardless of how it's driven.

I averaged only 17mpg most of the time in the M3, admittedly most of my journeys were short but I continuously found myself using more and more of the upper revs and working the gears more often to achieve the desire results. I bet with the next M3 you'll be getting all the performance and more besides with closer to 25mpg average.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:33 AM   #79
Gearhead999s
Major General
Gearhead999s's Avatar
743
Rep
7,882
Posts

Drives: RR Velar R=Dynamic M2C R1200GS
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

If you want monster low end torque and gas mileage, then you should buy a turbo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Pearce View Post
The F30 M3.
Or a 335d and you do not even have to shift as it is an auto!That should suit most of the complainers in this thread
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:34 AM   #80
John@BMW
I can't belive this car is a 4 door family sedan.
John@BMW's Avatar
54
Rep
385
Posts

Drives: 2008 M3 sedan, '96 M3
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlanta

iTrader: (1)

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."
__________________
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:39 AM   #81
Gearhead999s
Major General
Gearhead999s's Avatar
743
Rep
7,882
Posts

Drives: RR Velar R=Dynamic M2C R1200GS
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Actually that's a misconception. Turbo engines give over than 95% of their performance on little more than 2/3 of the throttle, don't ask me why, but drive like this they still return incredible mpg, it's only when you floor it to the full does the mileage hit the dirt. In fact Autocar are running a TT-RS at the moment which is averaging close on 30mpg and that's regardless of how it's driven.

I averaged only 17mpg most of the time in the M3, admittedly most of my journeys were short but I continuously found myself using more and more of the upper revs and working the gears more often to achieve the desire results. I bet with the next M3 you'll be getting all the performance and more besides with closer to 25mpg average.
I know that my wifes Mark V GTI dsg used far more fuel on track than my S65 M3 used at Calabogie Motorsport Park and was 15 seconds a lap slower also.Turbo motors use a lot of fuel at large power outputs compared to a normally aspirated car.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:44 AM   #82
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
370
Rep
7,575
Posts

Drives: F90 M5 Comp
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead999s View Post
I continue to amazed by the bitching here in this thread about the S65 and lack of low end torque.The S65 is an engine that is an amazing experiance to drive every time I get to run it out in the upper reaches of the rev band.It has a useable power band of over 4000 rpm on track which makes this car very easy to drive fast.I have had cars that have very flat low end power curves with big torque and they not have the great feel that the way these cars do,that gets the excitment going when I drive this car.The fuel milege is acceptable for the level of performance that is provided but the range could be better.My wifes 335 has great fuel milege but has almost no excitment when using its available power so boosted cars are of little interest to me.
Yes there are faster cars but they are not as well balanced as all rounders as the M and I guess if you a lazy driver who does not like the shift,then the S65 will disapoint.If that is the case go get a C63 or an IS-f and save us the pain of the same threads over & over again rehashing this so called issue which is a non issue if you are a true driver.
By well balanced do you mean able to be used to great effect on the track and works perfectly well on the road too. If so then I agree, the M3v8 is a brilliant engine, but that is why I continue to add in all of my comments that the majority don't track their cars at all and as a daily driver the lack of torque can be an annoyance.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:46 AM   #83
330CIZHP
Major
Canada
47
Rep
1,211
Posts

Drives: BMW 330 CI ZHP
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Calgary, Alberta

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by John@BMW View Post
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."
Well said.

Driving excitement and thrills are all about gratifying all the five senses. Active power is what truly makes driving a thrill, which is when the driver really wishes to. That is why exotic cars all have high-revving engines. I see none of exotic owners ever complaining about the car being complete disaster to drive in everyday life. I almost see no point in needing the level of handling M3 offers since you would never even use 6/10ths of it on the city roads.

If passive power is what performance is all about (part throttle, any gear, any revs. Just stomp and go), there are tons of better options since it has nothing to do with track level performance, but more to do with lazy power. An Audi S4 will be a much better option since it has all the torque down low and handles very well for its price with a much superior chassis than a standard 335.

That is why I believe the future of M is completely in the dark since there are so many better options in that area of FI, low-revving sporty cars.
__________________
""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
      11-23-2009, 09:48 AM   #84
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
370
Rep
7,575
Posts

Drives: F90 M5 Comp
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead999s View Post
I know that my wifes Mark V GTI dsg used far more fuel on track than my S65 M3 used at Calabogie Motorsport Park and was 15 seconds a lap slower also.Turbo motors use a lot of fuel at large power outputs compared to a normally aspirated car.
Did you have any telemetry from the two cars, I bet you were on full throttle far more of the time in the GTI than the M3 and it was purely down to the speeds involved.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 09:54 AM   #85
Gearhead999s
Major General
Gearhead999s's Avatar
743
Rep
7,882
Posts

Drives: RR Velar R=Dynamic M2C R1200GS
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Did you have any telemetry from the two cars, I bet you were on full throttle far more of the time in the GTI than the M3 and it was purely down to the speeds involved.
No but the GTI had the the low fuel light on after 2 sessions of 28 minutes each and took around 50litres where the M3 was 2 1/2 sessions and 55 litres.I had R compounds on the M and the stock street tires
on the GTI.I was probally on full throttle more in the M as it had a lot more stick and handled quite a bit better than the 100% stock GTI.Oh I almost forgot that the GTI did have a Revo flash in it.The DSG was also not very good on track as it had a mind of its own on shifting.
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 10:01 AM   #86
Singletrack
4th down; 4th quarter? Renegade.
Singletrack's Avatar
United_States
79
Rep
3,822
Posts

Drives: 09 SSII E92 M3; 12 AW X5d
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Actually that's a misconception. Turbo engines give over than 95% of their performance on little more than 2/3 of the throttle, don't ask me why, but drive like this they still return incredible mpg, it's only when you floor it to the full does the mileage hit the dirt. In fact Autocar are running a TT-RS at the moment which is averaging close on 30mpg and that's regardless of how it's driven.

I averaged only 17mpg most of the time in the M3, admittedly most of my journeys were short but I continuously found myself using more and more of the upper revs and working the gears more often to achieve the desire results. I bet with the next M3 you'll be getting all the performance and more besides with closer to 25mpg average.
I'm speaking from my experience.

My 00 A6 2.7T got about 18mpg on average, my 04 STi about 17.5. With similar driving style, I get about 15-16 in my M3. I can get 18-19 mpg easily if I drive the car like a limo driver. This is on a daily 50mile (roundtrip) mix of backcountry and highway.

I'm sure that BMW's future turbo M engines will deliver more power at better fuel economy. I would be truly amazed if the TTRS maintained 30mpg with my driving style, and I mean that in a sincere way, not in a "I'm calling bullshit way". Either way, I don't know much about its fuel economy, but it appears to be a fantastic car.

Either way, fuel economy really isn't important to me. Also, this thread isn't even *about* fuel economy. But it seems like there are people here that like to trumpet the fact that the car has no torque and gets poor gas mileage.

There are plenty of other options out there, I just fail to see why this is such a hot topic. Different strokes for different folks...different tools for different tools...ehhh jobs - all that good stuff : )
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 10:01 AM   #87
BimmerBoomer
demoted
BimmerBoomer's Avatar
Canada
408
Rep
1,154
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi S5 Sportback
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grimsby, Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearhead999s View Post
If you want monster low end torque and gas mileage, then you should buy a turbo.
Or a 335d and you do not even have to shift as it is an auto!That should suit most of the complainers in this thread
What makes you think that a manual transmission will be offered for the F30 M3?
Appreciate 0
      11-23-2009, 10:01 AM   #88
Singletrack
4th down; 4th quarter? Renegade.
Singletrack's Avatar
United_States
79
Rep
3,822
Posts

Drives: 09 SSII E92 M3; 12 AW X5d
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by John@BMW View Post
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."
Vote to delete thread!

; )
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:28 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST