Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[footie]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

The straw driver who is driving the M3 "as God intended" is cruising at 3600 rpm in second gear at 30 mph when he decides to pass.

If so then I would agree, torque wouldn't be an issue. But frankly I don't think the majority of people drive that way most of the time and my example is the more common.

[JJM335]

You guys are missing the point. Yes the M3 has to be pushed a bit to move it around, but that is part of what makes the car so much fun to drive. If you want lazy power, get a C63 or mod up a 335. What you will get is a car that is every bit as fast (or faster), but gets there with less emotion. It's just too easy. Where in the M3 revving up through 8400 rpms is magical. A lot of us like it this way. Please stop asking BMW to change it.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by JJM335

Please stop asking BMW to change it.

BMW has made their decision. I think it has a little more to do with evolving technology and unstable oil prices than anything they read here.

[330CIZHP]

Considering M3's gearing where 3rd gear goes up to whopping 100 mph due to the 8400 rpm redline, it would be silly to use 3rd gear at only 30 mph in M3 to pass behind a group of slow cars. 2nd gear is what would make sense considering how M3 is geared and it could easily blast past all cars without any efforts. Now if the final drive was 4.1:1 instead of 3.8:1 then it would be a different story. Heck, I don't even do that in my 330 to use 3rd gear at 48 KM/H to pass other cars.

Case in point, every car is geared differently making the optimum acceleration different in different cars.

Originally Posted by footie

As an example, most people would use 3rd gear as an overtaking gear (I know I do), so lets say you are doing 30mph sitting behind a slow group of cars (approx 4-5 in total) and want to overtake the lot of them, at the point you pass the final car you are probably doing about 90mph. In both the TT-RS and C63 you will have completed this exercise 1.4~1.5s quicker than you would have in the M3.
.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Considering M3's gearing where 3rd gear goes up to whopping 100 mph, it would be silly to use 3rd gear at only 30 mph in M3 to pass behind a group of slow cars. 2nd gear is what would make sense considering how M3 is geared and it could easily blast past all cars without any efforts.

Possibly, but in the real world that would often require a downshift as you would more likely be cruising in traffic at 2600 in third rather than 3600 rpm in second.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

a shorter FD ratio will make the car faster...period.

I disagree. Again it depends on which definition of faster you use, in a single gear, yes, always; across muliple gears, maybe yes, maybe not, depends on the specific car. Please have a look at the lengthy debate on this topic elsewhere on the forum. In addition don't forget that even now both the 6MT and M-DCT are pretty traction limited in 1st gear.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

The straw driver who is driving the M3 "as God intended" is cruising at 3600 rpm in second gear at 30 mph when he decides to pass.

There is nothing "straw" about it. You are either cruising in 3rd and you should downshift, or you are already in 2nd (not hard to believe at 3600RPM) and you simply put your foot down.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by footie

But frankly I don't think the majority of people drive that way most of the time and my example is the more common.

Based on?

It's not like we are talking about downshifting to 6k RPM in order to extract power....this is 3600RPM (according to "Pearce").

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by footie

As an example, most people would use 3rd gear as an overtaking gear (I know I do), so lets say you are doing 30mph sitting behind a slow group of cars (approx 4-5 in total) and want to overtake the lot of them, at the point you pass the final car you are probably doing about 90mph.

I could go on but I hope you are getting the point I am making.

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

The straw driver who is driving the M3 "as God intended" is cruising at 3600 rpm in second gear at 30 mph when he decides to pass.

Originally Posted by footie

If so then I would agree, torque wouldn't be an issue. But frankly I don't think the majority of people drive that way most of the time and my example is the more common.

Guys, I get the point, but people really drive the car that way? Hmm, okay. It's not what I see in my group of buddies who have cars with these engine characteristics. (Heck, my wife will automatically downshift....) That said, if "most people" would be in third and try overtaking they're going to be really unimpressed with the results. I'd be in 2nd gear at 30 MPH for any overtaking; I'd never think of third, it's just a habit to downshift as part of the overtaking procedure or wanting to get any semblance of performance out of this car.

Maybe it's my years of driving my old DD (95 Integra GSR 5MT) that "trained" me do this (and maybe most people have different habits). In the Integra GSR you'd just bog and die in 3rd trying to overtake. That's kind of what happens, albeit to a lesser degree given the larger engine, in the M3.

I had a 335 for awhile, and while the low-end torque was there I was always dropping the thing into higher revs (habit) to overtake and then kind of disappointed as the car ran out of steam in the higher revs. The car just didn't "feel right" to me. The higher-revving nature and characteristics of the M3 engine are the primary reason sold the 335 and bought the M3 (handling and the damn HPFP being the other two). Just as others here are disappointed in the low-end torque of the M3, I was disappointed in the top-end power and punch of the 335 (which is the polar opposite of the low-end torque disappointment that seems to be the heart of this thread).

I guess it’s all about what makes an enjoyable driving experience for people. If low-end torque is desired and suits the driving style then this car isn't a good fit (just as the 335 was not the car for me). There's nothing wrong with that, it’s just a fact. It’s the same as saying you don’t want to drive an X5 or some other vehicle with very different characteristics from a GT/sports-car.

There are plenty of other options out there for those who prefer lots of low-end torque that are just as good as the M3 (and probably "better" if they give you an engine that suits your needs). The best bet if the M3 isn't a good match is to sell it and get something that better suits driving style/preferences.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

BMW has made their decision. I think it has a little more to do with evolving technology and unstable oil prices than anything they read here.

Don't forget the high cost to produce high-performance, naturally aspirated engines in Germany.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Possibly, but in the real world that would often require a downshift as you would more likely be cruising in traffic at 2600 in third rather than 3600 rpm in second.

Question: If has car has DCT (or 6MT for that matter), a downshift takes all of a second (probably less) even if one were to take one's time with it. Why in the world would a driver choose to stay in third? I mean, even if the driver is eating a bagel, with the DCT, flick--done. An analogous action to downshifting in terms of “work” is going from brake to throttle--yet there's no issue there....

I'd venture to say it's all about driving style/preference. If a person wants the car to do X and it doesn't, they won't be happy. That's fine and there's nothing "wrong" with that. (I don't like cars that have no top-end and have low redlines...it's a prefererence.) This car and its engine characteristics are not a good match for the person who wants low-end torque. That's cool. But that's a driver preference and not a "failing" of the car or its engine.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

Question: If has car has DCT (or 6MT for that matter), a downshift takes all of a second (probably less) even if one were to take one's time with it. Why in the world would a driver choose to stay in third? I mean, even if the driver is eating a bagel, with the DCT, flick--done. An analogous action to downshifting in terms of “work” is going from brake to throttle--yet there's no issue there....

Best response in the DCT is manual downshift, manual upshift if necessary, bump it back into D5 as I pull back in. Definitely quicker than my E46 M3 was with a manual downshift and less power, but a little slower than just hitting the throttle on my Dinan-tuned 335i.

[Finnegan]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Best response in the DCT is manual downshift, manual upshift if necessary, bump it back into D5 as I pull back in. Definitely quicker than my E46 M3 was with a manual downshift and less power, but a little slower than just hitting the throttle on my Dinan-tuned 335i.

Okay, fair enough, and totally reasonable explaination. And yes, I'll agree you with the 335 vs. M3 assessment (I had a piggy). But I found it boring. I like the user involvement, the feel of "working" the car, etc., and I'm a big high-rev HP guy not so much into the instant torque low-rev thing.

And yes, that's just me!

It's driver preference, and it's why I'm driving the M3 now and not the 335. Nothing "wrong" with the 335 or low-end torque, it's actually a nice motor (aside from the HPFP), good performance/economy. It's just that it's not my bag....

Anyone else feel like this is the perennial 6MT vs. DCT discussion in a different wrapper? (I noticed that when I started writing about "working the car, user involvement, etc.") They're both about "preference" IMO. Heck, I have a DCT now (formerly 6MT) and here I am talking about "involvement" while driving the DCT in the M3. Irony!

[Synter]

Yeah! The M3 def makes me miss my EVO, I was putting down 330 AWTQ. Hopefully I can regain some of that feeling with boltons for the M3.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by Synter

Yeah! The M3 def makes me miss my EVO, I was putting down 330 AWTQ. Hopefully I can regain some of that feeling with boltons for the M3.

I am sure with a remap, power pullys and BMC filter and that should just do the trick.

[sirploppy]

Originally Posted by lucid

That is actually Footie's point, that there is a "power band" to be reached. I still don't know what that term means. I've asked many people before. Can someone please tell me where it starts exactly and why? I mean why not X rpm instead of X+1 rpm? The point is obviously to keep the car as close to its peak power output as possible. That is the only objective observation one can make really. If we are talking about the rpm range one lands in while optimizing for power output, then yes, there is indeed an effective power band that is dictated by the gear spacing.

Anyway, yes of course vehicle speeds, gear ratios, and the gear the car happens to be in matter. Regardless, the data posted by Footie indeed do say something about what happens every day if you don't put the car in proper gear. I think his post was relevant given this thread is about the so-called lack of low end torque, which obviously applies to driving situations in which people are not putting the car in the optimal gear. I still think the car does very well under those conditions too (as long as you floor it)--just not as well as the C63, but hey, why is that surprising?

[330CIZHP]

You should maybe see this thread by Nawaz who came from a modified Evo IX. His modded M3 is now making ~500 HP crank and he does not seem to miss his Evo's low end:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=322545

Originally Posted by Synter

Yeah! The M3 def makes me miss my EVO, I was putting down 330 AWTQ. Hopefully I can regain some of that feeling with boltons for the M3.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by sirploppy

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Well those people should have bought a 335 then!

If they did, there would not be enough of a market to support even having an M3

Seriously though, why would one want to drive at 5K+ in day to day driving to get good performance. Yes it is fun every so often, but (and this is especially true for those with aftermarket exhaust) your looked at sideways by almost every other driver out there when in the 5K+ range and whether your driving good or not, just the noise people take the wrong way and think you are being an ass.

Again nothing wrong with a high strung motor, but at least give it enough TQ to be fun and rewarding without having to spend your day at 5K+

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

That is actually Footie's point, that there is a "power band" to be reached. I still don't know what that term means. I've asked many people before. Can someone please tell me where it starts exactly and why? I mean why not X rpm instead of X+1 rpm? The point is obviously to keep the car as close to its peak power output as possible. That is the only objective observation one can make really. If we are talking about the rpm range one lands in while optimizing for power output, then yes, there is indeed an effective power band that is dictated by the gear spacing...

The "power band" starts just where you think it does in any given gear, or where I think it does, or where anybody else thinks it does. It's the point at which the driver feels the car is pulling very hard in a given gear. There is an implication that when you are in the power band, downshifting isn't needed, although that's just your backside telling you everything is fine and you're "going good".

Bottom line: The power band is really the torque band in any given gear, and when you're pretty high up on the torque curve (Look Martha! There's the horizon!), everything is good here in Pleasantville.

In short, it's a pretty fuzzy thing, and it gets fuzzier when you realize the driver is not only reacting to acceleration, he or she is reacting to noise.

You know how footie describes the last 1200 rpm in the M3? I've felt that myself, and it's a real thrill. Feels like right up there is where the one true power band is, but even though the M3 has an amazing torque curve that I've described with breathless prose awhile back, the car was pulling harder just a second or two before that magic last 1200 rpm that rang your chimes. It's just that it's making this terrific noise that gives you chills and raises the hair on the back of your neck.

You'll also read about or hear about "the meat of the power band".

Yup, it's just torque.

Bruce

PS - I personally believe that many folks feel as if the M3 is a little soft on the left-hand side of the tach because the really good noises don't start until you reach the right-hand side of the tach. It's not just acceleration you feel, it's the entire experience, including the crescendo in the last 1200 rpm.

Capiche?

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by Salespunk

I saw a chart where they compared TQ at the wheels between a Z06 and our cars. End result was very similar between the two. Do you really need to spin the tires more in first and second?

I submit to you that whoever did that chart you were looking at was smoking something. My C5 Z06 (nevermind the C6 Z06) dynoed at 350tq at the wheels, that is still 55 more tq than at the crank of the M3

Having own 3 C5 Z06's I can tell you for a FACT that the Z06 is superior in every performance way, with higher limits in every performance catagory plus it weighs 300 to 400lbs less.

Here are a few numbers from the C5 Z06:

405hp / 350hp corrected SAE dynoed at the wheels
405tq / 350tq corrected SAE dynoed at the wheels
Weight: ~3150lbs
0-60: 3.9 seconds
Lateral g= 1.06

From numbers/stats and my real world experience the Z06 beats the M3 by a good margin.

This is all performance mind you, we all know the fit and finish and material quality is not the same.

However they are two different classes of cars. The M3 is a GT, the Z06 is a true sports car

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

I submit to you that whoever did that chart you were looking at was smoking something. My C5 Z06 (nevermind the C6 Z06) dynoed at 350tq at the wheels, that is still 55 more tq than at the crank of the M3

I can't attest to the numbers but the poster was referring to multiplied torque. The Corvettes have much taller gearing. Intuitively, the M3 would be putting down more thrust than a garden variety C6 since it's heavier but accelerates just as fast up to 150 mph or so.