Low end torque starting to bug anybody else?

[TLud]

Originally Posted by TRZ06

If they did, there would not be enough of a market to support even having an M3

Seriously though, why would one want to drive at 5K+ in day to day driving to get good performance. Yes it is fun every so often, but (and this is especially true for those with aftermarket exhaust) your looked at sideways by almost every other driver out there when in the 5K+ range and whether your driving good or not, just the noise people take the wrong way and think you are being an ass.

Again nothing wrong with a high strung motor, but at least give it enough TQ to be fun and rewarding without having to spend your day at 5K+

Most of my driving is city driving, and I stay between 4k and 5k rpm most of the time. The car feels very comfortable in this rpm range, not twitchy or strained at all. This is also where the car puts out max torque. Of course, I'd still like more torque and my gas mileage is for sh!t.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The "power band" starts just where you think it does in any given gear, or where I think it does, or where anybody else thinks it does. It's the point at which the driver feels the car is pulling very hard in a given gear. There is an implication that when you are in the power band, downshifting isn't needed, although that's just your backside telling you everything is fine and you're "going good".

Bottom line: The power band is really the torque band in any given gear, and when you're pretty high up on the torque curve (Look Martha! There's the horizon!), everything is good here in Pleasantville.

In short, it's a pretty fuzzy thing, and it gets fuzzier when you realize the driver is not only reacting to acceleration, he or she is reacting to noise.

You know how footie describes the last 1200 rpm in the M3? I've felt that myself, and it's a real thrill. Feels like right up there is where the one true power band is, but even though the M3 has an amazing torque curve that I've described with breathless prose awhile back, the car was pulling harder just a second or two before that magic last 1200 rpm that rang your chimes. It's just that it's making this terrific noise that gives you chills and raises the hair on the back of your neck.

You'll also read about or hear about "the meat of the power band".

Yup, it's just torque.

Bruce

PS - I personally believe that many folks feel as if the M3 is a little soft on the left-hand side of the tach because the really good noises don't start until you reach the right-hand side of the tach. It's not just acceleration you feel, it's the entire experience, including the crescendo in the last 1200 rpm.

Capiche?

Awesome post.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Finnegan

Question: If has car has DCT (or 6MT for that matter), a downshift takes all of a second (probably less) even if one were to take one's time with it. Why in the world would a driver choose to stay in third? I mean, even if the driver is eating a bagel, with the DCT, flick--done.

DCT absolutely makes utilizing the cars powerband much easier and faster. A single shift with DCT can take as little as 30 milliseconds. Multiple downshifts can take much more like a few tenths of a second or so. Furthermore when in D4 or D5 (the automatic modes) the downshifts happen automatically and very quickly with very little throttle application required. Also, you can do a "kick down" shift. While in any manual mode a simultaneous WOT application in addition to holding the left paddle back results in an immediate downshift to the lowest gear that will provide the best acceleration possible. Fun, fun.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The "power band" starts just where you think it does in any given gear, or where I think it does, or where anybody else thinks it does. It's the point at which the driver feels the car is pulling very hard in a given gear. There is an implication that when you are in the power band, downshifting isn't needed, although that's just your backside telling you everything is fine and you're "going good".

Bottom line: The power band is really the torque band in any given gear, and when you're pretty high up on the torque curve (Look Martha! There's the horizon!), everything is good here in Pleasantville.

In short, it's a pretty fuzzy thing, and it gets fuzzier when you realize the driver is not only reacting to acceleration, he or she is reacting to noise.

You know how footie describes the last 1200 rpm in the M3? I've felt that myself, and it's a real thrill. Feels like right up there is where the one true power band is, but even though the M3 has an amazing torque curve that I've described with breathless prose awhile back, the car was pulling harder just a second or two before that magic last 1200 rpm that rang your chimes. It's just that it's making this terrific noise that gives you chills and raises the hair on the back of your neck.

You'll also read about or hear about "the meat of the power band".

Yup, it's just torque.

Bruce

PS - I personally believe that many folks feel as if the M3 is a little soft on the left-hand side of the tach because the really good noises don't start until you reach the right-hand side of the tach. It's not just acceleration you feel, it's the entire experience, including the crescendo in the last 1200 rpm.

Capiche?

Ah, the technical explanation I've been searching for all these years on internet forums. It sure beats the kind of definition that sounds technical--you know, the kind folks keep on referring to but doesn't exist. Good one Bruce.

You know, people wonder why I spent so much money on the E30. I could have bought a newer faster track car. Whatever the reason, it is clearly subjective. The kind of reason that makes you giggle under your helmet like a child after each pit out. BMW had all the ingredients to make that happen for the E92 as well, but it almost seems like they went 90% of the way (technically), and then turned around and undid all that (to sell 100000 units), so we ended up with a car that could have been IMO.

Yet, I am convinced the backbone is there, and it will take some more depreciation to justify surgery and the courage to strip it into shape. I saw the car Turner converted earlier this year at the track. Its owner was racing it and having a blast. He hadn't gone all the way with it in terms of the weight, but with some drastic measures, a properly caged car can be sub-3000lb and a lot of fun.

[330CIZHP]

C63 is the car you want then with a 7100 rpm rev limit. You also get all the low end torque with it. Not an M3. There is a reason why F458 has a 9000 rpm redline and so does Lexus LF-A. Lambos are no different. It is all about exhilaration that comes with sound that sonorous and impossible to create with low-revving engines.

Yes there is a huge difference in feel, sound and the rush that comes with getting the revs closing to 8500 rpm and piston speeds approaching F1 racing car. Completely different experience.

Originally Posted by stingray23

Personally, I would gladly trade 1000 rpms for 100 ft pound of trq. 7400 rpm's is more then enough for a street car and plenty for a weekend racer.

[MVF4Rrider]

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.

This is a big misconception. A $2000 ecu tune takes a big fat flat torque curve and spikes it much higher but still the torque spread falls dramatically as it does stock starting between 5K and 5.5K rpms all the way to redline. There's no getting around the fact the motor can't handle the load at high rpms. What that yields is an even more imbalanced power band and 1) causes even worse traction off the line, and 2) a very erratic power delivery. $2000 would be better spent on a gear change and perhaps a mild ecu tune to enhance the curve without making a pyramid out of it. But tuners sell their product based on the fact buyers are seduced by much higher peak HP and torque figures. I don't think I've ever seen a tuner compare stock vs. tuned acceleration figures to support their new dyno curves. The much higher peak will yield much less of an overall affect than consumers would dare to admit for fear of admitting being duped. Linear power is much better an more usable than peaky power.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I disagree. Again it depends on which definition of faster you use, in a single gear, yes, always; across muliple gears, maybe yes, maybe not, depends on the specific car. Please have a look at the lengthy debate on this topic elsewhere on the forum. In addition don't forget that even now both the 6MT and M-DCT are pretty traction limited in 1st gear.

Well, you’re entitled to disagree but in this case you’re taking into consideration things outside of the real world, which is outside the context of this discussion. BTW, I meant to say quicker, not faster. Back on point: rear diff gear changes (shorter gearing) affect every gear at every rpm by the same exact % increase in multiplied torque to the pavement. Therefore it will make the car “quicker” in any gear and at any rpm when simply opening the throttle to increase the rate of acceleration and speed. It also enables the engine to reach terminal speed quicker in each gear, which is an advantage. Now, when including constraints such as closed circuits, 0-60 times, ¼ mile times, etc. the gearing change could have adverse affects IF and only IF an additional gear change is required. But I don’t live in a world where that matters so I’ll take the constant % increase of multiplied torque and enjoy the quicker acceleration under every conceivable real world condition. Again, stepping up 1 gear ratio is not going to lend itself to adverse affects comparatively. Going too short on the final drive could. I don’t advocate radical gear changes. IMO, BMW should have chosen the 3.91 rear diff ratio as opposed to the 3.62 in my cars. I’m sure they did this for fuel economy sake, and to perhaps limit stress on the driveline. 3.91 is the perfect gear to increase torque (and therefore acceleration) without adversely affecting traction. It would at least be nice if ordering a “performance package” option that it included things like a bump in final drive, perhaps a more aggressive fuel map, and no speed limiter…instead of more heavily bolstered seats and other typical non-performance additions.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by PencilGeek

You mean quicker...not faster. You're trying to educate people here, but you just got one of the most basic fundamentals completely wrong. And even going numerically higher doesn't guarantee you quicker 1/4 mile times -- especially if it means an extra gear shift.

Yes, I meant quicker. But a shorter final gear that doesn't inhibit traction with always increase the rate of acceleration in every gear and at every rpm. But as you point out certain thresholds like a given mph or distance may not show this affect if an extra time consuming gear change is required. I don't drive around with a stop watch in hand nor have I ever encountered lines on the road to indicate measured distances for the sole purpose of analyzing acceleration. Therefore I don't see the point. As I'm sure you know the weight of a vehicle and its affect on acceleration is less important as speed increases so the rear diff gear change makes more of an affect at slower speeds (and in lower gears) where traction is also more important. Therefore the right gear selection is important in consideration to all variables. This is why I advocate a modest grunt increase via shorter final gear to increase acceleration in the speed constrained real world. The fact a 3.91 rear diff and nothing else propels a stock E46 M3 to 0-62 at about a half-second quicker is proof enough the benefit of the gear change while taking traction into consideration. This is proof of the math. The downsides of course are greater rear tire wear and a bit less fuel economy. I actually debated the gear change for my Z4 M while in Germany but opted to not do it as I like the stock gearing especially at high rpms in 5th and 6th gears. I never complain about the grunt on my cars and I wouldn't if I had a E92 M3 either. I know it has plenty of usable torque at the lowest rpms I ever see and will accelerate very respectively in all gears. Also interesting, and this hasn't been previously stated, when comparing the 335i and M3 is yes the 335 creates more multiplied torque below 2,500 rpms. Measurably more in fact. But this only matters in 1st gear as once over 2,500 rpms in 1st gear you'll never come close to 2,500 rpms during spirited acceleration in any other gear...so it's only an off-the-line advantage. In addition, the additional traction of the M3 with its LSD, much stronger clutch, and measurably better mechanical grip (softer/wider rubber) makes up marginally for the initial inertia differences. My bottom line is the M3 has plenty-o-torque at low rpms and I can't understand why anyone (other than those blinded by dyno charts) could perceive this? Perhaps those few just don't enjoy putting their foot into it???

[330CIZHP]

I agree with you to a certain extent. Some cars can benefit from a lower final drive (numerical higher number) while other cars might not benefit from them. High revving cars generally do well with shorter final drive.

An example I saw was on a honda site where they put a 4.77:1 final drive on one S2000 while the other one was kept stock. The S2000 with 4.77:1 out-accelerated the stock S2000 uptill 90 - 95 mph and then after that the stock S2000 kept up till the race was shut down.

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Well, you’re entitled to disagree but in this case you’re taking into consideration things outside of the real world, which is outside the context of this discussion. BTW, I meant to say quicker, not faster. Back on point: rear diff gear changes (shorter gearing) affect every gear at every rpm by the same exact % increase in multiplied torque to the pavement. Therefore it will make the car “quicker” in any gear and at any rpm when simply opening the throttle to increase the rate of acceleration and speed. It also enables the engine to reach terminal speed quicker in each gear, which is an advantage. Now, when including constraints such as closed circuits, 0-60 times, ¼ mile times, etc. the gearing change could have adverse affects IF and only IF an additional gear change is required. But I don’t live in a world where that matters so I’ll take the constant % increase of multiplied torque and enjoy the quicker acceleration under every conceivable real world condition. Again, stepping up 1 gear ratio is not going to lend itself to adverse affects comparatively. Going too short on the final drive could. I don’t advocate radical gear changes. IMO, BMW should have chosen the 3.91 rear diff ratio as opposed to the 3.62 in my cars. I’m sure they did this for fuel economy sake, and to perhaps limit stress on the driveline. 3.91 is the perfect gear to increase torque (and therefore acceleration) without adversely affecting traction. It would at least be nice if ordering a “performance package” option that it included things like a bump in final drive, perhaps a more aggressive fuel map, and no speed limiter…instead of more heavily bolstered seats and other typical non-performance additions.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by stingray23

Personally, I would gladly trade 1000 rpms for 100 ft pound of trq. 7400 rpm's is more then enough for a street car and plenty for a weekend racer.

Depends on the shape of the torque curve surrounding that 100 lb-ft of torque. Peak explains little. Also, rpm is what drives up terminal speed in a given gear so it's important also. It's all important. I agree with you if squeezing the throttle to US city/highway speed limit thresholds (and maybe a bit more) is all you ever do. If that's the case, why drive a car geared for near 200 mph and only utilize a third of its capability? Did you buy for show or go? Nevermind, I know the answer...

[330CIZHP]

Setting the price difference aside for a second, a good example is a Corvette Grand Sport (436 HP) vs Porsche GT3 997.2 (435 HP) where the Corvette puts out nearly 100 ft-lbs more torque than the GT3 that uses a tiny 3.8 Liter engine vs 6.2 Liter V8, but a lofty 8800 rpm rev limit. Both cars weigh almost the same (3200 lbs).

Yet, the GT3 being a high-11 second car simply manhandles the grand sport in a drag race and around a race track it is a completely different story where it is faster than a Z06 and it sound out of this world while doing it.

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Depends on the shape of the torque curve surrounding that 100 lb-ft of torque. Peak explains little. Also, rpm is what drives up terminal speed in a given gear so it's important also. It's all important. I agree with you if squeezing the throttle to US city/highway speed limit thresholds (and maybe a bit more) is all you ever do. If that's the case, why drive a car geared for near 200 mph and only utilize a third of its capability? Did you buy for show or go? Nevermind, I know the answer...

[michaeldorian]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

The "power band" starts just where you think it does in any given gear, or where I think it does, or where anybody else thinks it does. It's the point at which the driver feels the car is pulling very hard in a given gear. There is an implication that when you are in the power band, downshifting isn't needed, although that's just your backside telling you everything is fine and you're "going good".

Bottom line: The power band is really the torque band in any given gear, and when you're pretty high up on the torque curve (Look Martha! There's the horizon!), everything is good here in Pleasantville.

In short, it's a pretty fuzzy thing, and it gets fuzzier when you realize the driver is not only reacting to acceleration, he or she is reacting to noise.

You know how footie describes the last 1200 rpm in the M3? I've felt that myself, and it's a real thrill. Feels like right up there is where the one true power band is, but even though the M3 has an amazing torque curve that I've described with breathless prose awhile back, the car was pulling harder just a second or two before that magic last 1200 rpm that rang your chimes. It's just that it's making this terrific noise that gives you chills and raises the hair on the back of your neck.

You'll also read about or hear about "the meat of the power band".

Yup, it's just torque.

Bruce

PS - I personally believe that many folks feel as if the M3 is a little soft on the left-hand side of the tach because the really good noises don't start until you reach the right-hand side of the tach. It's not just acceleration you feel, it's the entire experience, including the crescendo in the last 1200 rpm.

Capiche?

Capiche. This is what I've been saying this whole time. It's not that it's slow. It just feels that way.

And all this talk about being in the right gear, sure makes it seem like the M3 S65 is just much better mated to DCT for daily driving. It just makes it so much easier to stay in the right power-band.

[brava09]

Originally Posted by footie

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.



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.

In my 335i I was not using 3rd gear to overtake from 30mph....I was using the 2nd gear....and definitely I am using the 2nd gear in my M3 to overtake from 30mph....so what is your point??

Is your point that there are lazy people that prefer not to use the gear stick while driving? Get a slush box then and floor it....

In gear times are relevant only for lazy people IMO. But then the M3 is not for lazy people.

[footie]

Originally Posted by stingray23

Personally, I would gladly trade 1000 rpms for 100 ft pound of trq. 7400 rpm's is more then enough for a street car and plenty for a weekend racer.

This is BMW talking here......right.

"Your wish is my command"

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by stingray23

No, you dont know the answer. Just cause it can do 200 mph doesnt mean I have to take it to that speed, especially on the street. The same can be said about all cars. I mean, all we really need are toyota prius's to do the job. I always wanted a vette, and I was finally in a position to buy my dream car and did. I dont baby it, but I'm not a careless idiot either. IMO, BMW should either lower the weight of the next M3 to a respectable number(under 3400 lbs) or give it some more torque. I understand the nature of the M motor, but its really not that fun to have to shift around 5K rpm everytime you want to feel some kind of power.

I find it very fun as do many others. Sounds like you picked the right car.

[Singletrack]

Originally Posted by michaeldorian

Capiche. This is what I've been saying this whole time. It's not that it's slow. It just feels that way.

And all this talk about being in the right gear, sure makes it seem like the M3 S65 is just much better mated to DCT for daily driving. It just makes it so much easier to stay in the right power-band.

I guess you could say that. On the other hand, people that buy 6 speeds tend to enjoy shifting them : )

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Well, you’re entitled to disagree but in this case you’re taking into consideration things outside of the real world, which is outside the context of this discussion. BTW, I meant to say quicker, not faster. Back on point: rear diff gear changes (shorter gearing) affect every gear at every rpm by the same exact % increase in multiplied torque to the pavement. Therefore it will make the car “quicker” in any gear and at any rpm when simply opening the throttle to increase the rate of acceleration and speed. It also enables the engine to reach terminal speed quicker in each gear, which is an advantage. Now, when including constraints such as closed circuits, 0-60 times, ¼ mile times, etc. the gearing change could have adverse affects IF and only IF an additional gear change is required. But I don’t live in a world where that matters so I’ll take the constant % increase of multiplied torque and enjoy the quicker acceleration under every conceivable real world condition. Again, stepping up 1 gear ratio is not going to lend itself to adverse affects comparatively. Going too short on the final drive could. I don’t advocate radical gear changes.

Sorry you are sorely mistaken here. Did you bother the read the extensive thread and debate I mentioned? It appears not. Please have a look here. You are arguing that a diff change can and typically will make this modded car accelerate better under any conceivable real world situation than the stock car. Hmmm, this leads to a fairly obvious logical contradiction. Why not just run an infinite (or absolutely enormous FD ratio)? Seriously think about what a car would do if given a FD say 3 times as large as its existing one. Sure it will be producing enormous rear wheel torque and thrust but again there is no such thing as a free lunch. Will it out accelerate the unmodified car by 3 times across any meaningful range? How many gears would it need to reach a similar top speed (or even a similar high track or crusing speed)? How many gear changes would be involved and how often would they occur? This exact same reasoning along with the prior point I made will occur even with a slightly modified FD ratio, just to a lesser extent. You really need to think this problem through more carefully and holistically. You must compare the cars ACROSS shifts not in the very limited case of the results in one gear only. The acceleration difference between first and second gear is nearly 50% different in the M3 (less difference between successive gears of course). Do you claim that spending a half second or so (maybe more, maybe less depending on how large of a change to the FD ratio one made) would not impact in a very significant way any measure of acceleration where a 1-2 shift is involved?

I absolutely am not claiming that FD ratios are fully optimized in all sporty cars, I am also not claiming that some metrics can not be improved with FD modifications. I am not claiming that modding your FD won't make your call FEEL a bit faster. However, I am vehemently arguing, in the case of the M3 ,there is little to nothing to be gained in most real world acceleration metrics through a FD mod. The benefits of either 7 gears and DCT vs. 6 or even a few percent hp increase will trump what you would get from any reasonable FD mod.

Really, think very carefully about what a huge FD modification would mean. Also think carefully about an acceleration run involving multiple gears and the disadvantage of spending more time in gears offering less torque. There is no such thing as a free lunch here.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

This is a big misconception.

I guess Dinan managed to fool me for 180,000 kilometers. http://www.dinancars.com/assets/File...A%20EDITED.pdf

The real problem is the sheer amount of torque - not the distribution, which is actually improved. The car pulled strongly to 5700 or so. I considered getting an LSD but ultimately a car with this much torque needs an active differential, which I'm sure the F30 M3 will get.

[King Tut]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Sorry, but this is an example of how little people understand about how the engine and gearing together create driving dynamics and affect acceleration. To speak to engine torque character alone without consideration to gearing is worthless when making comparisons to other cars as above. The M3 is making exponentially more torque at 2,500 rpms to redline than the 335i, which is why it's quicker. Not engine torque alone, but the total torque that matters.

I'm glad someone understands the greatness that is the flat torque curve of the S65B40 engine. Anyone that says they wish the M3 had more torque has no idea what they are feeling and should have bought a C63 slushbox I guess. Did anyone post up the link to where the M3 has more torque down low to the wheels then the Z06 when factoring in the gearing? I'm not reading this whole thread as I am sure it tuned into an M3 versus 335 debate.

[footie]

Originally Posted by King Tut

I'm glad someone understands the greatness that is the flat torque curve of the S65B40 engine. Anyone that says they wish the M3 had more torque has no idea what they are feeling and should have bought a C63 slushbox I guess. Did anyone post up the link to where the M3 has more torque down low to the wheels then the Z06 when factoring in the gearing? I'm not reading this whole thread as I am sure it tuned into an M3 versus 335 debate.

I can tell you that my experience in driving everything from humble city cars to full blown exotics is vast and I know a hell of a lot about the benefits and downfalls of all types of engines.

The very fact you suggest an automatic as a fix proves to me that you don't know as much as you think.

P.S.
Surprisingly the 335i has been mentioned very little because it's not the best example of the breed to chose from and M-Division has something much better in mind for the next M3.

[BimmerBoomer]

Originally Posted by footie

Surprisingly the 335i has been mentioned very little because it's not the best example of the breed to chose from and M-Division has something much better in mind for the next M3.

My guess is that the F30 M3 will have both 335i and X6 M genes.

[330CIZHP]

Originally Posted by Jim Pearce

My guess is that the F30 M3 will have both 335i and X6 M genes.

Seeing the X5 M, X6 M 5700 lbs heavy tanks and the upcoming 4500 lbs M5 with the same low-revving 7000 rpm redline and twin turbo setup, you are definitely right.

[TOOMANYCARS]

Another solution would be a stroker motor.