|
|
04-23-2008, 04:02 PM | #67 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
OK, I PM'd lucid, and he remembers posting somehting to the effect that his M3 has a significant disparity between just driving it and chasing after it modes, but I can't find it, and won't chase after it any more. (Of course, he loves the car.) In any event, unless you're a fanboy, there are records all over the net pointing to a comparative shortfall in the mid range, the latest of which was recently posted in this forum wherein the testers said the car was short of torque compared to the RS4. Of course, it really isn't short of torque compared to the RS4, and we know that in high gear the car pulls really well from low speeds when you boot it. Better than the RS4, in fact - but it just feels less lively when you're not booting it. I have no tested, off the shelf fix, but remembered corresponding with Mark Kibort a few years back in regard to an in-line fan he had developed, so a cursory net check came up with this. This isn't the answer, because it's designed to activate at full (or at least major) throttle, and therefore rapid spinup is mandatory. The device thus has a more powerful fan motor than you need (more than one HP), providing a semi-instant one psi of boost. Under those conditions, a temporary 62 amp drain on the battery is fine, but obviously not supportable as a full-time amp draw. I think a 150 to 200 watt unit would supply that additional one psi of boost at part throttle and low to medium rpm, fading to something considerably less than that at full throttle and high rpm. But of course nobody is complaining about how the M3 runs when you're banging on it, are they? A device such as this would provide sharpened throttle response, but also more torque at part throttle, just driving around. If it were me, I'd probably start with the as-delivered unit, but seek to replace the electric motor with one of a more suitable reduced capacity. In regard to automatic transmission reliability, it's common knowledge. Enough so that nobody is writing about it any more. I read about this more than 20 years ago in some SAE papers by Ford and GM guys. Generally speaking, an auto is good for at least 150 to 200 thousand miles with normal fluid and filter changes. You can get more than 100K miles out of a clutch, but you're on borrowed time - especially in a high-performance car. The other bogey with a stick car (especially a high performance model) is the synchros. Not that I've ever missed a shift in my life, but I hear other people have. That old saw about more parts (and more moving parts) leads to less reliability turns out not to be the case (he said, diplomatically). If that were true, a dohc V8 would have perhaps a third of the MTBF enjoyed by an ohv four cylinder. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-23-2008, 04:55 PM | #68 | ||
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Allow me to clarify: the M3 by no means feels "lethargic". Sorry, but that is your attribution, but mine. The issue around weight that I have been trying to express is not easy to get across, and that is why I recommended you to drive the car. In my previous posts, I tried to qualify that comment by repeatedly stating that "although it feels a bit heavy, the weight does not get in the way of performance." It's super agile and quick. No issues there as the numbers indicate. The only time it becomes somewhat of an issue is when you are rolling off from a dead stop. I am really talking about an rpm range of 0-2500 or so. In this car, that does not qualify as "mid-range" as you put it. It is more like the low-range. I seldomly find myself in that range even when driving around town--again, the only exception being a dead stop. Mid-range in this car is more like 3000-5250 rpms, and there are absolutely no issues there regarding torque/power. It just pulls. Coming back to the stock 335 vs M3 debate. I stick to my position after having driven both. Above 2500 or so, the M3 has more torque at the wheels, and will out accelerate the 335. From a dead stop, the 335 will most likely have the advantage--assuming it has traction and is driven properly--but it will then be caught up and chewed on (again, I am talking stock vs. stock as we were on that other thread). The part-throttle issue: yes, the 335 most likely has more torque at the wheels than the M3 through the mid-range at part throttle because of how the boost is mapped and all that. Is this an issue? Not at all. Again, my point has been that if you want to go fast, you press the damn pedal. When you do that in the M3, the engine respond instantaneously, and you're off. Even at part throttle, I wouldn't characterize the car as lethargic or anything like that. It's responsiveness makes up for the extra boost that is mapped onto the 335 part-throttle in my opinion. I see absolutely no reason to improve the throttle response in the M3 as it is already excellent. See article posted by Malter2.0 on some relevant discussion about design for responsiveness here (it obviously is talking about the M3 engine only, so it doesn't serve a comparative role, but still useful): http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126071 Having said all this, would I like my M3 to weigh 200lbs less? Yes, of course. If I owned a 335, would I have had the same desire (considering the two cars weigh about exactly the same)? Yes, of course. That's more in the lines of the E9X series should weigh closer to what the E46 series weighed, and not specific to the M3. Finally, it is true that the M3 becomes the beast that it is under WOT. There is some kind of a discrete affect there, and I think it was intentional--by design. But that doesn't mean that it is problematic. It is not problematic because the transition happens instantly if you want it. You don't have to press the pedal and wait for it, and that is the real beauty of this car/engine. P.S. I haven't driven the RS4, so I can't comment on that comparison, but I bet RS4 owners would like their cars to weigh 200 lbs less as well. Also, I can produce another chart that would most likely result in another civil war of some kind.
__________________
Last edited by lucid; 04-23-2008 at 05:50 PM.. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-23-2008, 11:46 PM | #69 |
Major General
597
Rep 5,448
Posts |
I've driven the RS4 - its awesome, but the RS4 owners wish it weighed 400 lbs less!!!!!
__________________
Fore Sale Rare 6 speed manual X3 3.oi silver over grey. PM me
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-24-2008, 12:46 AM | #70 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-24-2008, 07:38 PM | #71 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
They claim the blades do not restrict airflow when the device is inactive. This is simply not possible. There will always be additional resistance at the blades and friction at the fan bearings, etc, since this thing has to be mounted in series with the main intake airflow. How much impedence would that result in at different engine speeds, I have no idea, but it's not 0. Having said that, one can say it will never be inactive, and that it would always be running. I don't know that that means it won't restrict airflow at high engine speeds when the M3 engine is sucking in massive amounts of air. Saying fan blades spin at 23000 rpm doesn't mean anything. Just becauase the fan is spinning fast doesn't mean that it is keeping up with airflow. Meaning, does this thing have enough power to act as a compressor at high engine speeds, or is it simply going to become a load? At low engine speeds, I can see how it could be beneficial IF it has enough power to act as a compressor (we are talking about only 684 Watts). I am not an electrical engineer, but I wonder if constantly drawing 57 amps would be problematic. How many amps is the alternator putting out? And what is demand from other systems?
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-24-2008, 11:40 PM | #72 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
I can't see the M3 engine needing more than 500 cfm, assuming 85% volumetric efficiency at 8300 rpm. With the lower powered electric motor, you'd be drawing a max of 15 amps, which is doable with the standard alternator. Again, the goal would be to liven up the zero to 2500 rpm window where the engine could absolutely use some help, in my opinion. I've now driven one for about 45 minutes, and will write that up shortly. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-24-2008, 11:52 PM | #73 |
Major General
597
Rep 5,448
Posts |
this thread is getting more worthless all the time!!!!
__________________
Fore Sale Rare 6 speed manual X3 3.oi silver over grey. PM me
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-25-2008, 12:16 AM | #74 |
Major
75
Rep 1,288
Posts |
__________________
2009 135i 6MT Euro Delivery 9/5/09
BMW Performance Power Kit - Exhaust - Short Shifter - Suspension |
Appreciate
0
|
04-25-2008, 01:38 AM | #75 |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
I am not ready to chime in fully on the topic of electric blowers. However, I would offer this small point. If they are that good, that simple and without any major comprimises why wouldn't they be widely integrated and installed at the OEM level on sporty cars or perhaps on cars lacking low rpm torque (like the poor M3 ).
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-25-2008, 06:31 AM | #76 | |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
Maybe you have dealt with compressors all your life and have internalized some basic relationships between pressure, air flow, and power, but I haven't. To answer the question of, "does this thing have enough power to act as a compressor", I would need to pull out some books and calculate how much energy is required to compress a specific volume of air, and than relate that to flow rate and power. If it won't have enough power at high engine speeds, then I still don't see how it won't impede flow when it stops acting as a compressor. One can argue that it is negligible, but one can't argue that its impedance would be 0. Looking forward to hearing about your test. Did you install it in your Acura?
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-25-2008, 09:00 AM | #77 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Because this "solution" is a complete and total engineering Bandaid (especially in the form which I've suggested), and it makes up for that by being hideously expensive for limited results. For about five bucks per car in extra (machined) metal, BMW could build a 4.5 liter version of the wonder motor, and reap benefits everywhere. "Problem" solved. Bruce PS - Now that I've spent some quality time behind the wheel, I tend to agree with lucid's commentary. You can feel the weight, and the softness in the torque department below about 2500 at part throttle is noticeable, but it's not annoying. Therefore, "my" engineering Bandaid answers a question that won't be asked by most folks. It's really an issue only when you do comparisons (for instance to the RS4, which I've sampled), and after all, once you buy the car, why bother with comparisons? You bought the car instead of the RS4 (or whatever) because it appealed to you more. End of story. Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 04-25-2008 at 09:07 AM.. Reason: punctuation |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-25-2008, 03:22 PM | #78 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Bruce, since you brought up perceived RS4 vs. M3 torque differences at the low-end several times, I couldn't resist thinking about the numbers. Here they are for both cars in 2nd gear. Obviosly, the RS4 will have more traction below 2500, but how much more and is that enought to offset the weight difference? (I assume we can agree that rotational intertia issues are pretty much a wash here.)
On the part throttle issue: what throttle mapping did you drive the M3 at? Values adjusted for temp and hum. http://www.rri.se/index.php?DN=29
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 01:43 AM | #79 |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Don't forget the KEY additional factor you can not really feel torque but you sure can feel torque/lb! It all comes back to the accuracy of the butt-ometer and I think many folks think there butt is better than a real accelerometer.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 01:46 AM | #80 |
Lieutenant General
611
Rep 10,407
Posts |
As well you know darn well why the car is 4 liters. Well 3.999 to be exact... For those that don't the answer is taxes.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 02:04 AM | #81 |
Major
122
Rep 1,401
Posts
Drives: 2003 HPF 2.5, 2008 M3 (Sold)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pearl District, OR
|
Mercedes must have lost their butt in taxes on the C63, they seemed to take the American muscle car approach on that engine.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 02:21 AM | #82 |
Banned
4143
Rep 6,926
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 02:29 AM | #83 |
Major
122
Rep 1,401
Posts
Drives: 2003 HPF 2.5, 2008 M3 (Sold)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pearl District, OR
|
+1, just commenting on the aforementioned engine taxation.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 06:23 AM | #84 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Sure. That's why I mentioned that the benefits of the additional traction RS4 has with 4WD are most likely evened out by the weight difference between the two cars.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 07:38 AM | #85 |
Major General
1112
Rep 8,016
Posts |
I remember posting some time ago that the S5 felt have more go on part throttle then the M3. I would like to readdress this opinion after re-testing the M3, only this time I tested the M3 with SportPlus engaged and this time the M3 feels every bit as quick. Maybe more so in fact.
The only problem I found with SportPlus throttle mapping was that on a bumpy surface in a low gear it's hard to be accurate with your inputs. For me Sport is much better. |
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 08:19 AM | #86 | |
Major
240
Rep 1,247
Posts
Drives: E60 M5, E71 X6M, E46 M3
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: At the gas station
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2006 BMW E46 M3 'vert [0.00]
2008 BMW M5 [0.00] 2011 BMW E92 [0.00] 2012 BMW X6M [0.00] 2003 E46 M3 [0.00] |
Quote:
I was not aware that a cars engine size has a bearing on taxes. I was only aware of GGT based on MPG. Seems like another way for government to get in our pockets.
__________________
Current: 2006 E46 M3 'vert 6-sp 2008 E60 M5, 2011 E92 328 6-sp, 2011 E70 N55, 2012 E71 X6M
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 09:22 AM | #87 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
If not, Audi and Mercedes must feel pretty dumb by now, having missed that obvious advantage, so important to this area of the market. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-26-2008, 12:32 PM | #88 |
Major General
597
Rep 5,448
Posts |
rumors are that in some parts of Europe taxes and insurance is based on discplacement and HP. thats the tory on why BMW rates the HP very conservatively. my folks 540it rated at 282 hp dynoed at about 320 hp.
__________________
Fore Sale Rare 6 speed manual X3 3.oi silver over grey. PM me
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|