Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by MrHarris

Nitto INVO's (fail tires IMO for the M3)

AD08's on today! 295's! Should be much better (I'm hoping)

How are they for clearance?, seems close to the bodywork.

[MrHarris]

Originally Posted by johnbmw6

How are they for clearance?, seems close to the bodywork.

The 255/35/19 INVO's rubbed in the front when making a full left turn. But now that they are about 70% gone, they do not rub anymore. The 285/30 INVO's have too much clearance and actually looks ugly IMO.

I shouldn't rub with the 245/35 + 295/30 combo. I bought these over the RE-11's mainly because the RE-11's had 285/35 and I felt I would rub for sure with those, but now I'm not 100% sure.

[JOHNBMWM5]

Originally Posted by MrHarris

The 255/35/19 INVO's rubbed in the front when making a full left turn. But now that they are about 70% gone, they do not rub anymore. The 285/30 INVO's have too much clearance and actually looks ugly IMO.

I shouldn't rub with the 245/35 + 295/30 combo. I bought these over the RE-11's mainly because the RE-11's had 285/35 and I felt I would rub for sure with those, but now I'm not 100% sure.

Thanks for the info, Goodyear F1 Assy's look good for Winter use, what do think of them?.

[erio]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

You're right on. I don't know about the E92 M3 as best to date. Certainly the most refined as it should be. Definitely the most technically capable. It's weight works against it, and it's too luxurious...which is an increasing departure from traditional BMW sport-mindedness. I would argue the best to date should be measured against the competition at that period of time. I can't imagine BMW making a new M3 and going backward in performance. So of course it's more capable. But you have to acknowledge the E46 M3 CSL is still faster around tracks than the E92 M3, and not just marginally. But of course the new lightweight beefed up power M3 (I forget what it's called) that the US will never see should FINALLY best the E46 M3 CSL. That I'm sure is the best M3 to date as you define it.

Thanks. I'm thinking in terms of standard, stock, not special edition M3s, that are sold here in the US. Also, the debate seems more focused on numbers such as horsepower, torque, and acceleration. The e92 excells in every way in that sense. Don't get me wrong the e46, esp. csl (never driven it ), is amazing. I think it gives a somewhat more visceral experience and "feels" more nimble. I can't wait to see the new GTS track numbers. I'm confident it will best the CSL.

[MrHarris]

Originally Posted by johnbmw6

Thanks for the info, Goodyear F1 Assy's look good for Winter use, what do think of them?.

I'm not too experienced with winter tires but I believe those tires are good for light snow but still perform decent in the dry compared to other all seasons.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by footie

MVF4Rrider,

If you had bothered to read most of the stuff I wrote on this subject you would know that the data I supplied had nothing to do with being in the right gear, but all to do with driving the car leisurely, which happens to be what 95% of people do on a daily basis.

That is all I have never complained about towards the M3 and it's lack of torque, when you are REALLY on it the M3 engine is a total masterpiece and would probably rev till it burst. But bumming along at a leisurely on part throttle it's no where near as good as some other rivals that are even equipped with N/A engines and even less brilliant against ones which are forced.

Everyone, get with the program. Not me nor the OP are complaining about what the M3 is capable of doing when the throttle is pinned.

P.S.
Swamp is someone I respect and value his opinion but we don't always have to see eye to eye or even have to try and convince the each other that our opinion is the right one, I have the opinion that the M3 is lacking something on part throttle which will be cured with the next M3.

The car has plenty of power, even from 2.5k+ for daily driving. If you want immediate and maximum power delivery, then yes, gasp, you will have to downshift. The HUMANITY! So ANNOYING.

This is really comical at this point.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Haven't I been saying this?

Well, not quite - Swamp is talking about thrust which is a linear force.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Where Footie's data utterly failed is there's no consideration to the rpm each car's engine is spinning (which would vary from car to car at fixed miles per hour thresholds) and being in the appropriate gear to optimize acceleration. What that data showed me is the M3 undoubtedly was producing less multiplied torque at its rpm for that gear and mph, thus the slower times to greater mph thresholds. There's no requirement to be in the exact same gear as the competition at a fixed mph. If you want to compare roll-on acceleration, let the car driver use the optimum gear to best exploit the package. He concludes the lowest rpms is the M3's engine's best range of performance vs. the competition, and the S65 is found "wanting" at higher rpms. YGTBSM! In those comparisons, the M3 had not yet reached the beginning of the power band.

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?

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

Because you drove 155MPH on the autobahn.

175 actually in my Z4 M (5th gear). I've done upwards of 190 mph on 2 wheels. For sure I'm far more comfortable at triple digit speeds than before I lived in Germany.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by lucid

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?

What is the optimal gear? Surely that depends on the context. There's a world of difference between between circulating an uncrowded track or carving a back road and commuting through congestion for many of us. Driving the M3 smoothly/efficiently and quickly in congestion requires more anticipation and effort than my Dinan tune 335i did.

Unfortunately, the timing of the development cycle of the M3 led to a missed opportunity - a direct injection naturally aspirated V8 which would likely address the two major weaknesses of the s65 engine - poor fuel efficiency and relatively weak low end torque.

[waremark]

Originally Posted by footie

I totally get the M3 engine when you take it on to the track, it's engine characteristics perfectly suit that application. But in my opinion it's not 100% perfectly suited to road use. I've driven many Porsches and almost all of them deliver a more rewarding daily drive with better response on part throttle and from lower revs, yet are still as reward to thrash in the same way as the S65 is.

Huh? The same price Porsche in the UK is a well-equipped Cayman S. The M3 develops more torque over a wider range and is quicker in any type of driving. I prefer the very smooth throttle action of all Porsches, but apart from that and the fuel consumption the M3 engine kicks.

I love the C63 engine, but prefer the M3 chassis and gearbox (DCT). The C63 is too hard for British minor roads.

Footie, reference a recent comment about British roads, you obviously don't get time to go out looking for drivers' roads. Hence choosing the XF, a very pleasant commuting car.

[footie]

lucid,

You at least see what I was trying to show with that data, it's wasn't to somehow make out that the S65 was a badly conceived motor, just to show that it's not the best solution if you sole intent is to drive the car as a daily commuter. There is no doubt it's a serious performer when used to it's full potential and probably no one would deny that it doesn't hit well above it's weight but all I was trying to show is it ain't perfect.

I pretty sure that all the issues I am concerned about will be addressed with the new engine and if the rumour mill is correct I doubt you N/A die-hards will have anything to worry about with regards to throttle response either.

[footie]

Originally Posted by waremark

Huh? The same price Porsche in the UK is a well-equipped Cayman S. The M3 develops more torque over a wider range and is quicker in any type of driving. I prefer the very smooth throttle action of all Porsches, but apart from that and the fuel consumption the M3 engine kicks.

I love the C63 engine, but prefer the M3 chassis and gearbox (DCT). The C63 is too hard for British minor roads.

Footie, reference a recent comment about British roads, you obviously don't get time to go out looking for drivers' roads. Hence choosing the XF, a very pleasant commuting car.

Very seldom is it that I don't see a Police car on my journeys and quite often it's more than one. Now admittedly I could go out hunting for the ideal road but frankly I can't be arsed any more during my personal drive so I'm happier to get me little ass home as soon as possible to see the wife and kids.

You are quite right about the C63, I almost bought one prior to the M3 but didn't like the gearbox nor the ride. Apart from that I actually thought it was a better alternative for me but for those two issues that totally put me off.

Regarding the Jag, the pipe and slippers are with me as I speak.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

What is the optimal gear? Surely that depends on the context. There's a world of difference between between circulating an uncrowded track or carving a back road and commuting through congestion for many of us. Driving the M3 smoothly/efficiently and quickly in congestion requires more anticipation and effort than my Dinan tune 335i did.

Unfortunately, the timing of the development cycle of the M3 led to a missed opportunity - a direct injection naturally aspirated V8 which would likely address the two major weaknesses of the s65 engine - poor fuel efficiency and relatively weak low end torque.

Optimal gear as in whichever gear will yield the max wheel torque and hence vehicle acceleration at any given vehicle speed. That is independent of where you are driving (assuming you want to accelerate fast at that point in time for whatever reason). That is beside the point though. If you see my response above, I acknowledge that it will have lower low end torque at the wheels than some of the competition (namesly, the C63), which does not include the 335 or the TT-RS in my book. I don't see that as a problem though. There are problems that I do see such as its weight, overly insulated cabin (for my tastes), and its interior design.

Again, stock vs stock, the M3 does better than a 335 in producing torque at the wheels--even when not revved high--in traffic or elsewhere as long as you don't really lug the engine by staying below 2000 rpm. I haven't owned a 335, but have spent time in it, and the numbers are pretty valid IMO. A tuned 335 is probably a different story, but then we are comparing apples and oranges because you can also tune the M3 to get more torque out of it.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by footie

lucid,

You at least see what I was trying to show with that data, it's wasn't to somehow make out that the S65 was a badly conceived motor, just to show that it's not the best solution if you sole intent is to drive the car as a daily commuter. There is no doubt it's a serious performer when used to it's full potential and probably no one would deny that it doesn't hit well above it's weight but all I was trying to show is it ain't perfect.

I pretty sure that all the issues I am concerned about will be addressed with the new engine and if the rumour mill is correct I doubt you N/A die-hards will have anything to worry about with regards to throttle response either.

Foot, I see you point, yet still maintain that there are no issues around its performance as a daily driver as far as torque is concerned.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by lucid

Again, stock vs stock, the M3 does better than a 335 in producing torque at the wheels--even when not revved high--in traffic or elsewhere as long as you don't really lug the engine by staying below 2000 rpm.

That pretty much sums it up. I did notice the M3 is jerky and wants to stall below 2000 rpm with an on-off feel of the clutch, but pulls like a freight train once above 3000 rpm.

Like the example I gave above, 300 ft-lbs@3800 rpm is more than enough torque to haul a 6000 lbs trailer comfortably uphill in the mountains considering my manager's Tacoma 4.0 Liter V6 does that with 266 ft-lbs@4000 rpm when his truck weighs 4200 lbs.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by lucid

I haven't owned a 335, but have spent time in it, so that numbers are pretty valid IMO. A tuned 335 is probably a different story, but then we are comparing apples and oranges because you can also tune the M3 to get more torque out of it.

Not really, since the costs and benefits of tuning are miles apart between the two cars. A $2000 ECU tune totally transforms the 335i. Having said that, a judicious tune (in conjunction with the DCT) could make me much happier with the M3 in a commuting role. This is all academic for me since I would have bought an Audi S4 instead of the M3 if I wasn't retiring.

By the way, your definition of optimal gear doesn't take into account fuel efficiency which is irrational in the context of commuting.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Not really, since the costs and benefits of tuning are miles apart between the two cars. A $2000 ECU tune totally transforms the 335i. Having said that, a judicious tune (in conjunction with the DCT) could make me much happier with the M3 in a commuting role. This is all academic for me since I would have bought an Audi S4 instead of the M3 if I wasn't retiring.

I am not sure if you were around 2 years ago when there were raving debates around the cost to mod topic. It's been beaten to death. Sure, it might be cheaper to mod the engine of the 335, but there are all sorts of hidden costs that might surface later. Even if you set all that aside, the cars are in different classes entirely--one costs significantly more than the other off the show room, and it will cost more to mod. So, that is the subjective dimension of the discussion. If cost was such a decisive factor, one would be crazy to buy an M3 to begin with. There are many other ways of getting better or similar performance for less. I kid you not, a Cobalt SS does surprisingly well out of the box, on the road or on the track.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

By the way, your definition of optimal gear doesn't take into account fuel efficiency which is irrational in the context of commuting.

Assuming that everyone who bought the M3 as a commuter car cares about fuel efficiency is irrational.

[phrozen06]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

Quite frankly, BMW has done a good job of selling a comparatively unimpressive engine. For instance their claims that it's more fuel efficient than the 3.2 liter straight six are just plain false. I've been happy with each of the three M3s I've owned, but I'll likely be happier with the F30 than with the E92.

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

On a bench test it might be more fuel efficient (block to block). But when you mate it to the drivetrain, chassis and everything else you can easily get a different spec. Never trust anything marketing puts out.

[footie]

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

That pretty much sums it up. I did notice the M3 is jerky and wants to stall below 2000 rpm with an on-off feel of the clutch, but pulls like a freight train once above 3000 rpm.

Maybe your M3 is more special than mine was because I never felt it pulled like a freight train from 3000rpm. I did think that it pulled OK from these kind of revs but didn't really get going until the 6000 mark and then went supersonic over the last 1200revs.

Originally Posted by 330CIZHP

Like the example I gave above, 300 ft-lbs@3800 rpm is more than enough torque to haul a 6000 lbs trailer comfortably uphill in the mountains considering my manager's Tacoma 4.0 Liter V6 does that with 266 ft-lbs@4000 rpm when his truck weighs 4200 lbs.

I keep returning to the same thing, the figure is not important, please stop mentioning it. The problem is the lack of torque away from upper area of the revs which is seen in data I provided, if you keep the M3 motor on the boil then it will out accelerate a TT-RS and get mighty close to a C63 but below these high revs the M3 is slow.

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.

And the same thing will be true in 4th at even higher speeds.

Between 50~110mph in 4th both the TT and C63 will do this 1.8s quicker than the M3.

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

[BimmerBoomer]

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.

And the same thing will be true in 4th at even higher speeds.

Between 50~110mph in 4th both the TT and C63 will do this 1.8s quicker than the M3.

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

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.