|
|
|
|
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
04-14-2009, 07:32 PM | #23 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
You'll also lose throttle response with the turbos. If you're trying to solve the low-rpm "softness" problem, it simply doesn't exist when you're running through the gears. The only time it seems as if it's lacking a bit is in high gear from medium speeds. Even then, the M3 is very quick (note Car & Driver's 50-70 high gear time of 5.9 seconds, which is nothing less than excellent), but anybody driving one of these cars knows that nirvana is three or four gears lower at that point, so they just naturally want more out of top gear. The solution is either a steeper rear gear or the 4.6 stroker kit. Either of these is a bunch less expensive and challenging than an engine swap, and from a personal point of view, the gearing solution is the preferred way to go. It's less expensive, and I personally wonder how much of that zingy, rev-happy feel that the 4.0 exhibits will be lost in everyday driving because of the inevitable increase in rotational inertia with the stroker kit. Gas mileage? Direct inject the 4.0 that's in there. Now that Audi has shown the way, BMW can certainly do it too. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2009, 01:49 AM | #24 | |
Major
210
Rep 1,048
Posts |
Quote:
There's not much left to say besides -- BMW got it right The car's power output is perfect - down low, and up top. I don't think I have ever driven a car with a more finely tuned N/A engine than my E93. I've been driving my Mustang around all motor here for a few months trying to work out some weird electrical issues (mostly battery getting eaten by something, I assume a lose ground somewhere). I had it re-tuned and dyno'd and with all motor it put out around 375 HP and 380 TQ -- and even with 4.10 gears, it STILL doesn't feel anywhere as quick as the M3 does, and it weighs 1000 lb less. Granted, suspension sort of sucks on it, but eh... there's just something about that RIDICULOUS level of power you feel when you're going from 4k-8400. Oh, did I also mention that my Mustang gets 7-8 mpg in the city and the M gets 11-12 Damn conservative tunes. I'm waiting for the day I see an E9X M3 with a roots style blower on it... (probably won't happen, but I will shit myself if I ever get to experience that). I personally the only thing lacking from the M3 is the engine sound, but that can be easily fixed
__________________
2019 Jeep Wrangler | 2018 BMW 320i | 2016 Porsche Boxster Spyder | 2009 Jeep Wrangler
gone: 2015 M4, 2015 335i, 2012 Turbo S, 2008 M3, 2004 M3, 2003 330xi |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2009, 03:07 AM | #25 | |
Major General
416
Rep 6,968
Posts |
Quote:
Well, apparently they can get 485hp with 368lb torque out of the V8 without going turbo. Weight: 2,535 lbs./1150 kg Tank capacity: 29 gallons/110 Liters M3 GTR. Try smoking that in a regular M3 shoe horned with a V8TT http://www.rsportscars.com/bmw/2009-...-race-version/ |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2009, 03:22 AM | #26 | |
Major
210
Rep 1,048
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2019 Jeep Wrangler | 2018 BMW 320i | 2016 Porsche Boxster Spyder | 2009 Jeep Wrangler
gone: 2015 M4, 2015 335i, 2012 Turbo S, 2008 M3, 2004 M3, 2003 330xi |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2009, 10:55 AM | #27 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2009, 01:37 PM | #28 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
99
Rep 1,575
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2009, 02:08 PM | #29 | |
Private
0
Rep 69
Posts |
Quote:
Which is why the X5/X6 M makes many modifications to the base power plant (different engine exhaust management, exhaust flow, manifold dimensions, intercoolers, piston connecting rods, twin scroll garett turbochargers with higher operating PSI, etc.). You then have to match the drivetrain .. you're prob. going to need a different transmission .. else that poor thing will be spitting up blood with all the heat from the engine and high rpm downshifts. Change that all ... and well .. you've screwed up your entire power-to-weight ratio (if you're thinking of mounting that setup in the existing //M3 ) and you're going to need chassis and brake modifications to compensate as well as some more lightweight material to take out some of the added weight the new setup introduced! Now if the //M folks perfect the existing X5/X6 //M platform, FI management and turbo charging technology for true race engines (lightweight, high rpm, variable compression, cooling) and build it for a lightweight/high-strength/heat-resistant F1 block ... THEN .. we're talking. But taking a a torque monster that is supposed to be in an executive car (7-series) and think it can race ... YOU WISH. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2009, 04:47 PM | #30 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
99
Rep 1,575
Posts |
Quote:
you're taking what he said out of context. He was responding to a post which said a race car can beat a street car with a 4.4 in it. Thats true but, no one was talking about race cars. Even if it comes down to race cars, a race car with a racing NA V8 and a race car with a racing TT V8... all the melting and crazy shit youre talking about wouldnt happen cus they are both race cars. what derailed this convo was someone comparing a race car to a street car and visa versa.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2009, 06:16 PM | #31 | |
Private
0
Rep 69
Posts |
Quote:
Of course you wouldn't even need a TT V8 for that ... porsche 911 gt2 anyone ... ?? ... and with what that engine is going to end up costing .. it better LAP the NA V8 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-18-2009, 08:36 AM | #32 |
Lieutenant
24
Rep 404
Posts |
I'm sure the 4.4TT engine from the X6 would mess-up the M3's balance, but I played with an X6 and my M3 the other day. All I can say is all that torque + 4wd + huge tyres = great standing start acceleration, especially for a car that weighs 500 odd kilos more than the M3! Here in Bombay we have slippery concrete roads and there was no way I could launch the M3 hard enough to keep up with the X6 (up to 100 Km/h), after that it was all over!
So, sorry this doesn't answer your question, but that X6 is not a bad car. Can only imagine what the X6M will be like! |
Appreciate
0
|
04-18-2009, 11:39 PM | #33 |
Major
868
Rep 1,247
Posts |
I wish BMW would have put more power in the new M3. I owned the E36 and E46 and loved them both and the E46 was a major improvement over the E36. But the new version is very disappointing to me. Not much of an improvement over the E46 IMO. Since they were putting a V8 in the car it should have been more powerful. The TQ improvement is almost nothing compared to the E46. Put a more powerful V8 either N/A or Turbo, something. Until then I will continue to enjoy my powerful 500+ HP and 480+ TQ C63, which BTW handles almost as well as the M3, speaking from experience.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-19-2009, 12:14 AM | #34 |
Racying Dynamics
118
Rep 4,391
Posts |
Hmmm, why not a 6.0L twin turbo V12, why limit it to only 8 cylinders? Or maybe even a W16 with 4 turbos.
__________________
==================================================
Last edited by KonigsTiger; 04-22-2009 at 10:16 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-22-2009, 07:12 PM | #35 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
99
Rep 1,575
Posts |
Quote:
The torque improvement between a E92 and a E46 is greater then the improvement between a E46 and a E36 which you loved and considered a major improvement. The E46 gained 26 lb.ft. of torque over the E36 The E92 gained 33 lb.ft. of torque over the E46 I agree that more power would be better, of course. But I dont think its the power between the E46 and the E92 that you are disappointed in, I think its just the overall feel of the car. That and you're driving a 3.3 second car lol
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-23-2009, 07:48 AM | #37 | |
Colonel
148
Rep 2,278
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
2015 f80 M3, 2016 GT3
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-23-2009, 10:37 AM | #38 | |
I like cars
329
Rep 5,052
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
My photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/racelap/
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Tags |
s63 |
|
|