Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[footie]

My comment was directed at your immature attempt at humour with your picture of Troll spray. The funny thing is that most here can hold a decent discussion/debate about something yet there are a few which if they haven't got something constructive to say simply turn to personal attacks as if it's somehow mature of them.

Frankly of all the M owners I know personally none of them wouldn't conduct themselves in such an immature manner but then again all of them would be in their forties which probably helps.

[graider]

Originally Posted by footie

My comment was directed at your immature attempt at humour with your picture of Troll spray. The funny thing is that most here can hold a decent discussion/debate about something yet there are a few which if they haven't got something constructive to say simply turn to personal attacks as if it's somehow mature of them.

Frankly of all the M owners I know personally none of them wouldn't conduct themselves in such an immature manner but then again all of them would be in their forties which probably helps.

his troll spray was freaking funny though. that gave me a good laught. isn't that the point of reading the forum? happiness.

personally i have no issue toward guys like bruce, burrito, shiftred, you, etc. it what makes the forum interesting to read/argue.

i don't think his troll spray is immature. he was just joking really.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

My comment was directed at your immature attempt at humour with your picture of Troll spray. The funny thing is that most here can hold a decent discussion/debate about something yet there are a few which if they haven't got something constructive to say simply turn to personal attacks as if it's somehow mature of them.

Frankly of all the M owners I know personally none of them wouldn't conduct themselves in such an immature manner but then again all of them would be in their forties which probably helps.

Well, if you can accept that's what you're doing, good for you. My comment was intended to be humorous. There is nothing constructive left to say in this thread other than you go enjoy your car and I go enjoy mine.

Frankly, bringing up age and maturity isn't the most mature thing to do, either. I'd imagine a mature poster would ignore something so trivial. In fact, a mature poster would have moved on from this black hole a long time ago.

Then again, I never claimed to be mature, only that I like my car and think it has plenty of power.

Either way, this thread's dead!

[footie]

Well considering the amount of praise I have given towards the M3 over the years since I joined, the fact I owned one and the limited issues I have voiced about the product I reckon I have far more personal attacks and digs than was ever warranted. So what you may class as humour I class as childish behaviour.

The problem you and others have with me is that I don't dislike other rival brands, in fact in many cases I see better rival products than what BMW have, it's not always the case and more times than not BMW products are better but not always. Quoting a reference to another rival product is something everyone does as normal, sadly some here see that as trolling, I see it as necessary because without a reference point then it's very hard to understand what makes something better or worse and another.

So as I have posted else where on this forum I think as a few here do that this place has been infested by kids that get their jollies from disruptive behaviour which is slowly but surely driving away those of us which actually post worthwhile contain.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

Well considering the amount of praise I have given towards the M3 over the years since I joined, the fact I owned one and the limited issues I have voiced about the product I reckon I have far more personal attacks and digs than was ever warranted. So what you may class as humour I class as childish behaviour.

The problem you and others have with me is that I don't dislike other rival brands, in fact in many cases I see better rival products than what BMW have, it's not always the case and more times than not BMW products are better but not always. Quoting a reference to another rival product is something everyone does as normal, sadly some here see that as trolling, I see it as necessary because without a reference point then it's very hard to understand what makes something better or worse and another.

So as I have posted else where on this forum I think as a few here do that this place has been infested by kids that get their jollies from disruptive behaviour which is slowly but surely driving away those of us which actually post worthwhile contain.

That's still a fancy way of calling us fanboys just because we like our cars.

I only speak for myself, but I have no problem giving credit where credit is due whether it to be other brands or other models. I posted a very extensive review comparing my E46 to my E90 a month or so ago where I favor the older car in a few important categories. There are plenty of other areas like nav, fuel efficiency, and reliability where other brands/models clearly shine. The M3 is still the total package. But that's not the point.

The behavior that is considered trolling is the persistent attempt to convince owners that their car has a problem by comparing it to some diesel or turbo Audi, contorting facts to tell a very different picture from reality. Duh, this N/A rocket is not going to accelerate as fast as a those will from 30mph in top gear. That's what a gearbox is meant for. Like some other poster commented, you have DCT so that is really no excuse at all as it has a kickdown feature that works remarkably well.

I don't know if this is the truth and I know you will never admit this to be the case, but what it looks like from the outside is that you are bitter about selling an awesome, exciting car and replacing it with a boring diesel Jag. If you had replaced your car with a Z06 or a C63, I might understand, but I would never trade down from an M3 to some hauler unless circumstances forced me to.

If you think humor is childish and youth is an infestation, I pity you and hope I never grow up.

Originally Posted by graider

his troll spray was freaking funny though. that gave me a good laught. isn't that the point of reading the forum? happiness.

personally i have no issue toward guys like bruce, burrito, shiftred, you, etc. it what makes the forum interesting to read/argue.

i don't think his troll spray is immature. he was just joking really.

^^At least someone gets it.

[BMRLVR]

Let's get one thing clear..... The M3 is not low on Torque, it is low on displacement.

Let's do a quick comparison of Lb-ft/Litre output of some other NA cars compared to the M3.

*Dodge Viper: 66.67 Lb-ft/Litre
*Corvette Z06: 67.36 Lb-ft/Litre
*C63 AMG: 71.45 Lb-ft/Litre
*BMW M3: 73.75 Lb-ft/Litre
*Lexus IS-F: 74.6 Lb-ft/Litre
*Audi RS4: 75.48 Lb-ft/Litre

Based on that comparison the car has only 2 Lb-ft/Litre less than the "Torquiest" engine in the list..... And over 6 Lb-ft/Litre more than the "Least Torquey".

The thing that is the most amazing is that the M3 actually had the broadest powerband of the lot. With 90% of peak torque available From 2500RPM TO 8400RPM the useable rev range of the engine surpasses all of the others on the list.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Viper it would have ~ 870 BHP and 620 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Z06 it would have ~ 725 BHP and 516 Lb/ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the C63 it would have ~ 641 BHP and 457 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the IS-F it would have ~ 518 BHP and 369 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the RS4 it would have ~ 434 BHP and 310 Lb-ft.

Two of the cars listed above actually made more torque per litre but none made more BHP per litre. The fact that the M3 makes so much horsepower per litre is due to the fact that it is able to maintain 90% of peak torque production right to it's stratospheric 8400RPM redline.

Those of you that are disapointed in the torque output of the car are either un-informed or un educated when it comes to the dynamics and limitations of naturally aspirated internal combustion engines.

So on that note I rest my case. The M3 does not lack torque, it lacks displacement!

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Let's get one thing clear..... The M3 is not low on Torque, it is low on displacement.

Let's do a quick comparison of Lb-ft/Litre output of some other NA cars compared to the M3.

*Dodge Viper: 66.67 Lb-ft/Litre
*Corvette Z06: 67.36 Lb-ft/Litre
*C63 AMG: 71.45 Lb-ft/Litre
*BMW M3: 73.75 Lb-ft/Litre
*Lexus IS-F: 74.6 Lb-ft/Litre
*Audi RS4: 75.48 Lb-ft/Litre

Based on that comparison the car is within 2 Lb-ft/Litre of the "Torquiest" engine in the list..... And over 6 Lb-ft/Litre of the weakest of the "Least Torquey".

The thing that is the most amazing is that the M3 actually had the broadest powerband of the lot. With 90% of peak torque available From 2500RPM TO 8400RPM the useable rev range of the engine surpasses all of the others on the list.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Viper it would have ~ 870 BHP and 620 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Z06 it would have ~ 725 BHP and 516 Lb/ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the C63 it would have ~ 641 BHP and 457 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the IS-F it would have ~ 518 BHP and 369 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the RS4 it would have ~ 434 BHP and 310 Lb-ft.

Two of the cars listed above actually made more torque per litre but none made more BHP per litre. The fact that the M3 makes so much horsepower per litre is due to the fact that it is able to maintain 90% of peak torque production right to it's stratospheric 8400RPM redline.

Those of you that are disapointed in the torque output of the car are either un-informed or un educated when it comes to the dynamics and limitations of naturally aspirated internal combustion engines.

So on that note I rest my case. The M3 does not lack torque, it lacks displacement.

Great post! And totally agree.

[330CIZHP]

Pretty much everyone is in agreement here except the Audi troll with the diesel torquey Jaguar called Footie. His trolling tendencies have not been observed by a couple people, but 99% of the members on this board who is always in constant denial.

For a high-revving engine and for what M3 is meant to be, 300 ft-lbs is more than enough low end for anyone's use since it is built to deliver power across 8400 rpm rather than 6500 rpm on most other cars that fall flat on their face after 5000 rpm. That is why M3 has the lightweight flywheel and short gearing all of which are supposed to make sure it is a complete free-revving engine to redline as quickly as possible and give it a much more "top heavy nature". I am 100% sure if you swap out the flywheel for a heavier one and make the final drive much taller, it will deceive the driver into believing it is very torquey, but will not rev to redline easily and will always want to stay below 5000 rpm. Again, it will be deception and actual loss in performance.

The example I give is having 300 ft-lbs of torque is more than enough low end torque to haul 6000 lbs trailer provided it has the right heavy flywheel, gear ratios and suspension for hauling. My manager does that in his Tacoma 4.0 Liter V6 that delivers 266 ft-lbs@4000 rpm (a good 30 ft-lbs less than the M3) and despite it weighing in at 4200 lbs, he hauls his 5000 lbs trailer uphill into the mountains.

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Let's get one thing clear..... The M3 is not low on Torque, it is low on displacement.

Let's do a quick comparison of Lb-ft/Litre output of some other NA cars compared to the M3.

*Dodge Viper: 66.67 Lb-ft/Litre
*Corvette Z06: 67.36 Lb-ft/Litre
*C63 AMG: 71.45 Lb-ft/Litre
*BMW M3: 73.75 Lb-ft/Litre
*Lexus IS-F: 74.6 Lb-ft/Litre
*Audi RS4: 75.48 Lb-ft/Litre

Based on that comparison the car has only 2 Lb-ft/Litre less than the "Torquiest" engine in the list..... And over 6 Lb-ft/Litre more than the "Least Torquey".

The thing that is the most amazing is that the M3 actually had the broadest powerband of the lot. With 90% of peak torque available From 2500RPM TO 8400RPM the useable rev range of the engine surpasses all of the others on the list.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Viper it would have ~ 870 BHP and 620 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Z06 it would have ~ 725 BHP and 516 Lb/ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the C63 it would have ~ 641 BHP and 457 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the IS-F it would have ~ 518 BHP and 369 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the RS4 it would have ~ 434 BHP and 310 Lb-ft.

Two of the cars listed above actually made more torque per litre but none made more BHP per litre. The fact that the M3 makes so much horsepower per litre is due to the fact that it is able to maintain 90% of peak torque production right to it's stratospheric 8400RPM redline.

Those of you that are disapointed in the torque output of the car are either un-informed or un educated when it comes to the dynamics and limitations of naturally aspirated internal combustion engines.

So on that note I rest my case. The M3 does not lack torque, it lacks displacement!

[!Xoible]

good post. the problem is we dont have the displacement of a Viper. maybe we should...

damn that'd be sick if you drop a TT Viper engine in the M3

[Radiation Joe]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Pretty much everyone is in agreement here except the Audi troll with the diesel torquey Jaguar called Footie. His trolling tendencies have not been observed by a couple people, but 99% of the members on this board who is always in constant denial.

For a high-revving engine and for what M3 is meant to be, 300 ft-lbs is more than enough low end for anyone's use since it is built to deliver power across 8400 rpm rather than 6500 rpm on most other cars that fall flat on their face after 5000 rpm. That is why M3 has the lightweight flywheel and short gearing all of which are supposed to make sure it is a complete free-revving engine to redline as quickly as possible and give it a much more "top heavy nature". I am 100% sure if you swap out the flywheel for a heavier one and make the final drive much taller, it will deceive the driver into believing it is very torquey, but will not rev to redline easily and will always want to stay below 5000 rpm. Again, it will be deception and actual loss in performance.

The example I give is having 300 ft-lbs of torque is more than enough low end torque to haul 6000 lbs trailer provided it has the right heavy flywheel, gear ratios and suspension for hauling. My manager does that in his Tacoma 4.0 Liter V6 that delivers 266 ft-lbs@4000 rpm (a good 30 ft-lbs less than the M3) and despite it weighing in at 4200 lbs, he hauls his 5000 lbs trailer uphill into the mountains.

If you think M3 "lacks torque" down low by any standards, you are downright a clear mor*n

Strike two ...

[kmarei]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Let's get one thing clear..... The M3 is not low on Torque, it is low on displacement.

Let's do a quick comparison of Lb-ft/Litre output of some other NA cars compared to the M3.

*Dodge Viper: 66.67 Lb-ft/Litre
*Corvette Z06: 67.36 Lb-ft/Litre
*C63 AMG: 71.45 Lb-ft/Litre
*BMW M3: 73.75 Lb-ft/Litre
*Lexus IS-F: 74.6 Lb-ft/Litre
*Audi RS4: 75.48 Lb-ft/Litre

Based on that comparison the car has only 2 Lb-ft/Litre less than the "Torquiest" engine in the list..... And over 6 Lb-ft/Litre more than the "Least Torquey".

The thing that is the most amazing is that the M3 actually had the broadest powerband of the lot. With 90% of peak torque available From 2500RPM TO 8400RPM the useable rev range of the engine surpasses all of the others on the list.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Viper it would have ~ 870 BHP and 620 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Z06 it would have ~ 725 BHP and 516 Lb/ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the C63 it would have ~ 641 BHP and 457 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the IS-F it would have ~ 518 BHP and 369 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the RS4 it would have ~ 434 BHP and 310 Lb-ft.

Two of the cars listed above actually made more torque per litre but none made more BHP per litre. The fact that the M3 makes so much horsepower per litre is due to the fact that it is able to maintain 90% of peak torque production right to it's stratospheric 8400RPM redline.

Those of you that are disapointed in the torque output of the car are either un-informed or un educated when it comes to the dynamics and limitations of naturally aspirated internal combustion engines.

So on that note I rest my case. The M3 does not lack torque, it lacks displacement!

i guess this ends the thread
well put

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by kmarei

i guess this ends the thread....

I seriously doubt that...

[Radiation Joe]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Let's get one thing clear..... The M3 is not low on Torque, it is low on displacement.

Let's do a quick comparison of Lb-ft/Litre output of some other NA cars compared to the M3.

*Dodge Viper: 66.67 Lb-ft/Litre
*Corvette Z06: 67.36 Lb-ft/Litre
*C63 AMG: 71.45 Lb-ft/Litre
*BMW M3: 73.75 Lb-ft/Litre
*Lexus IS-F: 74.6 Lb-ft/Litre
*Audi RS4: 75.48 Lb-ft/Litre

Based on that comparison the car has only 2 Lb-ft/Litre less than the "Torquiest" engine in the list..... And over 6 Lb-ft/Litre more than the "Least Torquey".

The thing that is the most amazing is that the M3 actually had the broadest powerband of the lot. With 90% of peak torque available From 2500RPM TO 8400RPM the useable rev range of the engine surpasses all of the others on the list.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Viper it would have ~ 870 BHP and 620 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the Z06 it would have ~ 725 BHP and 516 Lb/ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the C63 it would have ~ 641 BHP and 457 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the IS-F it would have ~ 518 BHP and 369 Lb-ft.

If the M3 had the displacement of the RS4 it would have ~ 434 BHP and 310 Lb-ft.

Two of the cars listed above actually made more torque per litre but none made more BHP per litre. The fact that the M3 makes so much horsepower per litre is due to the fact that it is able to maintain 90% of peak torque production right to it's stratospheric 8400RPM redline.

Those of you that are disapointed in the torque output of the car are either un-informed or un educated when it comes to the dynamics and limitations of naturally aspirated internal combustion engines.

So on that note I rest my case. The M3 does not lack torque, it lacks displacement!

I agree with you on how the S65 maintains torque over an extremely wide rpm range. This what makes this engine great. Usable power over a wide range.

However, you can't quote peak torque or peak HP numbers and draw any kind of conclusion, as has been accurately pointed out many times in this thread. An M3 engine the size of a Viper engine wouldn't make the kind of power you quoted, it would just explode. The only way to look at engine performance is by integrating the area under the HP curve over a given rpm range.

By the way, I also believe the S65 is lacking in torque, but only in one area. There is a huge flat spot in the torque curve between 2000 and 3000 rpm which is where the most people tend to run when cruising along. Once out of this range the engine is on song and is wonderful.

[gatorfast]

omg i cant believe this thread is still going. Cant everyone just agree that the tq is what it is and whether it is enough or not is completely subjective to the person driving?

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by Radiation Joe

I agree with you on how the S65 maintains torque over an extremely wide rpm range. This what makes this engine great. Usable power over a wide range.

However, you can't quote peak torque or peak HP numbers and draw any kind of conclusion, as has been accurately pointed out many times in this thread. An M3 engine the size of a Viper engine wouldn't make the kind of power you quoted, it would just explode. The only way to look at engine performance is by integrating the area under the HP curve over a given rpm range.

By the way, I also believe the S65 is lacking in torque, but only in one area. There is a huge flat spot in the torque curve between 2000 and 3000 rpm which is where the most people tend to run when cruising along. Once out of this range the engine is on song and is wonderful.

The S65 (or a design losely based on it) certainly would stay together if it had viper displacement. Engine output is all about volumetric efficiency. If you were able to properly manage the force developed by heavier pistons/crankshaft with more exotic materials and you could maintain the same volumetric efficiency it could and would stay together. Don't get me wrong, I know this would be neither cheap or easy but it is possible.

I guess what I am saying is not so much the S65 is the best engine in the since sliced bread but rather the other manufacturers make power by displacement and not by optimizing the volumetric efficiency of their designs like BMW has done with the S65. The RDSport and Dinan Strokers have shown us that you can indeed add over 10% displacement to the S65 and keep the same power-delivery and high revving nature of the S65.

So say what you want about the lack of torque but compared to almost anything shy of a Ferarri or an F1 engine, the S65 in our M3's is an engineering marvel. Dollar for dollar it is the most versatile and amazing engine of it's kind and it would not be out of place in a car at double or triple the point of the M3.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Radiation Joe

The DCT is a marketing gimmick. It is not successful in racing. I am not aware of any class of racing where the DCT is "successful". If I remember back to the Speed channel test drive at Laguna Seca, the pro driver said he'd prefer a manual to the DCT he drove.

Let me clarify. Automated manual transmissions are successful in racing because they offer the fastest shifts and the best ability for the driver to focus on what computers and hydraulics can do much better than any race driver. I did not mean to imply (nor do I believe) that M-DCT from BMW as it is has been successful in racing.

Even with the minor glitches the DCT had out of the box calling it a "gimmick" is simply absurd. More gears, better ratios more performance and more flexibility. Those are the facts. If you call that a gimmick we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Now that being said, I am very empathetic to your ongoing DCT nightmare. I wouldn't expect you to have an objective point of view on the transmission. I know it is hard to believe but many of us have had no problems with ours that were not fairly promptly addressed with software.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by BMRLVR

Let's get one thing clear..... The M3 is not low on Torque, it is low on displacement.
...
Those of you that are disapointed in the torque output of the car are either un-informed or un educated when it comes to the dynamics and limitations of naturally aspirated internal combustion engines.

So on that note I rest my case. The M3 does not lack torque, it lacks displacement!

I like looking at torque per liter too. It takes great engineering prowess to obtain. However, in the real world it is less important. A Vette skins the cat just as well as the M3 with a very different engine design philosophy. Like Bruce has pointed out (for the engines) similar weight, lower center of gravity, lower cost/simpler, better mpg. You just can't argue with that no matter how many liters of displacement it has.

Saying what you said above about uninformed or uneducated absolutely is not true. This is all a matter of intense personal opinion.

On you last point I disagree. The single best summary this far (which those who continue to claim that the car outright lacks torque will never accept..) is simply that the M3 is not a suitable car for lazy drivers. You can also say its engine torque is lacking (again not torque per liter, just bulk peak torque) but we all know that engine torque has little to do with overall performance, its wheel torque or hp that matter!

Again, to those wishing the M3 had more of something. You really can't have everything. Take your pick lazy torque or a thrilling over performer. Again how many Vette owners go on and on about the cars lack of a high redline? How many ex Vette owners that now own and M3 spend time on Vette forums complaining about the lack of a high rpm? The sharp Vette owners also know you can't have everything.

[michaeldorian]

This has got to be the most argued thread on the board. I think everyone is arguing over the wrong thing. One group is arguing over the mathematical aspect of torque, while others arguing over the "feel" or lack of torque. These are 2 separate independent facts. They can't be argued together.

To sum up.

1. Brain talking: The engine doesn't lack torque when you run the numbers. Acceleration, gearing, blah blah. I actually think we are all in agreement about this. I also think we are all in agreement that it's a great engine.

2. Butt talking: The engine lacks a torque-y feel compared to competitively priced cars. Competitively priced cars is the key workds here. This is a subjective fact, as multiple people have posted on here that they agree. This has nothing to do with the fact of whether or not the car is quicker in acceleration. It's a feeling thing, and you know the out come of arguing about feelings with wives, significant others etc.

The combination of linear torque delivery, length of redline, gearing creates this feeling. Doesn't mean the M3 won't get to 100MPH is record time, it just does it so smoothly that you don't feel it. The torque and acceleration lacks drama. And you know what? The majority of people may say they don't want drama, but they do. People buy cars based on drama. This wasn't an issue in the E46 days, as it was leaps and bounds above the competition. Now with 300 HP being the norm, the world is a bit different.

Drive any of the other competitive cars back to back and let the butt do the talking. You'll see, that the M3 is just as fast, but it just doesn't feel it.

One argument is based in logic, while the other in feeling. One does not negate the other. So when debating, we should decide, are we talking about 1 or 2?

The funny thing is, everyone is right here.

[michaeldorian]

Originally Posted by swamp2

On you last point I disagree. The single best summary this far (which those who continue to claim that the car outright lacks torque will never accept..) is simply that the M3 is not a suitable car for lazy drivers. You can also say its engine torque is lacking (again not torque per liter, just bulk peak torque) but we all know that engine torque has little to do with overall performance, its wheel torque or hp that matter!

Again, to those wishing the M3 had more of something. You really can't have everything. Take your pick lazy torque or a thrilling over performer. Again how many Vette owners go on and on about the cars lack of a high redline? How many ex Vette owners that now own and M3 spend time on Vette forums complaining about the lack of a high rpm? The sharp Vette owners also know you can't have everything.

+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.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

I think everyone is arguing over the wrong thing. One group is arguing over the mathematical aspect of torque, while others arguing over the "feel" or lack of torque. These are 2 separate independent facts. They can't be argued together.
...
The funny thing is, everyone is right here.

Well I will respectfully disagree. This is more about driving style than math vs. perception. The math is entirely consistent with how the car performs. The math and physics here is just a useful related discussion. Although I have spoken a lot as to the perception of speed vs. actual speed in the past that is not a major issue here. 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. You simply can't say this means the engine/transmission combination lacks the ability to produce stupendous accleration at low speed again on par with or exceeding most competitors.

[Bluechipper]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Well I will respectfully disagree. This is more about driving style than math vs. perception. The math is entirely consistent with how the car performs. The math and physics here is just a useful related discussion. Although I have spoken a lot as to the perception of speed vs. actual speed in the past that is not a major issue here. 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. You simply can't say this means the engine/transmission combination lacks the ability to produce stupendous accleration at low speed again on par with or exceeding most competitors.

+1,000,000

Now this is the end of the thread.

You just have to know how to drive the car.

[BMRLVR]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Saying what you said above about uninformed or uneducated absolutely is not true. This is all a matter of intense personal opinion.

This is totally true..... Anyone who knows anything about engines at all knows that as far as torque production goes there is no replacement for displacement. Any informed or knowledgeable individual who bought an M3 should have realized it is only a 4 litre engine and has a torque output that is a reflection of it's displacement.