New owner.. But not very happy?

[spazzyfry123]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

But...that's kind of the point. Not only does the M3 have less torque than much less expensive V8 cars like the Camaro and Mustang, it actually doesn't even make any more torque than the 4-cylinder versions of those cars--and they both do it at 1000 less RPMs.

So no, it doesn't seem out of line to question the lack of torque in the S65.

I could make the same complaint as to why my old LS Camaro didn't rev to the moon like the S65.

It's like comparing beer, wine, and liquor. They all have different ways of getting you there, but boy do they get you there. I like my car to rev high and pull the whole way, but I guess I'm a beer guy.

[strokemycocktus]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

But...that's kind of the point. Not only does the M3 have less torque than much less expensive V8 cars like the Camaro and Mustang, it actually doesn't even make any more torque than the 4-cylinder versions of those cars--and they both do it at 1000 less RPMs.

So no, it doesn't seem out of line to question the lack of torque in the S65.

So you don't get why a 4.0 naturally aspirated engine has less low end torque than a 6.2 LS or a turbocharged 4-cyl? That's just like, how it works and stuff, and was rather obvious to me before I even drove the car.

I can't understand all these complaints. First off I think S65 does have sufficient torque at 2.5k, and second the relatively low figure is not a flaw but a way this engine was designed.

Try to hit 8400 rpm with that ancient push rod LS or any (streetable) turbo engine - should that be considered their flaw then?

[wfdeacon88]

Originally Posted by tooloud10

But...that's kind of the point. Not only does the M3 have less torque than much less expensive V8 cars like the Camaro and Mustang, it actually doesn't even make any more torque than the 4-cylinder versions of those cars--and they both do it at 1000 less RPMs.

So no, it doesn't seem out of line to question the lack of torque in the S65.

Go buy a 4 cylinder Camaro and call it a day. I'm sure you'll be thrilled to have all that extra torque.

[JackieChiles]

Originally Posted by strokemycocktus

So you don't get why a 4.0 naturally aspirated engine has less low end torque than a 6.2 LS or a turbocharged 4-cyl? That's just like, how it works and stuff, and was rather obvious to me before I even drove the car.

I can't understand all these complaints. First off I think S65 does have sufficient torque at 2.5k, and second the relatively low figure is not a flaw but a way this engine was designed.

Try to hit 8400 rpm with that ancient push rod LS or any (streetable) turbo engine - should that be considered their flaw then?

Nobody said it was a flaw some said they don’t like the low rpm torque response.

I don’t mind it but can see how some would.

People like different things, pretty straightforward. And it’s never for one person to say what is right or wrong to like.

The e9x m3 isn’t the right car for everyone, nor is it flawless. I think we can all agree it would be a hell of a lot better if it wasn’t so heavy.

[srmast1]

FWIW, a simple way to approximate torque coming out to the wheels in a particular gear for most gas vehicles is:

Max torque × gear ratio(of that gear) × final drive ratio × transmission loss.

Gear ratios for a e9x m3 6MT:

1st: 4.055:1
2nd: 2.369:1
3rd: 1.582:1
4th: 1.192:1
5th: 1.000:1
6th: 0.872:1

Final Drive: 3.846:1

So: 295 lb/ft × 4.055 × 3.846 = 4600.68 lb/ft. Then taking into account ~20% parasitic drivetrain loss, we have 3680.4 lb/ft TO THE WHEELS. If you want to calculate torque to the pavement, you have to take tire circumference, diameter and width into account.

Gear ratios for a 335i 6mt:

Final Drive...3.08
1st: 4.06
2nd: 2.40
3rd: 1.58
4th: 1.19
5th: 1.00
6th: 0.87

Let's calculate max torque to the wheels for a 335i 6mt sedan in 1st gear:

300lb/ft × 4.06 × 3.08 = 3751.44 lb/ft
With ~20% parasitic loss we have 3001.15 lb/ft to the rear wheels.

So in conclusion, 3680.4lb/ft max torque to the rear wheels in 1st gear for the e90 m3 vs 3001.15 lb/ft max torque to the rear wheels in 1st gear even though the 335i has a higher advertised torque rating.

1) gearing has quite a bit to do with actual usable torque.
2) just because a car has a higher advertised torque rating, that does not mean it has more applicable torque. Calculate it to see for sure.
3) The e9x m3 has plenty of usable torque, it just does not feel so torqey because it works using the high revving concept which leads to a different acceleration feel. The e9x m3 is plenty fast, it just does not feel like it.
4) If you want more torque to the rear wheels, swapping for an LSD with a higher gear ratio is something that could work, but may shorten the usable rev range.
5) The e9x m3 puts down almost as much torque to the wheels (3684 lb/ft) as a 335is does during overboost [1st gr ratio : 4.05, final drive. 3.077] ~ (3689lb/ft) and overboost pushes the torque to ~370lb/ft. I think that is a testament to the clever gearing and power delivery of the e9x m3 considering it "only" comes with 295 lb/ft torque.

335i:
Max Torque: 300 lb/ft
Max torque to the rear wheels in 1st gear: 3001 lb/ft

335is:
Torque during overboost: 370 lb/ft
Max torque to wheels in 1st gear using overboost: 3689 lb/ft

E9x m3:
Max torque : 295 lb/ft
Max torque to rear wheels in 1st gear: 3684 lb/ft

The e9x m3 is rather impressive I think.

[rochoa21]

I haven’t driven my m3 in two days and miss it, it’s one great car.

[tooloud10]

Originally Posted by spazzyfry123

I could make the same complaint as to why my old LS Camaro didn't rev to the moon like the S65.

It's like comparing beer, wine, and liquor. They all have different ways of getting you there, but boy do they get you there. I like my car to rev high and pull the whole way, but I guess I'm a beer guy.

You could make that complaint, but the first thing any reasonable person would point out is that the E9x costs 2-3 times more than an LS Camaro and so comes with higher expectations.

Originally Posted by strokemycocktus

So you don't get why a 4.0 naturally aspirated engine has less low end torque than a 6.2 LS or a turbocharged 4-cyl? That's just like, how it works and stuff, and was rather obvious to me before I even drove the car.

Didn't say I didn't understand how engines work, I just responded to another poster's comparison of the E9x to a base model Chevrolet.

I can't understand all these complaints. First off I think S65 does have sufficient torque at 2.5k, and second the relatively low figure is not a flaw but a way this engine was designed.

Try to hit 8400 rpm with that ancient push rod LS or any (streetable) turbo engine - should that be considered their flaw then?

I guess I don't expect a $20k Camaro to be able to hit 8400 RPMs, but I do kinda expect a $70k M3 to have more torque than a significantly simpler/cheaper/shittier car.

Originally Posted by wfdeacon88

Go buy a 4 cylinder Camaro and call it a day. I'm sure you'll be thrilled to have all that extra torque.

So just talking about the relatively low torque of the S65 should relegate me to a base Camaro? I feel like I should be speaking in a hushed tone so as to not offend any M3 owners sometimes. What's the big deal about acknowledging that it's a pretty low torque motor and that there are some downsides to that?

The car doesn't seem to have a very competitive amount of torque compared to other cars in its class. That's OK--I still bought it, but I'm not going to pretend I haven't noticed.

Originally Posted by JackieChiles

Nobody said it was a flaw some said they don’t like the low rpm torque response.

I don’t mind it but can see how some would.

People like different things, pretty straightforward. And it’s never for one person to say what is right or wrong to like.

Exactly. Owning sports cars isn't a religion to me like it seems to be for some. All of my cars have huge pros and cons to them, and I'm happy to discuss them all.

The e9x m3 isn’t the right car for everyone, nor is it flawless. I think we can all agree it would be a hell of a lot better if it wasn’t so heavy.

Uh oh, now you've done it.

Anyway, I couldn't agree more. Even the lightest E9x M3 is still a fat pig.

[srmast1]

So in actuality, upon doing the calculations, a base 6spd camaro with either the 2L turbo engine or the 3.6L v6 both put the same torque to the rear wheels..that is 3395 lb/ft vs the 3684 lb/ft of the 6mt e9x m3. M3 wins.

The v8 camaro with the 6.2L producing 455 lb/ft of torque puts 3611 lb/ft to the rear wheels in 1st gear but, once again, it's all about gearing. So all I'm saying is our little 4L v8 puts MORE torque to the rear wheels in 1st gear than a base v8 camaro which has more torque. The e9x m3 is a unique experience to drive, and yeah, there is the price difference, coolness, uniqueness and tech vs the ancient pushrod v8 torque monster.

The calculation for 1st gear max torque for a v8 camaro producing 455 lb/ft torque is as follows:

1st gear ratio : 2.66
Final drive ratio: 3.73

(2.66 × 3.73 × 455 lb/ft)*0.8(parasitic loss)= 3611 lb/ft vs 3684lb/ft for the e9x m3

[rhyary]

Originally Posted by srmast1

.
.... The e9x m3 is a unique experience to drive, and yeah, there is the price difference, coolness, uniqueness and tech vs the ancient pushrod v8 torque monster.

This ^ is the point.
Numbers don't always explains how people react to an experience. The V8 M3 is an experience that has addictive quality to it. It is what make people "fall in love" with an inanimate object, as ridicules as it sounds.

Queen 1975 song may explains it better
.
.
Such a thrill when your radials squeal
Told my girl I'll have to forget her
Rather buy me a new carburetor
So she made tracks saying this is the end,now
.
.

[EricSMG]

Originally Posted by spazzyfry123

LOL @ the no torque comments. It's no Camaro, but I could easily make a pass in 6th gear without downshifting. Same goes for uphill.

People are acting like it's a Geo Metro.

The disconnect with conversations like these is that there is a huge difference between "adequate" torque and "exciting" torque.

Yes, the E9XM has more than enough (aka: adequate) torque, in any gear, any rpm... for the most part. The car moves with authority, no question. 6th gear passes are generally a cake walk.

That is not the point. The point is that it can feel very soft at times and thus not fun/thrilling/responsive/exciting in the real world unless you're really winding it out (in which case it's, as I've stated earlier, the most thrilling motor I've ever owned). The sound it makes, bone stock, at full tilt, and the way the motor pulls to redline, above 6k rpm is out of this world - it's addicting and you find yourself hunting for that every time you drive it. But the relative relaxation, below 6k rpm, gives the motor a very 'dual personality' character - it has two modes: relaxed and maniacal. It's like a 2 stroke dirt-bike - it's off and then ON.

I personally do not find the car fulfilling to drive in 'relaxed' mode and thus found it frustrating as a city car because the maniacal mode was mostly out of reach (too fast).

This does not mean I don't appreciate an HSO high revving NA powerplant (been driving S54s for 10 years). It just means that I don't particularly 'connect' with a bone stock S65 on 91 octane. If the motor had a bit more "snap" in the midrange things might be very different for me. I personally wouldn't touch the top end - it's absolute perfection. The ultimate.

For fun, here are the "ON" power-bands for the 4 last M3 generations (I've owned/own all 4):

S55: 3k to 7k (mega oomph, laggy, goes soft past 7k)
S65: 6k to 8.4k (incredible up here, meh below this point/can feel very lethargic at times)
S54: 4k to 7k (no torque dips, ultra clean/consistent power "build up", goes flat past 7k, BUT starts pulling cleanly at 2k and pulls nicely to 8k.... by far the 'widest' powerband of the bunch)
S52: 3.5k to 6k (torquey, feels like a baby V8 with its big fat midrange torque 'hump'.... really sleepy past 6k)

[srmast1]

S55: 3k to 7k (mega oomph, laggy, goes soft past 7k)
S65: 6k to 8.4k (incredible up here, meh below this point/can feel very lethargic at times)
S54: 4k to 7k (no torque dips, ultra clean/consistent power "build up", goes flat past 7k, BUT starts pulling cleanly at 2k and pulls nicely to 8k.... by far the 'widest' powerband of the bunch)
S52: 3.5k to 6k (torquey, feels like a baby V8 with its big fat midrange torque 'hump'.... really sleepy past 6k)[/QUOTE]

Wow...good powerband comparisons! I'm jealous, I've never had seat time in any M car besides my e90 and more and more, I'm itching to drive an e46 m3. It is the m3 that I fell in love with but when I was in the position to obtain an m3, I needed 4 doors. But EricSMG, you are so right that the m3 puts adequate, plentiful, usable torque to the wheels, but the smooth, high revving nature of the s65 does not allow us to feel it so much. It wasn't until I understood the mechanical concepts of power delivery from the s65 as well as its gearing that helped me compartmentalize the whole "lack of torque" thing.

[rhyary]

Look what @dogbone does and no worries about what happens 2k RPM :-)

[Dr. Dre]

This is why I'm moving to more a track focus setup. You cannot really enjoy the car on the road and be safe/legal.

Originally Posted by rhyary

Look what @dogbone does and no worries about what happens 2k RPM :-)

[EricSMG]

Originally Posted by rhyary

Look what @dogbone does and no worries about what happens 2k RPM :-)

Yep, and that video makes crystal clear the DCT's gear ratio spacing advantages over the 6MT.

Notice how the rpm drops to ~6750rpm during each up shift, keeping the motor in its sweet spot. The 6MT, conversely, drops the rpms to ~5900rpm.... massive difference.

[rochoa21]

Originally Posted by rhyary

Look what @dogbone does and no worries about what happens 2k RPM :-)

Wow!!!!

[imserious]

When you're driving like that you'll see the beauty of the s65. Probably not complaining about torque...

[LuckiSevens]

Originally Posted by Immy68

Hey guys..so I finally bought my first EVER 2 door sports car, a 2011 e92 m3 with 50k miles on it in Jet black. I've been looking to get a new car for over 2 months and finally found this one for relatively cheap. It's been a couple of days now and I'm kind of overwhelmed..and underwhelmed as well. To be honest I'm having some buyers regret right now.

A little backround. I'm 29 years old and in my whole life all I've been driving are hondas, toyotas, lexus and such. You get the picture. Boring slow cars that have no personality or emotion to them.

Well to celebrate my new job I wanted to get a 2 door sports car while I'm young. After many research and reviews I've decided on the e92 m3. I don't think i've EVER driven a real sports car before. I just wanted a "trophy" car for my new job and honestly wanted to look cool in a 2 door sports car while I'm young. I drive around the city a lot. Anyways after purchasing the car and driving it around the city for a few days I'm not really sure if this car was the right car for me. I did test drive this car in the highway but not very much around the city. I probably should of done that before buying..

Anyways here are some problems I have with the car.

1. Ride quality. I honestly could not have imagined this would be a big problem, but it is. Is it supposed to be this uncomfortable? I have the ZCP option and driving around town even in comfort mode is terrible...I feel every bump and the car is just very jerky and rough, especially at stop and go traffic..Is this normal? Again I never driven a "real" sports car in my life.

2. Low torque. Not to much of a big deal but its a shame that it is there. You can totally feel the power at the high end but by that time you reach the high end you are totally going past city speed limits...which is a big big shame.

3. Speakers. I know this is a performance sports car and you should be listening to the engine. But to be honest sometimes I just want to cruise around town playing my favorite songs. It's very therapeutic for me and sadly the speakers in this car is a big dissapointment. I'm not sure if it's because of my EQ settings (I'm using the ones from this forum) but it's simply underwhelming compared to many cheaper cars. My car has EPS as well (the gold speakers)

Some suprisingly good things about this car that might suprise people...

1. Fuel economy. It's terrible but I don't think its THAT bad for a sports car. I've driven a lot and in 3 days I'm still in my first fuel tank. I don't drive spirited like most people so it's pretty good for me!

2. Cup holders. Why do people say it suck? I've used it a couple times now and it holds it just in place. Don't see what the problem is here..

3. The exterior of the car is simply amazing. It is truly a timeless car and it just looks so sexy in jet black. This car will NEVER go out in style.





Well what do you guys think? I know it is my fault that I should of test driven it more. I did a TON of research before buying this car and thought it would be a good car for me. The ride quality is just killing it for me right now. I'm going to keep driving it for a couple days to see if I can get used to it.


(I will upload pictures tomorrow)

Maybe switch to the 18" wheel set with 40's on them, may improve the ride. I have the 220ms which look stunning in the flesh esp the back ones but the ride is clunky going over pot holes, but also feels like it's on rails when you're on a smooth road, that's the trade off. The car is something special though.

[randrews15]

I have to agree with some of the posters here about you possibly needing a different car. An M3 isn't a city car, but is meant to be driven on open and curvy roads where the V8 can rev high and you can feel the suspension grab the road. There's nothing better than having the top down on my M and hearing my wife scream as I push the car (can't really hear her over the Akrapovic exhaust though). It's a sports car with a fantastic suspension so you'll feel every bump on crummy city roads. I have an X5 and it's night and day with the feel. Having owned a 318i, 328i, 335i, 428i, and even a Mercedes in there, there is no comparison to an M. My F30 335i would of been perfect for you if it's ride quality that you really want with a sporty touch. As far as the stereo, I reset mine back to factory and only adjusted the bass and treble a tad, and it sounds as good as my wife's 428i with the Harmon Kardon. Remember, you bought a road legal race car, so you're not going to have the same feel as a normal car, but there is no comparison to an M in my mind.

[TVMA Doc]

Originally Posted by amrazM

You’re coming from Lexus’ which are numb in feeling with zero road feedback, you wanted a sports car and it’s exactly what you got.

You probably had the typical test drive where you trashed the car at 6k rpm and thought it’s great, people need to realize a test drive should reflect the way the car performs in the manner of which you drive the car 90% of the time.

Maybe you should’ve bought an F82

I guess this explains it. I went from an S2000 to the Comp pack on the e90 and think that the comfort mode feels like the "Lexus mode". I was wondering what the OP was complaining about.

In the S2000, I can drive over a dime and tell you where it was minted.

[Yvette]

You need to push harder

[SohoE93]

I left the platform for a 911...still a NA car with not a ton of torque at the low end, but a screamer above 4k. You bought a naturally aspirated car, they don't make a ton of torque down low, but it sounds glorious...or buy an M4 with a gobs of torque and tuning potential, at the sacrifice of engine sound (which still isn't terrible IMO).

[Siajoon]

I don't understand why everyone is so bothered by the low end torque our platform offers....

This just gives me a better excuse to ring out the power band and hear this beast