335i driver does test-drive with M3

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Redadair

What? Can we get a drug test here?

The low end torque of the 335i is far superior to the M3. In fact the M3 never makes as much torque as the 335i does stock at any point in it's RPM range.

Red

Just read the post again, and the follow up dicussions. Then think about what you are saying.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Great Bruce, that is step 1. By the way you are a long way off from your claim of .01 seconds or better! I don't suppose you cherry picked this match at all right ".

OK, this is the third time you're calling me a liar. I was very specific as to why I used this particular run - because I still remember the particulars.

Look, Swamp, I can't prevent you from indulging in this behavior, but the only thing I can say is that we tend to judge others by ourselves.

Originally Posted by swamp2

...Now the seconds step is to post multiple slips to show that they are more consistent than the difference between this single run actual vs. simulation. The next step is to explain how you can get a match of BETTER accuracy than the level of uncertainty of the unknowns. You admit you don't know the diff loss. If you can not adjust it how do you know it is right? The same argument applies to all of the inputs for the car. Did you account for the hp change as the car breaks in or did you use the factory numbers? Did you use a worn tire diameter or a new tire diameter? The list of questions that limit the accuracy to which you can simulate is much longer than this list and I have pointed these out many times in the past. Deviations from each one of these effects would be larger than the "routine" accuracy you claim you can get (or than the accuracy shown above as well). What does this all boil down to? Possibly luck, possibly being right for the wrong reasons. These have been my points all along and you still just don't get it.".

At a guess, I could get very good accuracy matching other runs, but since I don't remember the particulars of those runs, it would be by guess and by god, so what's the point? I'd simply be making up the run parameters with no idea if they were accurate or not.

As to accuracy within about a hundredth? Frankly, I'm surprised at how well this loss-leader tool works. It doesn't give you what Quarter gives you (again only forecasting accuracy to within a tenth), but I'm pretty happy with it.

Up until now, this cheapie version has given consistently very good accuracy, going back to the IS-F and GT-R simulations which were a good deal more accurate than your attempts with CarTech (at the time).

Originally Posted by swamp2

My quickie CarTest runs using losses of trans/diff/axles at 4/1/3% and for the higher torque 3.1 liter model and a 3150 curb weight (driver included in sim, not curb) are as below. If your data represents one of the faster times for this model then my thoughts continue that these total losses may still be a a bit low...

If memory serves, that data very closely coincides with what Car & Driver got for the 3.2 liter model. If you're using an SAE Gross Standard Day for weather conditions, you're pretty much spot on for both ET and MPH.

No BS, I'm pretty happy about that.

Of course, you may have to start throwing in deliberately false data from now on in order to prove your point that very close accuracy is impossible without simple (and by the way, consistent) luck, or being right for the wrong reasons.

Bruce

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Ronno111

The '08 M3 produces slightly more torque and the E46 but about 80 more HP. No one ever complained about the e46 before and that car was THE KING OF THE ROAD as far as bimmers and most other cars are concerned.

Feeling fast and being fast are 2 different things. Some of you guys are making it sound like you hit the pedal on the m3 and not much really happens unless you gun it. I think that is total BS.

Bottom line,,, any non M owner is insanely jealous of M owners. They will mod their cars with juiceboxes and fruit rollups to the point they can say they are faster than a totally stock M car. Sorry, I was in that group when I ordered my 335xi with dinan upgrade, m-tech kit and all the fixins until I woke up one morning in a cold sweat after 2 months of terrible sleepless nights and said "HOLY Shit, what am I doing- spending $57k on a modded 335 and it will NEVER be an M!!!"

That day I canceled my order and now waiting for my M car. It will be stock and I won't change a thing. I will drive my High rev car, guzzling up all the gas I can, and looking like a super star.

POINT and MORAL: I have never slept better since I changed my order to an M3. Buy an M and set the standard EVERY ONE on the road strives to beat.

Fantastic post

[gorun]

I am sleeping well recently, too!

[Jinxter]

Originally Posted by gorun

I am sleeping well recently, too!

LOL, I'm not. every night I lay in bed thinking if only it was in my driveway I would jump in and take a ride. The waiting game sucks but it will make it all that much sweeter when I do finally get my car..

[Buschy]

there are plenty M3's out ther now, has no one played togather with a 335i yet?
and I don't feel like searching, to much shit pops up.

[Redadair]

swamp2, lucid

OK, I have re-read this post. And at this point I suggest you do the same.


OP Quote:
My opinion:
- I prefer the torque of 335i for daily driving (and my 335i is still stock) - it makes your car real fast in daily traffic
- when you're not revving, the M3 feels slow ; I was *really* disappointed. I was *hoping* that the M3 would blow me away, so I could convince my own brain to drop the extra bucks to get an M3. But it didn't. Not on normal roads.


Lucid Quote:
What nonsense about the claimed higher low-end torque of the 335 being more suitable for daily driving! Stop staring at dyno charts and reaching such conclusions. Think about the final drive ratio and the individual gear ratios if you are indeed focused on feeling the instantaneous acceleration wheel torque results in

This is another case of theory vs. practice.

One can theorize that Tq@Wheels = Tq@WheelDyno x Total Reduction = proof that the M3 has more torque at the wheels than the 335i does. However the Original Posters Butt Dyno says this theory is simply not true.

How do you make an argument about this issue. He clearly says the M3 feels less powerful, produces less torque around town.

Do you not believe this?
Is the OP unable to make this determination from driving both cars?
Why does this take a spreadsheet with numbers pulled from some obscure calculation to validate that you don’t believe the OP observations?
Where did you come up with these Reduction Numbers?

Clearly the M3 had lower final drive gearing than the 335i, which usually allows for quicker off the line acceleration. Now overall the M3 is faster accelerating than the 335i, however to achieve this the Naturally Aspirated M3 engine must be revved close to redline to achieve max performance. The Turbo Charged 335i does not require high revs to achieve max torque, and any driver can tell this without a spreadsheet to help.

One area where the 335i will defiantly shine over the M3 is the 6th gear pulls from say 40mph to 70mph. Again because the M engine must spin very high to pump the volume of air required to achieve it’s radical power. This is the feeling that the OP is describing.

I strongly suggest you drive both cars back to back and see if you don’t come to the same conclusions the OP did and by the way, leave the spreadsheets home. It’s a good thing to Trust the Butt O Meter sometimes.

Yep your are correct the Engineers that created both these great engines used many calculations and may have used several spreadsheets to perform some of the calcs. but once the car is built and the users sample these cars the spreadsheets are of little value.
So I am still wondering about that Drug test!

And again at no time does the M3 create as much torque as the 335i does. The M3 most certainly makes more HP than the 335i, ~114HP more and this is what will over take the 335i in the upper RPM ranges, as the M3 revs. But not at low RPM’s.

You may want to recalibrate your slide rule and your Butt O Meter!

Red

[Ronno111]

Originally Posted by coaster

Ha ha ha ... I am still laughing from this post. I especially liked this part:

"Bottom line,,, any non M owner is insanely jealous of M owners."

But if that's how you really felt then why did you rush to place an order for a 335xi in the first place? (Sounds like a BS post to me.)

And Swamp ... stop congratulating people like this, your credibility is dropping like a rock.

Onward ...

To answer your question,,,, I did not "rush" to place an order for a 335xi-- my lease was over on my 745i and I wanted something sportier and faster. I put a deposit on the 335xi but was never comfortable with my decision. It sat on my mind every day like a heavy weight. I knew my 335 was in production, but I kept hearing about all the anticipation of the M3, all redesigned, every single part from the brakes to the chassis and engine --I knew I had to have it. Excuse me for speaking my mind but I knew I would be envious every time I saw an M car on the road. I always have been.

I know the 335i is a great car, I am not putting it down. It is fast and with the right mods can hang with an M3 and be made to look as extreme with new rims, spoiler, and an m-teck kit. All great news! However, I don't want to hang with an M3,,, I want an M3. That was my choice.

I never started with the put downs of your car, you guys came in here bragging how the 335 is superior to the M3, and still continue. With talk like that, I don't think it's Swamps credibility that goes into the toilet....

M owners, thanks for showing your support and sharing stories as we await the delivery of these awesome cars. It has been a long year so far....

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Redadair

swamp2, lucid

OK, I have re-read this post. And at this point I suggest you do the same.


OP Quote:
My opinion:
- I prefer the torque of 335i for daily driving (and my 335i is still stock) - it makes your car real fast in daily traffic
- when you're not revving, the M3 feels slow ; I was *really* disappointed. I was *hoping* that the M3 would blow me away, so I could convince my own brain to drop the extra bucks to get an M3. But it didn't. Not on normal roads.


Lucid Quote:
What nonsense about the claimed higher low-end torque of the 335 being more suitable for daily driving! Stop staring at dyno charts and reaching such conclusions. Think about the final drive ratio and the individual gear ratios if you are indeed focused on feeling the instantaneous acceleration wheel torque results in

This is another case of theory vs. practice.

One can theorize that Tq@Wheels = Tq@WheelDyno x Total Reduction = proof that the M3 has more torque at the wheels than the 335i does. However the Original Posters Butt Dyno says this theory is simply not true.

How do you make an argument about this issue. He clearly says the M3 feels less powerful, produces less torque around town.

Do you not believe this?
Is the OP unable to make this determination from driving both cars?
Why does this take a spreadsheet with numbers pulled from some obscure calculation to validate that you don’t believe the OP observations?
Where did you come up with these Reduction Numbers?

Clearly the M3 had lower final drive gearing than the 335i, which usually allows for quicker off the line acceleration. Now overall the M3 is faster accelerating than the 335i, however to achieve this the Naturally Aspirated M3 engine must be revved close to redline to achieve max performance. The Turbo Charged 335i does not require high revs to achieve max torque, and any driver can tell this without a spreadsheet to help.

One area where the 335i will defiantly shine over the M3 is the 6th gear pulls from say 40mph to 70mph. Again because the M engine must spin very high to pump the volume of air required to achieve it’s radical power. This is the feeling that the OP is describing.

I strongly suggest you drive both cars back to back and see if you don’t come to the same conclusions the OP did and by the way, leave the spreadsheets home. It’s a good thing to Trust the Butt O Meter sometimes.

Yep your are correct the Engineers that created both these great engines used many calculations and may have used several spreadsheets to perform some of the calcs. but once the car is built and the users sample these cars the spreadsheets are of little value.
So I am still wondering about that Drug test!

And again at no time does the M3 create as much torque as the 335i does. The M3 most certainly makes more HP than the 335i, ~114HP more and this is what will over take the 335i in the upper RPM ranges, as the M3 revs. But not at low RPM’s.

You may want to recalibrate your slide rule and your Butt O Meter!

Red

Red, sorry but I don't know where to begin...There are no obscure calculations. Total reduction is simply final drive ratio x gear ratio. That information is all public and you can verify for yourself. As I've said several times before, the spreadsheet doesn't really do anything. It's not presented as an engineering tool. It just factors in the reduction to measured torque at the wheels values (at steady-state) and communicates the performance of the cars in that respect in one chart. (Dig into the site I reference to understand what's measured and how that is plotted by them). That's not theory. It's measured stuff. The debate is around how rotational inertia related issues would affect the observed and plotted steady-state relationship. A design engineer would not use a spreadsheet like this to determine anything of this nature when designing a car. We have the data, we are simply plotting them. You are also wrong on the 40-70 mph acceleration figure. M3 is faster than the 335 in the 50-70 test Bruce posted. Please read the thread carefully and try to understand what has been discussed before coming up with your theories. What is your evidence for saying "And again at no time does the M3 create as much torque as the 335i does"? Did you measure wheel torque under WOT acceleration for both cars? If so, plot them so that we can settle this debate, or leave Swamp, Bruce and myself alone so that we can go on for another 10 pages.

[Buschy]

Originally Posted by Ronno111

To answer your question,,,, I did not "rush" to place an order for a 335xi-- my lease was over on my 745i and I wanted something sportier and faster. I put a deposit on the 335xi but was never comfortable with my decision. It sat on my mind every day like a heavy weight. I knew my 335 was in production, but I kept hearing about all the anticipation of the M3, all redesigned, every single part from the brakes to the chassis and engine --I knew I had to have it. Excuse me for speaking my mind but I knew I would be envious every time I saw an M car on the road. I always have been.

I know the 335i is a great car, I am not putting it down. It is fast and with the right mods can hang with an M3 and be made to look as extreme with new rims, spoiler, and an m-teck kit. All great news! However, I don't want to hang with an M3,,, I want an M3. That was my choice.

I never started with the put downs of your car, you guys came in here bragging how the 335 is superior to the M3, and still continue. With talk like that, I don't think it's Swamps credibility that goes into the toilet....

M owners, thanks for showing your support and sharing stories as we await the delivery of these awesome cars. It has been a long year so far....

I can understand what you are saying, even with my tuned 335i , I was still....I guess to use your word...Jealous, when a M3 drove by. THis even though my 335 was...err faster, more expensive, and I could have had a e46 M3... but still e46 M3 still was an m and my 335 was not. But I didnt want the e46 M3 over the 335i, does that make any sense at all.
anyway whatever. we all have our thougths and opinions.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Bruce are you crazy, what the heck are you saying...

Uh, I'm saying I think the 335 will likely be quicker in everyday driving.

You know, the way the people who have actually driven both cars seem to think.

Bruce

[Redadair]

Originally Posted by lucid

Red, sorry but I don't know where to begin...There are no obscure calculations. Total reduction is simply final drive ratio x gear ratio. That information is all public and you can verify for yourself. As I've said several times before, the spreadsheet doesn't really do anything. It's not presented as an engineering tool. It just factors in the reduction to measured torque at the wheels values (at steady-state) and communicates the performance of the cars in that respect in one chart. (Dig into the site I reference to understand what's measured and how that is plotted by them). That's not theory. It's measured stuff. The debate is around how rotational inertia related issues would affect the observed and plotted steady-state relationship. A design engineer would not use a spreadsheet like this to determine anything of this nature when designing a car. We have the data, we are simply plotting them. You are also wrong on the 40-70 mph acceleration figure. M3 is faster than the 335 in the 50-70 test Bruce posted. Please read the thread carefully and try to understand what has been discussed before coming up with your theories. What is your evidence for saying "And again at no time does the M3 create as much torque as the 335i does"? Did you measure wheel torque under WOT acceleration for both cars? If so, plot them so that we can settle this debate, or leave Swamp, Bruce and myself alone so that we can go on for another 10 pages.

I know exactly where to start with your opions and so called Measured Stuff, It's total BS.

So you totally think the OP is full of it, he can't tell that the 335i feels stronger around town than the M3. Please answer the simple stright question.

Why do you think this post is so long?

1. Because we all believe you and what you have said.
2. Because we, I think your stuff is BS

Dude check out all the Dyno charts out there for the 335i, all list greater total Wheel toqure than the M3. BMW itself rates the 335i higher.

Are we to beilive that the lower gear ratio is some kind of tuqure multiplier? In your dreams if this is what you think

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Redadair

Are we to beilive that the lower gear ratio is some kind of tuqure multiplier? In your dreams if this is what you think

OK chief, you got me there...

[Redadair]

Originally Posted by lucid

OK chief...

You still won't answer the OP question. Is he lying? Your right he is wrong?

Dude what are you thinking with all this crap your pushing anyway. The sad part is that I truly think you honestly believe the BS your talking.

Check out at least one 335i Dyno.

OK Chief

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/mul...dyno_chart.jpg

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Redadair

You still won't answer the OP question. Is he lying? Your right he is wrong?

Dude what are you thinking with all this crap your pushing anyway. The sad part is that I truly think you honestly believe the BS your talking.

Check out at least one 335i Dyno.

OK Chief

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/mul...dyno_chart.jpg

Look, you really don't understand what's being measured. That chart you referenced is not the actual measurement at the wheel. They take a measurement at the wheel and then adjust it to take the gearing into account to work back to the torque at the crankshaft. Otherwise, you would end up with a different torque chart for each gear.

[Redadair]

Originally Posted by lucid

Look, you really don't understand what's being measured. That chart you referenced is not the actual measurement at the wheel. They take a measurement at the wheel and then adjust it to work back to the torque at the crankshaft. Otherwise, you would end up with a different dyno chart for each gear.

Ok so all the Dyno charts out there are false now right.

Including the one you posted for the M3

Are you for real?

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Redadair

Ok so all the Dyno charts out there are false now right.

Including the one you posted for the M3

Are you for real?

I didn't say they were false. That's the only way you can get a normalized torque measurement.

[Redadair]

Originally Posted by lucid

I didn't say they were false. That's the only way you can get a normalized torque measurement.

OK so what's your point?

Have you ever watched a dyno test before? If so did they read out power per gear, or did they do pulls from say 3rd an 4th gear.

How do you think a manufacture certifies the power for SAE ratings? Your data doesn't hold water.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Redadair

OK so what's your point?

Have you ever watched a dyno test before? If so did they read out power per gear, or did they do pulls from say 3rd an 4th gear.

How do you think a manufacture certifies the power for SAE ratings? Your data doesn't hold water.

Power is not affected by all this because of the rotational speed term in the equations. Only torque is affected. Please read:

http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=28

Make sure to pay attention to the section on "Torque Presentation"

[Redadair]

Originally Posted by lucid

Power is not affected by all this because of the rotational speed term in the equations. Only torque is affected. Please read:

http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=28

Make sure to pay attention to the section on "Torque Presentation"

OK so this is were you got your M3 graph from.

Looks like you didn't look at the graph for the 335i.

Performance

Powertrain performance
Wheel power 211 (286 / 282)
kW (PS / bhp)
at 1/min 5610
Total wheel torque / total reduction 385 (284)
Nm (lb-ft)
at 1/min 3009


Stated engine performance
Engine power 225 (306 / 302)
kW (PS / bhp)
at 1/min 5800
Engine torque 400 (295)
Nm (lb-ft)
at 1/min 1300


M3

Performance

Powertrain performance
Wheel power 278 (378 / 373)
kW (PS / bhp)
at 1/min 7808
Total wheel torque / total reduction 365 (270)
Nm (lb-ft)
at 1/min 3901


Stated engine performance
Engine power 309 (420 / 414)
kW (PS / bhp)
at 1/min 8300
Engine torque 400 (295)
Nm (lb-ft)
at 1/min 3900

Again if your thinking that the gear ratio is somehow multiplying the wheel torque I'm not buying it. So if the M3 had 5.88 final drive ratio would it have 400+ lb ft of turque?

Let me give you a real world example.

I owned a Subaru STI prior to my 335i. In stock condition these cars have 300 HP 300 lb ft torque. They also are turbocharged with a max boost pressure of 14.5 psi. These cars also use a very low overall gear ratio.

Using a gauge to monitor the boost I could never reach full boost in 1st or 2nd gears prior to reaching redline. By 3rd and beyond it was quite easy to reach max boost pressure. In a way you can equate the boost pressure gauge as a gauge for torque. By this I mean the engine was not working to it's full potential in 1st and 2nd because of the low gearing. By 3rd gear the acceleration, speed and resistance of the drive train were great enough to fully tax the engine using max boost and torque to achive this acceleration.

The STI engine is a 2.5 liter 4 cylinder 8.5 to 1 compression ratio, with relatively low amounts of torque below 3k rpms.

A couple of reasons the 335i is so strong just off idle is because it's 3 liter engine is running 10.2 to 1 compression ratio, along with the two very small low inertia turbos that spin up very quickly. Even with out the turbos this engine would have good low end torque with this high of compression ratio. The addition of the 8.5 psi boost is like increasing the overall displacement of the engine to over 5 liters. Which is why this engine is so strong a very low rpms.

It can't match the overall power of the 4 liter M engine at full song, but it does not reach full overall power until 8300 rpms. these two engines are like apples and oranges.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Redadair

OK so this is were you got your M3 graph from.

Looks like you didn't look at the graph for the 335i.

Performance

Powertrain performance
Wheel power 211 (286 / 282)
kW (PS / bhp)
at 1/min 5610
Total wheel torque / total reduction 385 (284)
Nm (lb-ft)
at 1/min 3009


Stated engine performance
Engine power 225 (306 / 302)
kW (PS / bhp)
at 1/min 5800
Engine torque 400 (295)
Nm (lb-ft)
at 1/min 1300


M3

Performance

Powertrain performance
Wheel power 278 (378 / 373)
kW (PS / bhp)
at 1/min 7808
Total wheel torque / total reduction 365 (270)
Nm (lb-ft)
at 1/min 3901


Stated engine performance
Engine power 309 (420 / 414)
kW (PS / bhp)
at 1/min 8300
Engine torque 400 (295)
Nm (lb-ft)
at 1/min 3900

Again if your thinking that the gear ratio is somehow multiplying the wheel torque I'm not buying it. So if the M3 had 5.88 final drive ratio would it have 400+ lb ft of turque?

Of course I looked at the 335 data. Where do you think they came from? I just made up a bunch of 335 numbers?

What you are quoting above are the max "Total wheel torque / total reduction" numbers at the rpm at which max torque is delivered as stated in what you pasted above. To get the actual measured wheel torque, you take the stated number and multiply it by the total reduction for a given gear. Do you see any mention of "total reduction" in the power reading? Of course not--for the reason I mentioned earlier. Stated engine performance simply refers to the manufacturer's ratings for the output at the crankshaft. Powertrain performance is what they measured at the hubs during the test.

[coaster]

Originally Posted by Redadair

You still won't answer the OP question. Is he lying? Your right he is wrong?

Dude what are you thinking with all this crap your pushing anyway. The sad part is that I truly think you honestly believe the BS your talking.

Check out at least one 335i Dyno.

OK Chief

http://image.automobilemag.com/f/mul...dyno_chart.jpg

Unfortunately there are good and well educated people in this forum that still can't get past the "badge" syndrome. I would love to test the new M3 tomorrow just to see what these fine folks are talking about, but I can't. (The car isn't here yet so that would have to wait.)

Now the tuned 335i is a very snappy driver and literally "blows away" the E46 M3 in both performance and driveability. The torque down low is very ample and lots of fun to use. (The 35 really comes alive with a good tune.) So I naturally expect the new M3 to impress me RELATIVE to the tuned-35. If it doesn't, then why pay tens of thousands more? I need a reason. By the way the new M3 has dynoed 350 RWHP so its not really a faster car despite the mental gymnastics a few have engaged in this thread. For $20K more in price I expect the M3 to have far superior cornering ability, far superior interior, be equally good (if not better) daily driver and just as snappy in the acceleration department around town.

I sure hope it is.

Onward ...