|
|
06-17-2009, 11:59 AM | #111 |
Major
35
Rep 1,039
Posts |
not that the m3 competes with the s4, but audi did the same when they went from V8 to supercharged 6, less HP....but more torque
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 11:59 AM | #112 |
King Kong
59
Rep 771
Posts |
This is a win win situation for all of us. It will cost us a lot less to mod the car.
__________________
08 E92 M3 - AA ECU, AA Pulleys, AA Air Filter, AA Short Shifter - CURRENT
E92 335i - Vishnu V3, Exhaust, Intake, BOV, CDV Delete - SOLD 1991 850i Dinan Twin Turbo - SOLD |
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 12:01 PM | #113 | |
Commander-In-Chief
2122
Rep 8,923
Posts
Drives: 2023 M2 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
Next M3
Quote:
__________________
Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2023 M2 Coupe - Brooklyn Grey/Cognac/CF, 6MT; 2020 MB GLE 450 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 12:09 PM | #114 |
Lieutenant
121
Rep 510
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 12:16 PM | #115 |
Major General
258
Rep 5,012
Posts |
Looks like this is my first and last M3 then (I'll never own an FI car if I have a choice; just not my cup of tea). Hope it turns out reliable so I can keep it for a looooong time. Glad I bought my M3 before the Cayman S (which will be my next car). So far the only issue I'd like taken care of before warranty expires is the idle control valve (too many failures); hopefully a recall will be issued before then. All other issues seem isolated so far, but with a fully optioned car, I've seen more problems than I like with the EDC and enhanced stereo (I already had a problem with the speakers blaring a full volume shriek for a fraction of a second while changing modes. Hmmm). With the Porsche, I'll pass on all the electronic crap (PASM, Nav, etc) to have a more reliable car. Good day gang.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 12:34 PM | #116 | |
Automotive Industry Insider
462
Rep 1,948
Posts |
Quote:
You always want it to go down.
__________________
The best is yet to come...
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 12:45 PM | #117 |
I love the ///M3, but I want 550hp ///M5
141
Rep 3,276
Posts
Drives: BMW330iE90
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NYC
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 12:45 PM | #118 | |
Brigadier General
236
Rep 3,303
Posts |
Quote:
Oh, and on the track, the N54 is useless..... Cheers, e46e92 P.S.: as I find myself looking through the Porsche website I see the highest revving car they have is the GT3 with max hp coming at 7600rpms.....wow thats low. Last years (guess that was still the 997?) GT3 was 8400rpms for max hp. Damn, guess everyone is dumping the idea of a high revving engine.....that sucks.
__________________
"...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
|
06-17-2009, 12:49 PM | #119 |
Major
72
Rep 1,171
Posts |
P/W going down is a bad thing, not a good one. P/W going down means you got less power for a given/fixed weight = bad.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 02:56 PM | #120 | |
Automotive Industry Insider
462
Rep 1,948
Posts |
Quote:
Unless you are saying that a lower number is going up, which is very weird... So a 14:1 power-to-weight ratio for a typical family sedan, means it has to tote around 14lbs. of weight for every 1BHP the engine produces. And by contrast, a 6:1 power-to-weight ratio for a Ferrari F430, means it only has to tote around 6 lbs. of weight for every 1BHP the engine produces. You always want that number to go down. Down is good, up is bad. A lower power-to-weight ratio improves bottom line performance and fuel economy.
__________________
The best is yet to come...
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 03:46 PM | #122 | ||
Major
72
Rep 1,171
Posts |
Quote:
P/W = "power to weight": as power goes up (keeping weight constant) = good W/P = "weight to power" = the inverse of P/W: as power goes up (keeping weight constant) = bad Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 03:58 PM | #123 |
Major General
258
Rep 5,012
Posts |
Simply put, weight is your enemy: a truck with 400+HP is going to be A LOT slower than our 400+ M3. Similarly, a very light Lotus Elise with 200 HP can be as quick as our car.
To complicate things more, the less weight each HP carries, the better ... for all-out performance. However, a car with less HP but higher torque at lower rpm (eg 335 vs M3) will feel quicker on everyday driving. Both cars drive VERY differently. I'm not and never will be a FI guy, but people who don't like to shift or rev an engine much, might benefit from a smaller, torquier FI engine (not me though). Good day. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 04:10 PM | #124 | |
Automotive Industry Insider
462
Rep 1,948
Posts |
Quote:
I don't know anyone including a large number of manufacturers that use the 'proper' terminology on a regular basis. If you do it the other way around (and follow the formula to the letter), you'll end up with nonsensical answer that it not easily digested by anyone. (0.315 hp/lb. for example) That number means absolutely nothing to the average car enthusiast... I'm sure the small percentage of Engineers on this board would be able to extrapolate what that means with their fancy calculators and scientific formulas, but the other 95% of us would be left saying. "Wait...what?" This is why you see the technically backwords weight-to-power ratios quoted everywhere. (99% of the time) The incorrect 'method' I use (which I didn't invent by the way) is much more straightforward, and easily comparable to any other car. And it is normally called power-to-weight, even though it's obviously not. Don't shoot the messenger.
__________________
The best is yet to come...
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 07:03 PM | #125 |
New Member
1
Rep 9
Posts |
I hope M Division does not give up the tradition of NA engine legends for the M cars...
Well, even if they give up NA engine for the next generation M3, I guess e92 could have another fame, the very last and the most sofisticated NA engine that M Division made for M3... |
Appreciate
0
|
06-17-2009, 07:23 PM | #126 | |
Colonel
755
Rep 2,736
Posts |
Quote:
The MY2010 997.2 GT3 has a 100 RPM higher ceiling (8500 RPMs) than it's predecessor, the 997.1 GT3 (8400 RPMs). The 997.1 (last year 2008) and 997.2 both make max power -415 and 435, respectively- @ 7600 RPMs; the redline has been increased on the new one. The new engine is nothing but a better version of the gen 1 engine in numerous respects. The obvious reason for the higher redline relative to the max power is to shift above the power point thus keeping the engine singing at max power even when the revs fall between shifts. Porsche has hardly abandoned the high revving engine. Last edited by devo; 06-17-2009 at 07:40 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-18-2009, 03:50 PM | #127 | |
Lieutenant
18
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
Some inside info you want to share? I don't have any just passing along what The Roundel says. And it says less HP. I have to agree I would not mind less HP if the weight goes down and maybe the Torque goes up as Kmac suggested. - J
__________________
In Memory of LeRoi Moore 1961-2008.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-18-2009, 05:37 PM | #128 |
Major General
416
Rep 6,968
Posts |
LOL, every generation of M3 there's people who said BMW has done it and ruined the M3 and I am moving on to P-car. Feel the retribution, BMW! In reality there will plenty of people who steps up the plate, purchasing the next M3, and makes the churn a moot point. The kicker is the same people 7 years ago who championed the birth of a new M3 now becomes the same people they ridiculed.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2009, 07:08 AM | #129 |
Moderator
7512
Rep 19,368
Posts |
I'm sure he was just speculating or basing it on some rumor he read. But, probably the Roundel is just speculating too, based on the bits of info they've been able to get from various sources. I'll bet the final M3 numbers are not even known yet because the platform for the car isn't even done yet. You can't really decide on the engine tune until you test it out in the car to see what it takes to get the performance you want.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2009, 11:11 AM | #130 |
Major General
521
Rep 5,483
Posts |
when do you think we can expect to see a new M3? or a new motor in the M3?
__________________
Current:
2019 BMW X5 40i - Carbon Black/Tartufo Individual Leather 2020 Range Rover HSE - Black/Black 2020 Audi R8 V10 Performance Spyder 6MT - Ascari Blue/Black |
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2009, 11:15 AM | #131 |
Moderator
7512
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Yeah I hear ya PG. It's definitely a reliable source. I just think its pretty early to know anything for sure. I'm sure they know their targets and have a lot of the engineering groundwork layed. But who knows what the competition will be like by the time the car is scheduled to go on sale? They might need to bump the power up to remain in the game. We'll see. I'm sure that the reduced weight and using the use of forced induction six cylinder are set in stone. Of course on the latter - at least last we knew anyway - they weren't even sure what the engine layout would be yet.
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-19-2009, 11:20 AM | #132 | |
Moderator
7512
Rep 19,368
Posts |
An educated guess might go something like:
E46 - MY2001, E9x - MY2008, F3x - MY2015 So figure release sometime in 2014 in the US, and maybe 2013 in Europe and some other regions. Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|