Any 135i to M3 crossovers?

[graider]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Pretty much every owner I've talked to or conversed with says that the M3 doesn't come alive until you get to the right-hand side of the tach, and of course that's also been my experience. Feel free to continue your disagreement.

This explains it all. if these owners and you don't want to rev when driving the m3. then it is not for them and you. the m3 is meant to be rev. Just like a sport bike, you have to rev it.

whatsup with you bashing me and other. calling the guy fanboy and stuff. that's not nice IMO

about the new ferrari making 88lbs torque, you do realize it cost 5-6 times more than the m3 right? I say for 60 grands, the m3 has the best engine in it class.

[r53s65e90]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Pretty much every owner I've talked to or conversed with says that the M3 doesn't come alive until you get to the right-hand side of the tach, and of course that's also been my experience. Feel free to continue your disagreement.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

This explains it all. if these owners and you don't want to rev when driving the m3. then it is not for them and you. the m3 is meant to be rev. Just like a sport bike, you have to rev it.

Agree entirely. Some folks think it's fine, some love it, and some are bothered by it. Personally (and as mentioned more than once), I'm with the first group. You're with the second, footie's with the third. For me, the engine is so zingy and the gearing aggressive enough so it's not an "issue". In addition, the right side of the tach brings such joy to the driver that any issue of around-town softness pales by comparison - unless that's 100% of your driving, in which case a Camry would be better.

Originally Posted by graider

whatsup with you bashing me and other. calling the guy fanboy and stuff. that's not nice IMO

When asked, "nice" is not the first word people think of when describing me.

Originally Posted by graider

about the new ferrari making 88lbs torque, you do realize it cost 5-6 times more than the m3 right? I say for 60 grands, the m3 has the best engine in it class.

First, money is not the issue. Second, the E46 makes 84 pound feet per liter, and of course it was less money - and would likely still be less if it were still being built today.

Third, my belief is that it's an absolutely world-class engine. For a previous description, go here.

Lastly, as to whether the M3 engine is the best in class, that's an honestly debatable issue. It certainly belongs right up there, though.

I personally lean toward the Merc 6.2 liter a bit, but acknowledge the case for the bimmer. On the other hand, one could also make a case for the Chevy small block - although the last two times I actually did that a firestorm of biblical proportions was raised.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Take any given cylinder pressure - say 2000 psi. A piston with, say, 12 square inches of surface area will be subject to a downward force of 24,000 pounds. A piston with ten square inches will have 20,000 pounds. You get the idea. Of course, in order to maintain the same engine capacity, the stroke would be reduced in the engine with the larger pistons, so there is less of that total pressure converted to rotational force because you have less leverage due to the shorter moment arm.

I haven't studied this in detail, but the basic understanding I have suggests that what you are saying above is over-simplified since cylinder pressure varies with piston position (and cylinder geometry), and there are additional geometry-dependent variables such as piston side loading. So, I find it hard to believe that things simply cancel out and that stroke (or rod ratio although one can hold stroke constant while varying rod ratio) at fixed displacement has no effect (you say "little", but what is little in this case?) on torque at the crankshaft. If you can reference a credible source on this topic that I can read, that would be informative.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

I haven't studied this in detail, but the basic understanding I have suggests that what you are saying above is over-simplified since cylinder pressure varies with piston position (and cylinder geometry), and there are additional geometry-dependent variables such as piston side loading. So, I find it hard to believe that things simply cancel out and that stroke (or rod ratio although one can hold stroke constant while varying rod ratio) at fixed displacement has no effect (you say "little", but what is little in this case?) on torque at the crankshaft. If you can reference a credible source on this topic that I can read, that would be informative.

Certainly it's oversimplified. There are books written on this topic.

Wasn't intending to imply (or allow room for the reader to infer), that it all works out exactly equal though, because it essentially never does. My bad if that's how it read. Just wanted to show how increased stroke for a given displacement doesn't intrinsically make more torque.

Your comment that "cylinder pressure varies with piston position" has no bearing, however, since all I said was that at given cylinder pressure, there will be more downward force on a larger piston mitigated by having less of that force translatable to rotational force. I personally felt that the gentleman with the question didn't need to hear about how rod length and piston pin placement might affect the outcome, or how flame front propagation vs timing vs cylinder pressure vs rod angle might affect the outcome, or how that outcome might vary depending on rpm.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

There are books written on this topic.

My IC engines bible, Heywood, does not directly cover this, so I am looking for a credible source. Any suggestions?

[M_Time]

Originally Posted by Zuzu

Now that we are back on topic again, As I am considering the same trade up to a E92 M3..
You are happy with milage aswel as the DCT in city traffic?

You won't regret it...

I love my DCT especially with all the S and D Modes, all you have to do is set it up based on your driving preferences, the only flip side is the damn lag issus due to slow downs and reacceleration, you have to manage it. I suggest you test drive it if not done so, and this would be the time to start searching, you might be able to buy later this year with a good discount or trunk money.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

My IC engines bible, Heywood, does not directly cover this, so I am looking for a credible source. Any suggestions?

Can't remember offhand, and the automotive library is is yet unpacked after the move, but I'll get to it. Maybe Taylor? (MIT Press). Of course, I only say that 'cause I liked his stuff the best.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Can't remember offhand, and the automotive library is is yet unpacked after the move, but I'll get to it. Maybe Taylor? (MIT Press). Of course, I only say that 'cause I liked his stuff the best.

Yeah, he is one of the big guns. I wonder what they use as text in an IC engine class these days...

[mtla4]

I own a 135I. Its a good car...the best daily you can have however the M3 is more rewarding and IS a DRIVER CAR. The 135I feels like a mustang with good brakes and good handling(not expectional). Im not a torque guy. This is the car with the most torque that Ive ever owned. Never again...will I buy a torquey car. It depends on your driving style and if you track or not etc. I just find the 135-335 too easy to drive...no need to downshift etc...power delivery is instant.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by mtla4

I own a 135I. Its a good car...the best daily you can have however the M3 is more rewarding and IS a DRIVER CAR. The 135I feels like a mustang with good brakes and good handling(not expectional). Im not a torque guy. This is the car with the most torque that Ive ever owned. Never again...will I buy a torquey car. It depends on your driving style and if you track or not etc. I just find the 135-335 too easy to drive...no need to downshift etc...power delivery is instant.

Very well said. I agree. That is why I love high revving engines. Torque and tall gearing makes me feel lazy and uninvolved. It is like the car is happy staying at low revs and performs the best there. Downshifts are not needed and the car does not "demand" the attention of the driver or any driving technique. You don't have to "work" to get the car perform its best, which requires very little skills and in turn is much less rewarding.