M3 vs C63

[Krueger///M3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Thanks for the apology, but not needed. You actually made me laugh out loud, because your outrage caused me to remember an "event" I experienced way back when.

I had pulled into my local Sunoco station with my just-tuned '64 GTO, silver, TriPower, 4-speed, posi and all - and there were not one, but two XK-Es pulled up to the pumps.

Nirvana. I do the quick mental evaluation ("Yeah, I could take them through a quarter mile, but then..."), and pull up to a free pump next to one of the Jags.

The older guy who had just pulled in got out of the other Jag and began walking toward the one by me, giant smile on his face, hand beginning to reach out in preparation for a hearty shake, when the somewhat younger guy (who hadn't seen the other guy yet) lifted the hood.

Small-block Chevy!

Over a period of perhaps five seconds, the older guy's face went from joy, to confusion, to bewilderment, and finally to sheer outrage. He clenched his fists, and for a second I thought he was going to hit the other guy - and so did he.

Then he just sort of wilted, shuffled off to his "proper" XK-E, and drove off without getting gas.

Now, a lot of guys were stuffing small-blocks into Jags back then for what were obvious reasons at the time. The Jag was a temperamental, oil-guzzling, always-in-need-of-a-tuneup engine, prone to overheating, and with Lucas "Prince of Darkness" electrics. The Chevy was a more powerful, more reliable, cheaper to run powerplant, equipped with Delco electrics, plus there were cheap parts available everywhere, including an unbelievable array of speed equipment. It was even a little lighter than the Jag engine. Plus it made that brassy, blaring, clarion call to battle sound that only came in packages marked small block Chevy at the time.

Still, something was clearly lost. Those cam covers. That lovely, wicked and edgy snarl, at idle and everywhere else, turning to a melodious howl at full chat, as they say. I could see the case for both sides.

Now, of course, I feel the same way about the M3 with a Chevy motor. I personally don't give a damn about automotive tradition, for the M3 or any other car, so bolting some other powerplant in there that would make more power without additional weight is just fine with me. Of course, it would change the complexion of the car, but for me, so what? You'd lose that wonderful M3 sound, for example, but you'd pick up that wonderful Vette sound. And so on.

I certainly understand the outrage, however.

Bruce

Wow, that's an awesome story. I have heard about some Jag owners swapping in the Chevy engines into older models due to the electrical issues, very interesting. It reminds me of a experience that I had very similar to this. I saw a Porsche 930 Slant-nose parked out on the lawn of a music shop. Being one of the rarest Porsche, I had to stop and go look at it. To my surprise, the owner had put a Chevy 454 (I think it was a 454, I can't remember exactly) in place of it's famous flat-six. That was very astounding at the time too. He said that it ran 0-60 in 3.7 seconds, much faster than the original car could've done it...

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by Krueger///M3

Wow, that's an awesome story.

ditto that. I may not always agree with him, but Bruce always adds something interesting to this forum.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I didn't mind your simulations then, and don't mind them now. My own simulator shows the LS3 car to be a fat two tenths quicker (12.48 to 12.74). So what. They're simulators. At a guess, the LS3 will have more trouble launching, and will be in control from there on. Perhaps it would make up for the launch problem by the end of a quarter mile, and perhaps not. It would be in control out on the mean streets, I believe.

Either way close enough in both time to distance and time to speed to call them drivers races. I simply can not come to the same ultimate conclusion that the car would hands down be a better performer with the swap.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

After reading some in-depth tech analysis from Mercedes when it was first announced (including metallurgy), I'm willing to believe the Merc is indeed very light for its capacity. Plus of course Mercedes says it's lighter, and while you say they're lying in public, I am willing to believe them.

No problem, we just disagree again, as is often the case.

Bruce

Wrong again Bruce. Please stop completely misstating my positon. I did not and have never stated MB have lied about their engine weights. I am simply appealing to common sense. All common sense says the M3 plant should be lighter. Come on the displacement is OVER 1.5 times larger, not 10 or 20%, 1.5 X. The argument of the particular metallurgy of the MB block does not cut it either as both the M3 block and MB block are cast from an Aluminum Silicon alloy (and both are lower density than traditional aluminum casting alloys). MB uses both 7% and 17% Si, I think for the block and heads respectively, whereas I can not locate the specific alloy BMW M uses. I'd place a big wager it is the same. Even if BMW did not use the same Al-Si the difference in the density of pure aluminum vs. 7% Al-Si alloys is less than 1% (not that anyone uses pure aluminum for castings but just to put a rough estimate on the diference).

You simply choose to blindly believe a spec (that in all due respect is based on accepted standards) that is in clear contradiction with basic logic, math and even physics. If I was trying to compare an I6 vs. a V8 or an OHC vs. pushrod engine you indeed could not use the logic I am applying here. However, the AMG and M3 plants are the same basic design and configuration; high performance, high revving, DOHC, bedplate, 90 degree, Al-Si block, V8s. I choose to remain skeptical and hence undecided. Although I do lean toward the belief that the M engine is lighter on a absolutely apples to apples basis.

The more you recall my favorite Sagan quote the better off your critical thinking will be.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Either way close enough in both time to distance and time to speed to call them drivers races. I simply can not come to the same ultimate conclusion that the car would hands down be a better performer with the swap.

Wrong again Bruce. Please stop completely misstating my positon. I did not and have never stated MB have lied about their engine weights. I am simply appealing to common sense. All common sense says the M3 plant should be lighter. Come on the displacement is OVER 1.5 times larger, not 10 or 20%, 1.5 X. The argument of the particular metallurgy of the MB block does not cut it either as both the M3 block and MB block are cast from an Aluminum Silicon alloy (and both are lower density than traditional aluminum casting alloys). MB uses both 7% and 17% Si, I think for the block and heads respectively, whereas I can not locate the specific alloy BMW M uses. I'd place a big wager it is the same. Even if BMW did not use the same Al-Si the difference in the density of pure aluminum vs. 7% Al-Si alloys is less than 1% (not that anyone uses pure aluminum for castings but just to put a rough estimate on the diference).

You simply choose to blindly believe a spec (that in all due respect is based on accepted standards) that is in clear contradiction with basic logic, math and even physics. If I was trying to compare an I6 vs. a V8 or an OHC vs. pushrod engine you indeed could not use the logic I am applying here. However, the AMG and M3 plants are the same basic design and configuration; high performance, high revving, DOHC, bedplate, 90 degree, Al-Si block, V8s. I choose to remain skeptical and hence undecided. Although I do lean toward the belief that the M engine is lighter on a absolutely apples to apples basis.

The more you recall my favorite Sagan quote the better off your critical thinking will be.

I absolutely stand corrected. You actually never said they've lied in public.

You just think they've lied in public.

Or do you think they've gotten their sums wrong, or forgotten how to weigh an engine?

Critical thinking? I've forgotten your favorite Sagan quote, and I suppose I will again if you tell me again. Maybe if you tell me ten times I'll remember it.

I believe your often flawless critical thinking has some neurons that refuse to fire when the M3 is on your mind.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Sticky

Running in circles with you is pointless as you will continue to distort whatever you can to attempt to strengthen your argument of the M3 motor being a weak point. Yet you can't seem to explain how the M3 outperforms the vast majority of motors in the marketplace with more torque. You don't get the M3 can make more power with less torque with more revs. If an LS3 could rev to 8k and maintain its peak torque, it would be a crowning achievement, but it cant and never well.

The M3 performs so well because it makes a lot of power - plus, it makes very efficient use of that power, particularly with the automatic. I don't think the motor is a weak point, but the car (or any car) would be a better performer with more power at the same weight.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Gearing, as we were generally speaking, would encompass spacing. If you want to sit here and nitpick semantics I suppose we can do that. Now speaking of spacing, I am not sure what you don't get about the SMG with 7 gears being faster as it keeps the motor in that 6-8k rpm range more often than the 6 speed manual does. It is geared shorter with the 7, increasing torque to the wheels at all RPM ranges, rather simple.

What you specifically said was: "The M3 motor is a more sophisticated piece of engineering with smooth, even power throughout the range and allowing greater gear multiplication due to the revs." Later on (in note 64), you said "...they can gear it shorter, allowing larger multiplication of torque to the rear wheels." "Greater gear multiplication" doesn't do a damned thing for you. Power is what does it. Period. If you make the power at low revs, you don't need as much "gear multiplication" as compared to making the power at high revs. No big deal, but now I know you just don't properly understand the concept of power - as I thought when I originally asked the question.

Closer gear spacing is better for acceleration, obviously. Different discussion.

Originally Posted by Sticky

Ah, so you sold Hondas. Good for you, I am speaking of my friend who had the 2.0 let go on him, THREE TIMES. He eventually got the 2.2 but felt it just did not have the same excitement. Purely subjective, so who is to say who is right or wrong?

So your "Many" quote was ONE GUY? Man, if you're willing to lie about such an ancillary point, one wonders about everything else you state as fact.

Originally Posted by Sticky

You can't prove me wrong regarding placing the AMG motor in the E92, so why don't YOU prove it? Logic would dictate the larger motor would require completely different spacing in the engine bay. Either way, it is a stupid suggestion.

OK, I guess we're done on this one.

Originally Posted by Sticky

As far as the weight, I guess you missed it when I wrote the weight was the same as my E46 M3 SMG. Too big and heavy in your opinion? Compared to... what? It is the LIGHTEST car in its class, but I guess you can never please everyone.

Again, your reading skills need a little honing. Maybe you should get some more ChapStick and go to work on it.

When you said your E92 weighs exactly what your E46 weighed, I asked if that number was 3400 pounds, because that's what our E46 weighed. If the E92 does in fact weigh 3400 pounds I stand corrected on the weight problem.

In point of fact, however, I think pretty almost every production car being made nowadays weighs more than it should.

Bruce

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The M3 performs so well because it makes a lot of power - plus, it makes very efficient use of that power, particularly with the automatic. I don't think the motor is a weak point, but the car (or any car) would be a better performer with more power at the same weight.



What you specifically said was: "The M3 motor is a more sophisticated piece of engineering with smooth, even power throughout the range and allowing greater gear multiplication due to the revs." Later on (in note 64), you said "...they can gear it shorter, allowing larger multiplication of torque to the rear wheels." "Greater gear multiplication" doesn't do a damned thing for you. Power is what does it. Period. If you make the power at low revs, you don't need as much "gear multiplication" as compared to making the power at high revs. No big deal, but now I know you just don't properly understand the concept of power - as I thought when I originally asked the question.

Closer gear spacing is better for acceleration, obviously. Different discussion.



So your "Many" quote was ONE GUY? Man, if you're willing to lie about such an ancillary point, one wonders about everything else you state as fact.



OK, I guess we're done on this one.



Again, your reading skills need a little honing. Maybe you should get some more ChapStick and go to work on it.

When you said your E92 weighs exactly what your E46 weighed, I asked if that number was 3400 pounds, because that's what our E46 weighed. If the E92 does in fact weigh 3400 pounds I stand corrected on the weight problem.

In point of fact, however, I think pretty almost every production car being made nowadays weighs more than it should.

Bruce

I don't see the point in responding as you are just going to see what it is you want to see. I could type anything and you already have your response in your head. I might as well be typing in another language.

So now the M3 makes a lot of power? Before it was the LS3 was a better motor for it, then it was a motor that made a lot of power, next post it will be a great motor for the car. Figure out where you stand, then let me know.

What was originally stated about the gearing stands, I don't see where we differ other than you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You talk about power, what is power? Power is torque, multiplied by the RPM, divided by 5250. If you make only a couple hundred pound feet, if you maintain it and rev to the moon, you will eventually make more POWER than a more torquey motor. Power is a function of the torque, multiplied by the revs. Gearing is what allows one to take advantage of their powerband.

As far as the S2k, I wrote about what I knew from personal experience. I have read much on the forums when the switch happened and everyone was not as happy as you. As I said, it is a subjective point, but hey, whatever YOU WANT TO READ.

I never mentioned 3400 pounds, YOU DID. Refrain from telling others to work on their reading comprehension, when you are forgetting who said what. What I am referring to is this thread: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150435 By the way (get the pun?) the car weighed is a DCT.

Weight with no fuel: 3513 , hmm I don't see the much heavier than the E46. As I said, this is about the same an E46 M3 SMG weighed in at, mine with (I don't remember how much fuel) put in somewhere above 3500 at the weigh station at the dump. That was 6 years ago... but if the E92 weighs too much than the E46 weighed too much. Considering all they added, if a max 100 pound weight gain (which it does not even appear to be this much for the DCT vs. SMG) with the manual tranny is to be had, they should be commended not chastized.

A 3.2 liter six cylinder was ok for the 3400-3500 pound E46 but a 4.0 liter v8 is not enough for the marginally heavier E92? I think you are really reaching.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

You just think they've lied in public.

Or do you think they've gotten their sums wrong, or forgotten how to weigh an engine?

Nope, wrong on both counts. I stated my position and will state it here again since you have a serious inability to paraphrase.

Based on some simple reasoning and facts about their engines I do not believe specifications can be truly apples to apples and at the same time conclude that the C63 AMG engine is the same weight or lighter than the M3 engine.

PERIOD. PERIOD. PERIOD. I am sorry of my view on this does not fit some nice little one word description such as party A lied.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I believe your often flawless critical thinking has some neurons that refuse to fire when the M3 is on your mind.

Sarcasm won't go far with me when it disguises an insult. I don't think it will take you far with others herein either. Perhaps rather than sarcasm you can attack my argument or my "critical thinking" as I very carefully and rigorously laid it out just above in my post #90? Please counter my argument, please. You quickly resort to ad hominem when confronted with solid reasoning. Great, immature, avoidance and sarcasm. Powerful tools in the wild west of automotive forums. This only goes to further evidence of a recurring theme. You do not understand anything about me nor my opinions. Am I a huge M fan, yes. Are facts, logic and science infinitely more important to me than dedication to a brand? "Yes" is my resounding answer, over and over and over again. I tire with the repetition you require on this point.

[hellrotm]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Based on some simple reasoning and facts about their engines I do not believe specifications can be truly apples to apples and at the same time conclude that the C63 AMG engine is the same weight or lighter than the M3 engine.

I also have a hard time believing the C63 6.2 liter engine is lighter than the M3 4.0 liter. Honestly I don't care if it is lighter, but if I had to bet I wouldn't bet on the AMG powerplant being lighter.

After all, the M3 V8 is 33lbs lighter than the previous E46 M3 straight six engine.

How hard is if to find the numbers, they have to be out there somewhere. Hell, that 6.2 liter is in almost all of their AMG models.

[mixja]

The M3 engine on paper is a better engine than the C63. It makes just as much peak torque per cubic centimetre than the C63 but sustains torque for much longer than the C63.

And for all those bemoaning the lack of torque in the M3, well it all comes down to basic engine design. Making the decision to extract higher power at high RPMs means torque will be sacrificed at low RPMs - although variable cam timing helps.

And to the guy who said gear multiplication doesn't matter - torque to the wheels is what accelerates a car - not power.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Nope, wrong on both counts. I stated my position and will state it here again since you have a serious inability to paraphrase.

Based on some simple reasoning and facts about their engines I do not believe specifications can be truly apples to apples and at the same time conclude that the C63 AMG engine is the same weight or lighter than the M3 engine.

PERIOD. PERIOD. PERIOD. I am sorry of my view on this does not fit some nice little one word description such as party A lied.

We've both stated our positions several times now. Your restated-yet-again position in post 90 is just fine and dandy, but is still obviously missing at least one fact, or perhaps more than one. Neither of us has the foggiest idea of what is missing. Meanwhile, both Mercedes and BMW publish facts about their stuff according to established guidelines, and I believe them both. You didn't question BMW when they published, yet you question Mercedes? Part of your missing-neuron bias.

Originally Posted by swamp2

...You do not understand anything about me nor my opinions...

Sniff; sniff.

Listen guy, it's not that I don't enjoy reading Swamp's Sanctimonious Sermon more and more, every time I read it, but hey, I'm double parked.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by BlackJetE90

I also have a hard time believing the C63 6.2 liter engine is lighter than the M3 4.0 liter. Honestly I don't care if it is lighter, but if I had to bet I wouldn't bet on the AMG powerplant being lighter.

After all, the M3 V8 is 33lbs lighter than the previous E46 M3 straight six engine.

How hard is if to find the numbers, they have to be out there somewhere. Hell, that 6.2 liter is in almost all of their AMG models.

As we've been discussing ad nauseum, the published numbers are exactly the cause of the debate.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by mixja

...And to the guy who said gear multiplication doesn't matter - torque to the wheels is what accelerates a car - not power.

See, power is the great shorthand in this context. You don't have to know anything about torque or gear ratios. If one car is making more power than another at the same weight and at the same speed, it will accelerate harder than the car making less power at that point, regardless of gearing or the torque it's making. You can do the torque-at-the-drive-wheels exercise if you like (and believe me, I have, over and over and..), but you'll find that you don't have to bother.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

We've both stated our positions several times now. Your restated-yet-again position in post 90 is just fine and dandy, but is still obviously missing at least one fact, or perhaps more than one. Neither of us has the foggiest idea of what is missing. Meanwhile, both Mercedes and BMW publish facts about their stuff according to established guidelines, and I believe them both. You didn't question BMW when they published, yet you question Mercedes? Part of your missing-neuron bias.

Still wrong. This is getting absurd. My position does not accept either manufacturers numbers as gospel. Nor can you point out where I do. It is their combination which is not consistent. Another incorrect assumption on your behalf.

I see you keep strategically avoiding a direct argument against my position and reasoning. That is good enough for me to call case closed.

Yawn...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

See, power is the great shorthand in this context. You don't have to know anything about torque or gear ratios. If one car is making more power than another at the same weight and at the same speed, it will accelerate harder than the car making less power at that point, regardless of gearing or the torque it's making. You can do the torque-at-the-drive-wheels exercise if you like (and believe me, I have, over and over and..), but you'll find that you don't have to bother.

Bruce

hp is a decent but approximate "shorthand". It assumes that gearing is chosen in an ideal fashion and many compromises must be met with respect to the gear choices. One compromise there is the limitations of gear ratios in automatics. There is no way MT gear choices mimic automatics exactly - why - automatics have this inherent limitation from using planetary gear sets. With manuals (and sequentials and DCs) the designer chooses the exact ratio they desire. And of course in a performance car they are typically optimized for performance. The other reason why this is an approximation is as follows. Assume two cars making the same peak hp one with more torque one with more revs. This assumes that when accelerating hard at the same speed both vehicles are always making roughly the same power. The number of gears and choice of ratios can go a long way in insuring you keep a motor in its sweet spot for more of the time. This assumption of equal power is again a decent approximation but far from exact. (torque to the wheels - losses)/weight remains the clearest and most precise formulation.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by Hans Delbruck

What I want to know (since there is such vast factually-based knowledge here) is why the C63 gets under M3 fans skin so much. I don't remember this happening with the E46 M3 and C32 or C55.

Because of brutal torque and horsepower figures strapped to a chassis that is brutality mean and scary fast on the streets. M3ers do not want to see torque monsters lurking behind their neighbor's picket fences.

[luckistryke]

Think S2000. The 2.2 was a better engine in that car than the 2.0, even though it made the same power. The increased low and mid range torque made for a more responsive drive.



sorry OS. if i recall correctly from the s2ki board and from all the dynos back in the days. stock for stock the 2.2L put out 12hp - 15hp more than the 2.0L. oh by the way the 2.0L are more exciting to drive

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Thanks for the apology, but not needed. You actually made me laugh out loud, because your outrage caused me to remember an "event" I experienced way back when.

I had pulled into my local Sunoco station with my just-tuned '64 GTO, silver, TriPower, 4-speed, posi and all - and there were not one, but two XK-Es pulled up to the pumps.

Nirvana. I do the quick mental evaluation ("Yeah, I could take them through a quarter mile, but then..."), and pull up to a free pump next to one of the Jags.

The older guy who had just pulled in got out of the other Jag and began walking toward the one by me, giant smile on his face, hand beginning to reach out in preparation for a hearty shake, when the somewhat younger guy (who hadn't seen the other guy yet) lifted the hood.

Small-block Chevy!

Over a period of perhaps five seconds, the older guy's face went from joy, to confusion, to bewilderment, and finally to sheer outrage. He clenched his fists, and for a second I thought he was going to hit the other guy - and so did he.

Then he just sort of wilted, shuffled off to his "proper" XK-E, and drove off without getting gas.

Now, a lot of guys were stuffing small-blocks into Jags back then for what were obvious reasons at the time. The Jag was a temperamental, oil-guzzling, always-in-need-of-a-tuneup engine, prone to overheating, and with Lucas "Prince of Darkness" electrics. The Chevy was a more powerful, more reliable, cheaper to run powerplant, equipped with Delco electrics, plus there were cheap parts available everywhere, including an unbelievable array of speed equipment. It was even a little lighter than the Jag engine. Plus it made that brassy, blaring, clarion call to battle sound that only came in packages marked small block Chevy at the time.

Still, something was clearly lost. Those cam covers. That lovely, wicked and edgy snarl, at idle and everywhere else, turning to a melodious howl at full chat, as they say. I could see the case for both sides.

Now, of course, I feel the same way about the M3 with a Chevy motor. I personally don't give a damn about automotive tradition, for the M3 or any other car, so bolting some other powerplant in there that would make more power without additional weight is just fine with me. Of course, it would change the complexion of the car, but for me, so what? You'd lose that wonderful M3 sound, for example, but you'd pick up that wonderful Vette sound. And so on.

I certainly understand the outrage, however.

Bruce

I like your story and understand where you are coming from.

I have spent quite a lot of my spare time dreaming about cool car projects to soak up my spare time. One thing I would like to do one day is to put a LS? into a cheap but well designed and balanced chasis. I rescently attended a local Euro show and saw a beautiful third gen RX-7 (why is what a Euro show, I dont know) sitting in a showcase with its hood open for all to see the Corvette engine it had hiding inside. The owner started it up for everyone and oh what a mean sound. Probably not how I would want it to sound (I like stealth). Anyone who has been around Japanese sports cars would know right away this was no rotory under the hood. Anyhoo, gorgeous install and awesome car. The 3rd gen RX-7 is a gorgeous sports car that has been tainted with years of finicky rotory engine gripes. The Vette engine solved that problem and upped the performance at the same time. While, I have no love or attachment to high performance Mazda's I naturally hope to one day have something similar in my garage to call my pride and joy. However, I dont think I could do that to my BMW. My love for the M3 (all gens) includes the metallic gruff sound of german engineering, the sometimes finicky electronics, and even the head aches associated with owning a European car. I love the good and bad....

I am sure the Jag owner you referred to in your story probably felt the same way about his finicky Brithish GT. I dont think I would go Ape Sh*t if I saw a E92 M3 pull up with a Vette engine. In fact I would probably ask for a ride. I just do not think I could do that to my precious german piece of of art.

I dig the story though....

Jason

[ismelllikepoop]

is there an ignore function? i keep reading posts on how everyone else is wrong even if it's opinion.

[Hans Delbruck]

MB-AMG is working on direct injection for the 6.2l

Autoweek reports the DI version will have 580-600 HP

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by luckistryke

sorry OS. if i recall correctly from the s2ki board and from all the dynos back in the days. stock for stock the 2.2L put out 12hp - 15hp more than the 2.0L. oh by the way the 2.0L are more exciting to drive

Well, I stand corrected on the power, I guess. I should've said rated power, which was in fact identical.

My customers were routinely happier with the 2.2, but I know what you mean about driving excitement. I always thought our '95 M3 was more fun to drive than than the subsequent 3.2 E36s, simply because the 3.2s filled in that torque valley below 3500 rpm that existed in the 3 liter car. The 3.2 was clearly better, but there was no rush at 3500, and it felt a little less responsive as a result.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Sticky

...So now the M3 makes a lot of power? Before it was the LS3 was a better motor for it, then it was a motor that made a lot of power, next post it will be a great motor for the car. Figure out where you stand, then let me know.

Here's where I stand: The M3 makes a lot of power. Duh. It is in fact a great motor for the car, upholding M tradition and making the faithful completely happy. Even I like it, as already documented.

It would also be a better car with an LS3 under the hood, because that engine makes more power with no weight penalty, and it carries its weight lower, allowing for a lower cg.

Got it?

Originally Posted by Sticky

What was originally stated about the gearing stands, I don't see where we differ other than you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. You talk about power, what is power? Power is torque, multiplied by the RPM, divided by 5250. If you make only a couple hundred pound feet, if you maintain it and rev to the moon, you will eventually make more POWER than a more torquey motor. Power is a function of the torque, multiplied by the revs. Gearing is what allows one to take advantage of their powerband.

Look, you said the revs allow for more aggressive gearing. I say the car needs aggressive gearing. Maybe we leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Sticky

I never mentioned 3400 pounds, YOU DID. Refrain from telling others to work on their reading comprehension, when you are forgetting who said what. What I am referring to is this thread: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150435 By the way (get the pun?) the car weighed is a DCT.

Weight with no fuel: 3513 , hmm I don't see the much heavier than the E46. As I said, this is about the same an E46 M3 SMG weighed in at, mine with (I don't remember how much fuel) put in somewhere above 3500 at the weigh station at the dump. That was 6 years ago... but if the E92 weighs too much than the E46 weighed too much. Considering all they added, if a max 100 pound weight gain (which it does not even appear to be this much for the DCT vs. SMG) with the manual tranny is to be had, they should be commended not chastized.

A 3.2 liter six cylinder was ok for the 3400-3500 pound E46 but a 4.0 liter v8 is not enough for the marginally heavier E92? I think you are really reaching.

As of course I mentioned, our E46 weighed almost exactly 3400 pounds. That was with full fuel. That's a far cry from Swamp's car at 3629 pounds. Of course the automatic adds some poundage, but not a huge amount. Therefore, since I thought our '04 was too damned heavy (compared to our '95 car at just over 3200), the new car is TOO DAMNED HEAVY.

This is completely unrelated to the LS3 issue. It's just me bitchin' about how cars keep getting bigger and heavier, inevitably subtracting something from the driving experience. I will have to reiterate, however, that this is the first M3 to reverse the "little M" trend since the first one of being better cars, but less fun to drive. You can feel the extra weight in this one alright, but the engine more than makes up for it compared with that raspy, tinny-sounding E46.

Bruce

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

...I see you keep strategically avoiding a direct argument against my position and reasoning. That is good enough for me to call case closed.

Yawn...

I'm not avoiding anything. I don't have an argument against your reasoning, and never had - but it's pretty much pointless. You (and I, and others) are obviously missing something.

I believe both engines weigh what the manufacturers say they weigh, and I believe they're both weighed against a European standard, much like our U.S.-centric SAE standard for engine weights. I just don't know what that standard is, or how it may affect the results, if at all.

Bruce