Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

What makes you think that a manual transmission will be offered for the F30 M3?

Then they are deciding that they do not want an enthusiasts market.They will leave it up to Porsche.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by footie

By well balanced do you mean able to be used to great effect on the track and works perfectly well on the road too. If so then I agree, the M3v8 is a brilliant engine, but that is why I continue to add in all of my comments that the majority don't track their cars at all and as a daily driver the lack of torque can be an annoyance.

How could you be "annoyed" by the power delivery of this engine? This car isn't fast/powerful/responsive enough for you in daily driving? It's not as though it is a high revving 2liter. The thing still has 300lb-ft torque...

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

What makes you think that a manual transmission will be offered for the F30 M3?

That will be the perfect car for my wife who does not understand what the 3rd pedal is for and complains about the lack of power in traffic in most of the cars she had including her old SLK32

[footie]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

No but the GTI had the the low fuel light on after 2 sessions of 28 minutes each and took around 50litres where the M3 was 2 1/2 sessions and 55 litres.I had R compounds on the M and the stock street tires
on the GTI.I was probally on full throttle more in the M as it had a lot more stick and handled quite a bit better than the 100% stock GTI.Oh I almost forgot that the GTI did have a Revo flash in it.The DSG was also not very good on track as it had a mind of its own on shifting.

Any flash regardless by who will eat fuel when given the beans, how else is the extra power achieve without changing internals.

P.S.
Couldn't agree more about the normal DSG.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Singletrack

How could you be "annoyed" by the power delivery of this engine? This car isn't fast/powerful/responsive enough for you in daily driving? It's not as though it is a high revving 2liter. The thing still has 300lb-ft torque...

IF you seriously don't understand where we are coming from on this subject then probably you shouldn't be reading this thread because it will annoy you more than our opinion of the M3's lack of torque.

[footie]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Then they are deciding that they do not want an enthusiasts market.They will leave it up to Porsche.

Porsche will also be going the PDK route for future performance models, whether they will include a manual is up for debate, I reckon it will for the foreseeable future but not for as long as you might think.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by MontyRFC

This can be a pretty aggressive forum can't it? A lot of people have got tickets on themselves and their opinions don't they?!. If only all us mere mortals were as well educated as some on here the world would be a better place eh? I bet the original OP wishes he'd kept quiet!

Irrespective of everything quoted on here about torque, imo the M3 does lack low down torque, certainly when compared to its rivals as Footie points out. Yes the engine is designed to be revved, but sometimes in day-to-day driving it's not as responsive as you may like. That doesn't mean it came as a surprise to us who find it this way, nor does it mean we did not test the car or should have bought something else, it's just the way we find it. I for one, don't always want to be screaming around in the max attack gear, and sometimes I find it less responsive in the gear I'm in than I would ideally like it to be.

Just an opinion, but I'm sure the almighty on here can quickly tell me what an utter imbecile I am

I think you sum it up nicely, I have ordered this car (Saloon M-DCT & EDC) because I really like it, and in saloon form fits my needs, a bit more torque at the lower end would be welcome but if I thought it was NOT achievable I would still have ordered one.

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by footie

Porsche will also be going the PDK route for future performance models, whether they will include a manual is up for debate, I reckon it will for the foreseeable future but not for as long as you might think.

Well I guess I am showing my age then as I want a true manual with a clutch,but I would settle for a full sequential dog box and I would not even complain about the noise on this forum

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by footie

IF you seriously don't understand where we are coming from on this subject then probably you shouldn't be reading this thread because it will annoy you more than our opinion of the M3's lack of torque.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's accurate, so I'm stating my opinion. I want to make sure that prospective buyers don't read what you wrote and get scared away by your opinion of the M3 - that it is "annoying" to drive daily because it has so little torque. I think it's absolutely hilarious that a car with the performance of the M3 is being labeled as not daily-driver friendly because of the lack of torque.

Maybe if you are coming from a bigger V8, or a high-output turbo engine, AND you expect the same feel from the M3, you will notice a difference. But to suggest that you will be annoyed is purely how YOU feel. It is not the status quo, just like "It's funny how people opinions have changed with so many now in agreement" is pure fantasy.

[michaeldorian]

Originally Posted by Technic

I agree up to a certain point with your opinion, actually.

I think that a 4.2L would have been a much better displacement for this V8 as BMW would have achieved both 420hp and some 320lbft with a much better power band. But I think that they went for the quick and low development cost and just used whatever was ready available from the V10, and now they had to go all the way up to 4.4L in the GTS to really get this engine to perform as a V8 is expected to perform by most owners.

If RDSport can make their 4.6L conversion to behave like an M engine all the way while having some solid torque everywhere then I think that this could have been possible from BMW from the get go as well if they just wanted it to be.

This is what I've always been saying. The 4.0 was a easy way out by using the work they've already done with the 5.0 V10. 4.2 (Like the RS4) or the new 4.4 fits this engine much better.

I rev the heck out of the car in daily driving and maximum attack mode shouldn't always be needed.

Look at the GT3, it makes more torque, has less displacement and weighs less.

BMW should have removed more weight, or added displacement like they did with the GTS. If the 4.0 was capable of the power and torque the GTS is putting down, why would they bother making a 4.4? I'm sure the engineers couldn't get the 4.0 to make the power and torque the 4.4 is making reliable while getting a decent MPG.

[JOHNBMWM5]

My Final word in this thread is: I test drove the M3 E90 M-DCT with EDC a month or so ago, it was the latest of the M3's sept 2009, I found it a delight to drive and found NO issues with the torque or the DCT box, all ran smoothly, a real pleasure to drive, after the manual RS4B7 I sold I much prefer this car.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by footie

Listen, it's not the feeling of torque that the M3 lacks but the actual quantity of it, and no amount of people posting facts and figures suggesting that it's at the wheel torque is greater will get past the fact it's slower in-gear than most of it's rivals. Be that the C63, TT-RS, IS-F or almost all it's US competitors.

Thanks for the data Footie, but they don't in anyway contradict the wheel torque calculations that have been presented or how they were interpreted. If you look at Mixja's plots, you'll see that the C63 has an edge. Duh. Nobody stated that it wouldn't; you can't make up for that kind of difference in displacement, and that has nothing to do with the M3 being high revving etc. I did say that there will always be cars with more torque at the wheels and the C63 is one of them. That doesn't mean that the M3 lacks low end torque.

And, I don't see the point of the TT-RS comparison. That's not competition; it's a tiny 2-seater that weighs 400 lbs less. Of course, it will post the type of acceleration figures you presented. The cars are in different classes. You can say so is the 335 (despite the fact that it is a 4 seater and weighs about the same), but people keep on bringing it up. RS4 is probably the best basis for comparison.

I still maintain that most of the complaints around the "lack of low end torque" is an artifact of people's unwillingness to use the throttle pedal. I can see why people migth be hesitant; WOT is much louder. It does get in the way as it attract too much attention during daily driving. Or they might be comparing the part-throttle response to a turbo car. Use the pedal, and the more torque that you'd know what to do with on the street is there.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

Look at the GT3, it makes more torque, has less displacement and weighs less.

You might want to look at GT3 dyno curves. There is a very steep climb in the torque curve over 6000 rpm much like a VTEC engine (or the S85 V10). As a matter of fact, it is putting out around 70 - 80% of its peak torque until 6000 rpm where it climbs steeply. The peak does not arrive till over 6250 rpm. By the definition people are going here (passive and lazy power at part throttle), GT3 is much more 'peakier' than the M3 in the 0 - 5000 rpm region.

Even the man, the legend Walter Rohrl himself said that the only reason why he would pick the Turbo over the GT3 would be for normal city driving or highway passing because of the low end torque does not require any downshifts and AWD because he lives in a very snowy area. GT3 for just about everything else.

[footie]

I simply included the TT-RS because we already have the data that shows the M3 can still out accelerate it yet in the typical daily driving that most people do it's the TT that was superior.

I agree that in comparison the two cars aren't direct rivals but the example is still a good one and shows that a turbo unit in the next M3 will be a better option for 95% of M3 owners. BTW the RS4 isn't a better example, like the M3 it's also a high revving N/A with limited torque. Also look at a number of owners on here that have modified their M3s, yourself included, clearly none of you were 100% happy with BMW's own efforts.

[lucid]

Footie, my drivetrain is bone stock except the exhaust, which is for sound really. I don't see the point of spending money and risking my warranty to get another 40hp out of a car that already has 414hp. The car does not have any torque issue as far as I am concerned. That is in people's heads. If you start thinking that way, even 400 ft lbs will not be "enough".

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by footie

I simply included the TT-RS because we already have the data that shows the M3 can still out accelerate it yet in the typical daily driving that most people do it's the TT that was superior.

I agree that in comparison the two cars aren't direct rivals but the example is still a good one and shows that a turbo unit in the next M3 will be a better option for 95% of M3 owners. BTW the RS4 isn't a better example, like the M3 it's also a high revving N/A with limited torque. Also look at a number of owners on here that have modified their M3s, yourself included, clearly none of you were 100% happy with BMW's own efforts.

Hell my wifes 335 will out accelerate my M3 in around town everyday normal driving,but I still dislike the power delivery of a boosted engine compared to a high strung normally aspirated engine when it is driven as intended.There is just something very special about that,that does exist in the boosted engines regardless of the manufacture.

[smmmurf]

Originally Posted by footie

Some here clearly adore the instant throttle of a well engineered N/A engine and the M3 is clearly one of the best, but compared to the latest Turbo and Supercharged units that has hit the streets in recent months I would put any of them ahead of the M3 for pure on the road entertainment, which is where most M3 owners spend most of their time.

You make it sound like the M3 is going to get smoked by most cars on the road because of its anemic power levels.

Personally, I find that the M3 has plenty of torque to deliver satisfying "on the road entertainment." Since when does torque equal entertainment, anyway? IMO, the M3 is more fun than any other car you list for other reasons such as its RWD layout with LSD, chassis neutrality (as opposed to too much oversteer ala C63 or too much understeer), sharp throttle response, and incredible sound/smoothness at high revs. Every time I drive it, I think "Holy sh*t this car is fast!"

Just to show how much it's lack of torque is effecting it's progress in normal daily driving I have highlighted in bold the times when the M3 proved to be quicker. Funny that it's only in the extremely low revs it's at it's best compared to these rivals and at the higher revs when most would expect the M3 to come good it's actually found wanting.

In my opinion the best thing to ever happen to the M3 will happen with the next model and the introduction of a turbo engine.

Funny, I couldn't care less which car is faster in the measures you list. The M3 is fast enough for me. I wish it felt a little lighter or that it had better low-speed steering feel, but I've never been left "wanting" for more straight-line punch. It was plenty of car for the autobahn, and it is simply overkill for Northern California.

[J08M3]

6MT Here and no issues keeping the RPM high enough to make good power! More torque all across would be nice, but no issue with lack down low. Just gotta keep it in the right gear. I suppose a simple fix if you want more down low is a rear diff swap.

[JJM335]

Originally Posted by Gearhead999s

Hell my wifes 335 will accelerate my M3 in around town everyday normal driving,but I still dislike the power delivery of a boosted engine compared to a high strung normally aspirated engine when it is driven as intended.There is just something very special about that,that does exist in the boosted engines regardless of the manufacture.

I completely agree with you on the power delivery of the s65 vs. the n54 engines. I used to drive a modded 335i and my wife now has a new Z4 35i with the DCT and they are both very fast cars. I do have to disagree with one point though. Neither is as fast as the M3 in any situation where it is being driven as intended.

I would also like to add my own ridiculous comparison to the mix. My dad keeps a 1999 Chevy pickup around to haul crap in. It has a 5.0l V8 that makes 285 ft/lbs of torque at 2800 rpms and has a towing capacity of around 15000 pounds. I'm just sayin'.

[TRZ06]

Originally Posted by John@BMW

its threads like this which make BMW say, "hey! we should take our high strung chain saw //M engines and make a lower reving turbo motor cause our customers dont want to haul ass on a race track, they want to haul ass to starbucks in the city without moving a finger or thinking."

Well DUH!!! 99.9% of M3 owners/buyers (US anyways) are NOT race car drivers and don't have access to a track and if you do, your most likely not getting an M3 because there are better dedicated track cars out there.

BMW did right in the way of HP, but they did wrong with 295lb ft of TQ for your every day STREET driven average M3 buyer/owner

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by JJM335

I completely agree with you on the power delivery of the s65 vs. the n54 engines. I used to drive a modded 335i and my wife now has a new Z4 35i with the DCT and they are both very fast cars. I do have to disagree with one point though. Neither is as fast as the M3 in any situation where it is being driven as intended.

I would also like to add my own ridiculous comparison to the mix. My dad keeps a 1999 Chevy pickup around to haul crap in. It has a 5.0l V8 that makes 285 ft/lbs of torque at 2800 rpms and has a towing capacity of around 15000 pounds. I'm just sayin'.

What I am am talking about is normal driving around town not using full throttle.The S65 is much quicker if you use all its capabilities and much more fun to drive.The N54 is a lazy drivers fast engine just like the new V8 turbo's from BMW are.fast yes,but not much fun!

[Gearhead999s]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

Well DUH!!! 99.9% of M3 owners/buyers (US anyways) are NOT race car drivers and don't have access to a track and if you do, your most likely not getting an M3 because there are better dedicated track cars out there.

BMW did right in the way of HP, but they did wrong with 295lb ft of TQ for your every day STREET driven average M3 buyer/owner

Well those people should have bought a 335 then!