M3 declared R&T's "Sultans of Slide" drift king

Mike V8 · 12-01-2009, 07:04 PM

Nice find man! Great read!

pmeloche · 12-01-2009, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swamp2

Just because a car has a V8 expecting gobs of torque, low end or not is unreasonable. This perception does not make ones opinion on the subject valid.

It is not accurace language to say that the car makes or delivers the bulk of its hp high in its rpm range. The cars hp curve is almost perfectly linear and peaks at redline. What the author should have said (and probably means) is that due to the cars high redline, and flat torque curve, extracting the most performance from it requires mostly high rpm driving.

That's possibly in two sentences the best description of the equation HP = TQ * RPM I have read in years short of reading it in an engineering book.

swamp2 · 12-02-2009, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Actually, linear torque and a lofty redline produces just the result cited - most of the power is at higher rpms.

Well that is technically correct but not practically correct. Flat torque produces linear power (hp = T x rpm/5252 in US customary units). So if you call flat linear that is technically correct but not practically. The reason it is not practically correct because folks are used to a linear or roughly linear (non zero slope of course) power curve, so also calling the torque linear confuses the issue.

datbimmerdoe · 12-02-2009, 02:17 AM

RenaultOne · 12-02-2009, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hkyplaynazn

Interesting read! Good find!

+1

GO BEARS!

Bimmerboy888 · 12-02-2009, 03:01 AM

I really liked the article. Thanks for sharing.

Boost Gomez · 12-02-2009, 03:42 AM

They should have included a C63 in that comparison. I'd like to see how it would stack up in terms of getting sideways.

mkoesel · 12-02-2009, 06:05 AM

Same topic, no?

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325949

BimmerBoomer · 12-02-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkoesel

Same topic, no?

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325949

My post was about the low end torque issue. It has been edited - not by me.

GreenPlease · 12-02-2009, 09:06 AM

FWIW, stroke relative to dispacement is a better barometer of the amount of torque an engine will have.

immiketoo · 12-02-2009, 09:08 AM

They got the wheel/tire size wrong in the article. The M3 is clearly wearing 19's, not 18's

"Like a Formula 1 engine, the M3’s 4.0-liter V-8 delivers the bulk of its 414 bhp high on the tach. Not exactly ideal for drifting, but good enough to get the 265/40ZR-18 rear tires loose in most situations."

Singletrack · 12-02-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

FULL REVIEW:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/co...ltans_of_slide

>“If I had the money to afford one, I would buy one,” Millen said with a wink. “Although it didn’t have the torque I was expecting from a V-8, its gear ratios were fantastic."

>Yoshihara added: “It felt very fast through the entire course, and the quick steering made it easy to maintain control at all times. I was surprised that it didn’t have more low-end torque because the power at the top end was so good. I needed to adjust my driving style a little to keep the tachometer needle high in the rev range.”

>Like a Formula 1 engine, the M3’s 4.0-liter V-8 delivers the bulk of its 414 bhp high on the tach. Not exactly ideal for drifting, but good enough to get the 265/40ZR-18 rear tires loose in most situations. And besides, any engine shortcomings were made up by the car’s chassis.

The M3 easily won this comparo http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/co...ltans_of_slide, in spite of its Achilles heel.

"Achilles heel"

ROFL!

TWSnow · 12-02-2009, 10:36 AM

Good newsss!!

duk · 12-02-2009, 10:37 AM

it's only a 4.0 liter V8! A 4.4 liter would be perfect tho... 330lb tq would be sweet

mkoesel · 12-02-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

My post was about the low end torque issue. It has been edited - not by me.

I see. Yeah, they put this up as featured post on the front page of bimmerpost. Not uncommon.

In this case, though, I think the mods kinda botched it as the other topic I pointed out was probably more appropriate as a general discussion of the article, while yours seems to be more of specifically with regard to the current long drawn out thread (and tired debate) regarding M3 low end torque. Realistically, if all responses were to be in keeping with your intent, I don't think it makes sense for this particular thread to be the one that goes on the front page. That's just MHO though. Maybe they'll just merge them.

Singletrack · 12-02-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I see. Yeah, they put this up as featured post on the front page of bimmerpost. Not uncommon.

In this case, though, I think the mods kinda botched it as the other topic I pointed out was probably more appropriate as a general discussion of the article, while yours seems to be more of specifically with regard to the current long drawn out thread (and tired debate) regarding M3 low end torque. Realistically, if all responses were to be in keeping with your intent, I don't think it makes sense for this particular thread to be the one that goes on the front page. That's just MHO though. Maybe they'll just merge them.

I agree.

This thread is about a positive award that is being turned into a "data point" into the M3's engine being the "achilles heel" of the car. Which is totally preposterous.

Someone should go on the Ferrari boards and complain that they have to rev the 360. Boohoo! Oh noes!

Laughable.

BimmerBoomer · 12-02-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Singletrack

I agree.
Laughable.

"And besides, any engine shortcomings were made up by the car’s chassis."

330CIZHP · 12-02-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

"And besides, any engine shortcomings were made up by the car’s chassis."

Like singletrack said, for people who do not understand high-revving engine concept, Ferraris might be much worse in terms of short comings. The Ferrari F360 had a huge shortcoming in his engine too, which was only 164 ft-lbs of wheel torque uptil a lofty 5500 rpm. It did not put out a full 240 - 245 ft-lbs of wheel torque until a peaky 6800 rpm.

Heck, even a $220+ K F430 puts out a measly 195 ft-lbs of wheel torque at 4500 rpm.

-=Hot|Ice=- · 12-02-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boost Gomez

They should have included a C63 in that comparison. I'd like to see how it would stack up in terms of getting sideways.

The C63 is a complete animal. A tap of the throttle and you'll lose traction and go veering off into the trees.

riyatch · 12-02-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

My post was about the low end torque issue. It has been edited - not by me.

because your complaints are getting tired and old. you really should sell your M and get something else already because it seems like you will never get it.

-=Hot|Ice=- · 12-02-2009, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by riyatch

because your complaints are getting tired and old. you really should sell your M and get something else already because it seems like you will never get it.

Good man. Get a C63. It has GOBS of torque and a Mountain of horsepower. It doesn't have the balance of the M though,although pretty close.

330CIZHP · 12-02-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

Good man. Get a C63. It has GOBS of torque and a Mountain of horsepower. It doesn't have the balance of the M though,although pretty close.

450 lbs extra lard to tow too....

12-01-2009, 07:04 PM	#45
Mike V8 First Lieutenant 24 Rep 398 Posts Drives: '09 E92 M3 DCT Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: So. Cal. iTrader: (0)	Nice find man! Great read! __________________ "...it's not about the money and not about the brand of the car, it's about handling,performance and passion......And that, no other car has all together like an M3........when you talk about the most complete car the M is invincible." --Tony Kanaan.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-02-2009, 02:17 AM	#48
datbimmerdoe Lieutenant General 1271 Rep 17,493 Posts Drives: like I'M BOUT THAT LIFE Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: PARADISE aka CANES COUNTRY iTrader: (0)	__________________ #datbimmerdoe #thatbimmertho FOLLOW @datbimmerdoe on INSTAGRAM
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-02-2009, 03:01 AM	#50
Bimmerboy888 Lieutenant 9 Rep 462 Posts Drives: E92 M3 DCT Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: OC iTrader: (0)	I really liked the article. Thanks for sharing.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-02-2009, 03:42 AM	#51
Boost Gomez Colonel 51 Rep 2,361 Posts Drives: C63 AMG Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Miami iTrader: (0) Garage List 2007 BMW 335i [0.00]	They should have included a C63 in that comparison. I'd like to see how it would stack up in terms of getting sideways. __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-02-2009, 06:05 AM	#52
mkoesel Moderator 7510 Rep 19,370 Posts Drives: No BMW for now Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Canton, MI iTrader: (1)	Same topic, no? http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325949
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-02-2009, 09:06 AM	#54
GreenPlease Lieutenant Colonel 129 Rep 1,629 Posts Drives: BMW 335i e92 Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Orlando Florida iTrader: (2)	FWIW, stroke relative to dispacement is a better barometer of the amount of torque an engine will have. __________________ Cars>Women
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-02-2009, 10:36 AM	#57
TWSnow Lieutenant 27 Rep 489 Posts Drives: 2009 335I xDrive coupe Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: UpState, NY iTrader: (0)	Good newsss!! __________________ http://upstateclothingco.com
	Appreciate 0 Quote

12-02-2009, 10:37 AM	#58
duk ///M 158 Rep 3,195 Posts Drives: 2011 AW/FR 6MT E92 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Irvine, CA iTrader: (0)	it's only a 4.0 liter V8! A 4.4 liter would be perfect tho... 330lb tq would be sweet __________________ 2011.5 AW/FR E92 M3 6MT
	Appreciate 0 Quote