Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Dinan tuned 335i: 140.33 ft.lb./litre. 'nuff said.

Hey there Jimmy, you think it is even sensible to compare NA to FI?

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by lucid

This thread is going way off-topic. Please post only if you have anything to add to the discussion the OP initiated.

+1 it's gone far enough, all have an opinion lets just call it day on this "TROLL" thing, this thread has come to an end IMO, close it.

[Kbueno]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

+1. We also have to put into consideration that we are discussing this based on the context of everyday daily driving.

I think we all agree here, that when driving the M3 like you stole it, it runs like a bat out of hell.

Context is key here. Unfortunately, most people's context is not to drive it like you stole it. Hence the disagreement.

I agree. Driving like you are hot lapping on a track, you'll never be low enough in the rev range to even feel it. People can quote numbers all day long, but the usable power down low is lacking. And to call people who perceive this and call it out as "lazy" is BS. Everyone has different driving styles and I'm not the type to rev my 75k M3 (if I had one ) over 4000 rpm everywhere I go just to have the power delivery I want. I think in the hands of a competent tuner, this effect could be lessened? Much ado about nothing really.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Hey there Jimmy, you think it is even sensible to compare NA to FI?

Yes I do.

[SHOWTIME]

The M3 is in fact a bit low on torque compared to its present competitors. There is no way of arguing your way around this like trying to prove what a marvel the engine is in how it produces great tque per liter and blah blah. That's great! Then it should've been a 4.4L+ and nobody would've had a problem. How much more really would this have costed?? While BMW is trying to prove what they can do with small displacement, you're getting your a$$es spanked by others at lower speeds (especially light to light). Then what do you say? Oh follow me and lets race 100mph+ and I'll show you high revving on turns? Anyways, it's not just about the racing. It's the everyday feeling too.

The same could be said about brakes. Do you really need 4-6 piston 14+inch rotors to get the car stopping? No, but why not have it anyway since the similarly priced competitors do? It has a nicer feel, more confidence and looks better too.

The M3 badge is a strong name. They spend so much money and effort to perfect the car everywhere else, so why not give it that extra torque that everyone would appreciate? and dare I say even more HP? Then it would trully be on top of the game everywhere.

I already know what some of you will say. BMW M doesn't follow anyone's philosophy. They engineer the car to be what they feel is the right amount. Well if that's the case, let them continue doing this and the competition will just keep getting closer and is already surpassing the M3 in some categories.

[gr8000]

Originally Posted by SHOWTIME

The M3 is in fact a bit low on torque compared to its present competitors. There is no way of arguing your way around this like trying to prove what a marvel the engine is in how it produces great tque per liter and blah blah. That's great! Then it should've been a 4.4L+ and nobody would've had a problem. How much more really would this have costed?? While BMW is trying to prove what they can do with small displacement, you're getting your a$$es spanked by others at lower speeds (especially light to light). Then what do you say? Oh follow me and lets race 100mph+ and I'll show you high revving on turns? Anyways, it's not just about the racing. It's the everyday feeling too.

The same could be said about brakes. Do you really need 4-6 piston 14+inch rotors to get the car stopping? No, but why not have it anyway since the similarly priced competitors do? It has a nicer feel, more confidence and looks better too.

The M3 badge is a strong name. They spend so much money and effort to perfect the car everywhere else, so why not give it that extra torque that everyone would appreciate? and dare I say even more HP? Then it would trully be on top of the game everywhere.

Any car would be better off with more torque, more hp, bigger brakes etc etc. But somewhere the line needs to be drawn, otherwise you keep on getting bigger & bigger, heavier, more expensive and so on. There is a fine balance which M3 engineers felt is optimal for the target clientel of this car and for its price (which has already been bumped up from E46). The rest anybody can add & pay extra by means of modds, stroker, SC or whichever other solution available.

To those that feel that the M3 lacks torque down low (and I am not one of them): You can't have it all guys! This is already a great car out of the box.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by SHOWTIME

The M3 is in fact a bit low on torque compared to its present competitors. There is no way of arguing your way around this like trying to prove what a marvel the engine is in how it produces great tque per liter and blah blah. That's great! Then it should've been a 4.4L+ and nobody would've had a problem. How much more really would this have costed?? While BMW is trying to prove what they can do with small displacement, you're getting your a$$es spanked by others at lower speeds (especially light to light). Then what do you say? Oh follow me and lets race 100mph+ and I'll show you high revving on turns? Anyways, it's not just about the racing. It's the everyday feeling too.

The same could be said about brakes. Do you really need 4-6 piston 14+inch rotors to get the car stopping? No, but why not have it anyway since the similarly priced competitors do? It has a nicer feel, more confidence and looks better too.

The M3 badge is a strong name. They spend so much money and effort to perfect the car everywhere else, so why not give it that extra torque that everyone would appreciate? and dare I say even more HP? Then it would trully be on top of the game everywhere.

I already know what some of you will say. BMW M doesn't follow anyone's philosophy. They engineer the car to be what they feel is the right amount. Well if that's the case, let them continue doing this and the competition will just keep getting closer and is already surpassing the M3 in some categories.

Usually, when *I* lose a stoplight battle, I either try to hit on the guy's girlfriend (assuming he has one) or challenge him to a fist fight! If that doesn't work, I just whip out my penor and show it to him to make sure that he knows mine is bigger!!

If none of that works (VERY rare), I drink a lot of redbull and teabag people in an online video game.

[SHOWTIME]

Originally Posted by Singletrack

Usually, when *I* lose a stoplight battle, I either try to hit on the guy's girlfriend (assuming he has one) or challenge him to a fist fight! If that doesn't work, I just whip out my penor and show it to him to make sure that he knows mine is bigger!!

If none of that works (VERY rare), I drink a lot of redbull and teabag people in an online video game.

[frankTHEtanksM3]

Yes i definitely agree with you.

[waremark]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Pin the throttle in 7th at ~45 mph and the car truly lacks the acceleration of some of its competitors. This is a problem for lazy drivers but absolutely not a problem for those willing to shift.

The lazy drivers will be in D. When they pin the throttle the DCT will direct shift to 2nd and they will be gone.

I cannot imagine why you would be in S/7th at 45 in a situation where you anticipated needing acceleration.

The funny thing is that I find the car has plenty of torque - I am mainly comparing it to the E46 in which the performance was very modest unless you used high revs. In the E92 you can drive pretty swiftly without going over 4k revs. But admittedly I am comparing with 'regular' cars, rather than with the C63 or Corvette, which do pull better at low revs, though overall most of us have chosen the M3 over those cars.

BTW, I just wanted to get off the bottom of the list:

Originally Posted by sam.k

This is not relevant, but....

Here is a list of top posters in this thread//

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 828

User Name Posts
footie 96
Jim Pearce 68
MVF4Rrider 64
330CIZHP 45
bruce.augenstein@comcast. 40
swamp2 40
Gearhead999s 37
-=Hot|Ice=- 25
smmmurf 24
///Metak 22
lucid 22


graider 6
!Xoible 6
zuggerat89 6
southlight 5
Garissimo 5
stingray23 5
waremark 5

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by waremark

The lazy drivers will be in D. When they pin the throttle the DCT will direct shift to 2nd and they will be gone.

I cannot imagine why you would be in S/7th at 45 in a situation where you anticipated needing acceleration.

Absolutely. I've made the point about D as well. I was really just talking about purposefully really pushing the limits of bad and lazy driving to feel the poor acceleration.

Originally Posted by waremark

BTW, I just wanted to get off the bottom of the list:

You'll really have to start up and participate in a very controversial sub topic here to get you thread post count up

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Absolutely. I've made the point about D as well. I was really just talking about purposefully really pushing the limits of bad and lazy driving to feel the poor acceleration.



You'll really have to start up and participate in a very controversial sub topic here to get you thread post count up

But, but, but... the trolls will say that the car lacks enough low end torque to tow a large elephant or horse trailer below 2500 rpm?

S65 FTW.

[RogEphedra]

I guess nobody is happy with their car's low-end torque:

http://www.r8talk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1613
And I quote: "Hey guys, I think I've found the reason why the R8 doesn't FEEL quick.....In my opinion BMW has created a fantastic V8 engine. Very impressive. Audi could have done better."

http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showthread.php?t=23608
From a Corvette guy: "Speaking of torque (i.e. no wonder the E90/92 M3 is so fast...)"



I slogged through all 39 pages of this post and learned A TON. Thanks to every person who posted and debated here, including all those who are at loggerheads with each other on this issue. I got a much better understanding of how to drive my car by reading this thread.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by RogEphedra

I guess nobody is happy with their car's low-end torque:

http://www.r8talk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1613
And I quote: "Hey guys, I think I've found the reason why the R8 doesn't FEEL quick.....In my opinion BMW has created a fantastic V8 engine. Very impressive. Audi could have done better."

http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showthread.php?t=23608
From a Corvette guy: "Speaking of torque (i.e. no wonder the E90/92 M3 is so fast...)"

Good stuff. This is exactly what I was saying about engine torque vs. wheel.

[haze gray]

Drive the car. Enjoy the car you bought.

[quackman]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

Good stuff. This is exactly what I was saying about engine torque vs. wheel.

Yeah I loved your posts and the other guys who were trying to say the same thing you were. I and a lot of people I know never realized exactly what a dyno's numbers represent until I read more about it in this thread. It certainly explains why the M3 is as fast/faster than other comparable cars that make more engine torque.

thanks!

[McLuVan]

not enough tq WTF!!!
I don't know about you guys but I can't even get traction in 1st!

[rav7ks]

I love this car !
Around town I drive slow- don't really care about racing from stoplight to stoplight. When I hit the highway there is plenty of torque available to go >100mph in no time.

[RogEphedra]

Originally Posted by rav7ks

I love this car !
Around town I drive slow- don't really care about racing from stoplight to stoplight. When I hit the highway there is plenty of torque available to go >100mph in no time.

I love it too! I'm kinda the opposite of you, though. I'm not one for sustaining a speed over the speed limit (unless I'm following others who are speeding), so I like to accelerate quickly to a pretty high speed on empty highway feeder roads but then let off the gas to get back down to the speed limit quickly. That allows me to get a kick out of the acceleration, but minimizes my chances of getting a ticket.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by RogEphedra

I love it too! I'm kinda the opposite of you, though. I'm not one for sustaining a speed over the speed limit (unless I'm following others who are speeding), so I like to accelerate quickly to a pretty high speed on empty highway feeder roads but then let off the gas to get back down to the speed limit quickly. That allows me to get a kick out of the acceleration, but minimizes my chances of getting a ticket.

I think this is how many of use really drive, I know I follow the same tactics as "PLOD" in the UK pays most of it's attention on speeding, rather than "Proper policing".

[footie]

Originally Posted by RogEphedra

I guess nobody is happy with their car's low-end torque:

http://www.r8talk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1613
And I quote: "Hey guys, I think I've found the reason why the R8 doesn't FEEL quick.....In my opinion BMW has created a fantastic V8 engine. Very impressive. Audi could have done better."

http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showthread.php?t=23608
From a Corvette guy: "Speaking of torque (i.e. no wonder the E90/92 M3 is so fast...)"



I slogged through all 39 pages of this post and learned A TON. Thanks to every person who posted and debated here, including all those who are at loggerheads with each other on this issue. I got a much better understanding of how to drive my car by reading this thread.

You are right for most N/A owners if these links are to be believed as a cross-section of owners but I haven't heard AMG owners complaining or FI owners where the engines are stock and not turned into peaky monsters in the pursuit of more power.

I don't think even I would deny that for it's capacity and having no turbos and supercharger attached that the S65 isn't a brilliant engine. But I have viewed quite a few comparison tests conducted not against the R8 but the RS4 and I never witnessed the M3 to have a huge advantage in gear (both 6MT), as for comparisons between it and a Vette, again I'm British so I'm not that similar with any of these comparison tests that have been conducted between the two, it's just a shame that Bruce wasn't still here as he could add his wealthy experience of the breed and could argue the case that the Vette was stronger than that of the M3 in-gear.

In-gear times determines low end torque not using the gears to the full because if that is your thing and always intend to work the gearbox then any torque below 5000rpm is something you seldom feel or even noticed. In fact the only thing you will notice is the constant filling up at the petrol pumps.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by footie

In fact the only thing you will notice is the constant filling up at the petrol pumps.

I am not sure if you actually own an M3 or even driven some of the hardware you comment on, however "I HAVE" both owned and driven all but the US monster.
Having owned the very last of the RS4 B7's; owned the AMG55 and driven extensively the C63, I can say with confidence the M3 with M-DCT and EDC (not manual) is the better car of the three mentioned.
Economy wise the M3 can easily achieve 26/29 MPG in normal driving in my area.
The RS4 B7 gave 22/25 MPG and The worst of the three the C63 gave 17 MPG
Torque in the C63 is much more evident than in the the RS4 or M3, BUT in the M3 with M-DCT in a 1/10 of a second can drop2/3 gears and be gone just as quick if not quicker than the C63, the RS4 on the other hand is somewhat slower on the uptake.
So with the exception of the US monster in left hand drive only I will be enjoying my new M3 when it finally stops snowing that is.