Close

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 68 of 68
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    286
    Rep Points
    291.7
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Guys, Please don't get too caught up in some peek HP numbers.. Peek HP is not what will give you performance. A good powerband will, and if BMW is thinking of a Tripple turbo its probably a compound system, two smaller and one bigger. Also, the days of the NA engine are over for any "normal" cars. Supercars will still have big NA engines and that is because the people that buy them do not care about consumption or polution taxes... BMW like Mercedes is going full on with smaller displacement and forced inducton because of regulation on consumption and polution (CO2 emissions). Don't knock the product before its here. Everyone has their favorite M, most of us have a favorite that is a NA engined car, because there is only one FI M-car out there to date and almost none of us have driven it yet (the F10M5).Todays Turbocharged BMW will have a better power delivery than any NA powered car, the ONLY downside I can see from a Turbo car is that you will always lilmit the "real" engine noise because of the rugged intake plenium design.The best sounding BMW ever.. the CSL, because of how open the intake plenium is

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,234
    Rep Points
    31,323.1
    Mentioned
    2056 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    314



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by M3GTtt Click here to enlarge
    Guys, Please don't get too caught up in some peek HP numbers.. Peek HP is not what will give you performance. A good powerband will, and if BMW is thinking of a Tripple turbo its probably a compound system, two smaller and one bigger. Also, the days of the NA engine are over for any "normal" cars. Supercars will still have big NA engines and that is because the people that buy them do not care about consumption or polution taxes... BMW like Mercedes is going full on with smaller displacement and forced inducton because of regulation on consumption and polution (CO2 emissions). Don't knock the product before its here. Everyone has their favorite M, most of us have a favorite that is a NA engined car, because there is only one FI M-car out there to date and almost none of us have driven it yet (the F10M5).Todays Turbocharged BMW will have a better power delivery than any NA powered car, the ONLY downside I can see from a Turbo car is that you will always lilmit the "real" engine noise because of the rugged intake plenium design.The best sounding BMW ever.. the CSL, because of how open the intake plenium is
    $#@! compromising.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    286
    Rep Points
    291.7
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    $#@! compromising.
    Dirty word.. But unfortunatly we have to compromise.. just look at the weight of these monsters. Because of safety regulations they need to be heavy. Just imagine if Weight reduction had taken the same % steps as power has.. or even just 50%.

    15 years ago the EURO (real M3) E36 M3 had the S50B32 engine making 321hp and some 1550kg of weight.
    Today the E92 M3 has the S65 making 414hp and some 1650kg of weight..
    Just imagine the E92 M3 with 414hp which is about 30% more than the E36 and then with 1085kg Click here to enlarge , well lets settle for 50% of the power increase and compromise at 1300kg Now that would be serious!
    But unfortunatly this is not the relality, and the reality is more weight, more regulations, and this is why the new M3 has less unsprung weight and more power. The new one will have a much better powerband, less consumption, and hopefully less weight because of a 6cyl engine.

    Unfortunatly the 4liter S65 is 25% bigger in capacity than the S50B32, but ok its making a fiew more HP pr liter, but at 8400rpm.. which means consumption .. Anyone owning a S85 will tell you that they are experts on fuel station layouts.

    The S54B32 was generally considered to be 343hp (in europe) which is even better numbers than the S65 is putting out, and at 1000rpm less, the CSL is still the best performing Sxx motor, with 360hp from 3.2 Liters.

    Now porsche have made the RS 4.0 with 500hp .. so we have basically come to an end of what production NA petrol engines can push out.
    1995 BMW M3GT nr:111/350 TwinTurbo and some other mods.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    286
    Rep Points
    291.7
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Actually.... if you take it a step further

    my favorite.. the CSL vas 3.2 liter and making 360hp, which is 112,5hp pr literS65 is 4.0 Liter making 414hp, which is 103.5hp pr literNormal S54B32 343hp, which is 107.1hp pr liter

    Now lets look at engines vs weight (and forget about the CSL for a moment)Normal equipment E46 weight 1600kg (ish)Normal equipment E92 weight 1650kg (ish) with carbon roof .. Thats a weight increase of only 3%But power pr liter goes down by 3.4% from the normal S54B32 and dowm by a whoping 8% on the S54B32 CSL vs S65

    I dont know if this is correct or where I am going with this.. S65 is a great motor.. not going to knock it,, but I would much rather see BMW come up with ideas to bring the weight back down to below 1500kg..

    What made the CSL so effective on tracks is not the additional 74 hp (or the glorious noise it makes, hope you guys over seas can hear one in your lifetime.. its out of this world)),

    What made the CSL so good is the 1370kg it weight compared to a fat 1600.

    So what we need is not more power, its less weight.

    What makes the E92M3 generally faster around tracks than the more powerfull C63AMG with the 6.2Liter, is definetly not the smaller peek HP number or the lack in torque compared,, it's the lard on the body of the C63AMG which kills it.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    915.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Yep, exactly what I was saying in another thread. But you won't get Sticky to admit that the E9x M3 is a failure because it's just too damn heavy. For Sticky, the almighty S65 makes up for everything Click here to enlarge


    He's lucky not having to cope with european fuel prices... I don't even want to imagine how much a s/c S65 consumes...

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,234
    Rep Points
    31,323.1
    Mentioned
    2056 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    314



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Yep, exactly what I was saying in another thread. But you won't get Sticky to admit that the E9x M3 is a failure because it's just too damn heavy. For Sticky, the almighty S65 makes up for everything Click here to enlarge

    He's lucky not having to cope with european fuel prices... I don't even want to imagine how much a s/c S65 consumes...
    My M3 is only about 100 pounds heavier than my E46 M3 was, big deal. The S65 is lighter than the S54. So how is it a failure exactly?

    The M3 GTS is also lighter than the E46 M3 was and is right there with the E36. So, I don't see what you guys are complaining about.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Yep, exactly what I was saying in another thread. But you won't get Sticky to admit that the E9x M3 is a failure because it's just too damn heavy. For Sticky, the almighty S65 makes up for everything Click here to enlarge


    He's lucky not having to cope with european fuel prices... I don't even want to imagine how much a s/c S65 consumes...
    I wouldn't go far enough to say it's a failure... In fact, I have owned the last two generations of M3's (no CSL - live in US) - and although the last generation was a bit more visceral, I would say this one makes up for things that the other lacked in other ways. Yes, the power/liter may not be as good as the S54b32 (haven't confirmed this - just reading posts above) - but the efficiency is higher (BSFC), and of course has a broader and higher power band... The entire car weighs only a few hundred pounds more than the last - so it is more than compensated by the new engine (as the numbers/track shows). Mine isn't supercharged - but at 55 (about 100km/h) - I am right at where the old M3 was. The fact is - I find myself averaging a MUCH higher speed in this car when I drive it - so, yes - overall efficiency isn't as good - but this is my fault for not driving it like it shouldn't be driven. Click here to enlarge

    If we go as far as saying the e9x series is a failure - then stick with an e46 330i instead of an e9x 335i... Same weight difference, but the 335i makes the power to compensate. How the M could be a failure and all other e9x cars not doesn't make a bit of sense.

    Also - where the S54b32 was "maxed out" - you can add about 35 rwhp to the current gen M3 with breathing upgrades and pulley. You could barely squeeze 10 out of the S54b32 without paying some serious cash.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    915.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by inlineS54B32 Click here to enlarge
    How the M could be a failure and all other e9x cars not doesn't make a bit of sense.
    Of course all E9x suffer from the added weight. But the M3 is supposed to be the top of the line sports car in the lineup...big difference!

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,234
    Rep Points
    31,323.1
    Mentioned
    2056 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    314



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Of course all E9x suffer from the added weight. But the M3 is supposed to be the top of the line sports car in the lineup...big difference!
    Why are you forgetting the M3 GTS or CSL? They are light, they handle, they kick ass.

    The E9X is nowhere near as heavy as you guys are making it. Also, the M3 has never been the top of the line sports car in the lineup. If it was they would have never made a Z8, Z4, M roadster/coupe, etc.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    915.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Why are you forgetting the M3 GTS or CSL? They are light, they handle, they kick ass.

    The E9X is nowhere near as heavy as you guys are making it. Also, the M3 has never been the top of the line sports car in the lineup. If it was they would have never made a Z8, Z4, M roadster/coupe, etc.
    Line up as within the 3 series...

    Of course I'm not forgetting the CSL, but isn't that an E46 Click here to enlarge

    And the GTS can't seriously be considered if we're talking about regular production models. Or would you compare the M3 to the C63 AMG Black Series?? Same counts for the M3 CRT. It handles even better, but for example the rear subframe is directly bolted on to the chassis. No one would want to drive such a car on a normal street, unless your wife is a chiropractor Click here to enlarge

    Bottom line: an M3 DCT, even with the S65, and weighing 1500kgs would be a winner in my book. Unfortunately it weighs a whopping 150kgs more.

    For comparison: my 335i with very moderate wight reduction (Performance seats, M3 suspension parts front and rear) weighs 1600kg with a half tank and no driver. On small, curvy racetracks I get my ass handed to me by lightweight cars as Honda S2000, stripped E46 M3s... despite 450bhp in my car. Adding power only goes so far. Less weight is what makes you fast on a racetrack.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,234
    Rep Points
    31,323.1
    Mentioned
    2056 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    314



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Of course I'm not forgetting the CSL, but isn't that an E46
    Uh, ya, it is and it was the best performing M3 out there until the GTS...

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    And the GTS can't seriously be considered if we're talking about regular production models.
    Why not? It shows what the M3 can be.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Or would you compare the M3 to the C63 AMG Black Series?? Same counts for the M3 CRT. It handles even better, but for example the rear subframe is directly bolted on to the chassis. No one would want to drive such a car on a normal street, unless your wife is a chiropractor
    The C63 Black Series isn't relevant to this discussion. The GTS is brought up to show you that your weight comments regarding the E9X are overblown.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Bottom line: an M3 DCT, even with the S65, and weighing 1500kgs would be a winner in my book. Unfortunately it weighs a whopping 150kgs more.
    The GTS weighs under 1500 kg, has a DCT, and a larger displacement S65. So, uh, major winner in your book?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    For comparison: my 335i with very moderate wight reduction (Performance seats, M3 suspension parts front and rear) weighs 1600kg with a half tank and no driver. On small, curvy racetracks I get my ass handed to me by lightweight cars as Honda S2000, stripped E46 M3s... despite 450bhp in my car. Adding power only goes so far. Less weight is what makes you fast on a racetrack.
    An X5M just beat a 335is around VIR by over 2 seconds. The Nissan GTR is a heavy pig and spanks many lighter cars on the race track. Power is a big part of the equation as is weight but I think you are blowing it out of proportion.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    915.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The GTS weighs under 1500 kg, has a DCT, and a larger displacement S65. So, uh, major winner in your book?

    The Nissan GTR is a heavy pig and spanks many lighter cars on the race track.
    Yes, the GTS would be a winner, if it wasn't for the price tag...

    Indeed, the GTR seems to defeat physics.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,234
    Rep Points
    31,323.1
    Mentioned
    2056 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    314



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Indeed, the GTR seems to defeat physics.
    It's a robot but it goes to show a low curb weight isn't the be all end all of automotive performance.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,584
    Rep Points
    2,017.3
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    On small, curvy racetracks I get my ass handed to me by lightweight cars as Honda S2000, stripped E46 M3s... despite 450bhp in my car. Adding power only goes so far. Less weight is what makes you fast on a racetrack.
    On small curvy racetracks, I believe it... Overall - given a some high speed sweepers, and a straightaway longer than a 1/10th mile - the M3 (pick any) would be playing a different fiddle.

    You can't compare an Elise to an M3 - one is good for one thing, another good for another. What's next - a Lamborghini (weighing MORE than an M3) is not better on a track (read: most tracks) than an M3 or an Elise or an S2000?

    I think your point is made, you think they are adding weight - but this weight is for safety and structural rigidity - two things that are fine in my book considering the fact that high speed handling of the new M3 is light years ahead of the E46 M3. Yes, if I wanted to take my car through my favorite backroads (very tight road) - the last M3 was more "comforting" - not sure what was faster.

    I agree weight reduction is a good thing - I am just saying this thing is not as heavy as you are making it out to be. There are PLENTY of "sports cars" heavier than an M3 - some perform better, some worse.

    Cheers.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,040
    Rep Points
    938.4
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    [QUOTE=Sticky;236297]Why are you forgetting the M3 GTS or CSL? They are light, they handle, they kick ass.

    The E9X is nowhere near as heavy as you guys are making it. Also, the M3 has never been the top of the line sports car in the lineup. If it was they would have never made a 1M.QUOTE]

    Fixed it for ya.Click here to enlarge
    ​#Chuckstrong

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    915.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Of course the E9x M3 does alot of things right and is an overall improvement over the E46 M3. I won't deny that. It's just that alot of potential is left on the table IMO and mostly it uses the increase in hp to be faster than the previous generation.

    So I hope the next gen M3 will be put on a little diet and be closer to a 1500kg figure Click here to enlarge

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,040
    Rep Points
    938.4
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Of course the E9x M3 does alot of things right and is an overall improvement over the E46 M3. I won't deny that. It's just that alot of potential is left on the table IMO and mostly it uses the increase in hp to be faster than the previous generation.

    So I hope the next gen M3 will be put on a little diet and be closer to a 1500kg figure Click here to enlarge
    Rumor has it...the F80 M3 will weigh 1385kg DIN
    ​#Chuckstrong

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,234
    Rep Points
    31,323.1
    Mentioned
    2056 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    314



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Of course the E9x M3 does alot of things right and is an overall improvement over the E46 M3. I won't deny that. It's just that alot of potential is left on the table IMO and mostly it uses the increase in hp to be faster than the previous generation.

    So I hope the next gen M3 will be put on a little diet and be closer to a 1500kg figure Click here to enlarge
    Not true it is mostly just the HP. The DCT makes more efficient use of the HP that is there. Also, don't forget the M3 outlapped the 997 around Laguna Seca. It also was 4/10's off the 997.1 Turbo around Laguna Seca meaning it is pretty darn good in the turns.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •