View Single Post
      03-03-2013, 09:01 PM   #240
M3takesNYC
Banned
 
Drives: m3
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: NYC

Posts: 426
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I'd like to add to the reply above.

Do I drive around at 7 or 8k+ rpm all the time, no. Do I consistently use 6000-7000 rpm, you bet. Similarly, when I do want maximum acceleration I have absolutely no reservations/qualms/misgivings/hesitations, etc. about using the best gear and using the full 8400 rpm.

I think the debate can also be looked at this way. Is there anything wrong with gobs of torque down low in the rpm range? Absolutely not. The key thing is that in nearly all real world motors a strong low end torque curve is accompanied by both a low redline as well as a strongly falling torque curve some significant rpm below redline (another way to say this is you end up with a power curve having a peak with hump, again well below redline. You can really feel this type of power curve. It is the classic "nothing left up top" type of feel.

For me personally, if I had to choose between the two, I prefer the linear power curve and high redline. It's more fun and better on the track or in the twisties. Should you choose to push the motor and transmission, you get a big reward, both acoustically, in the vibration and in the visceral sense of acceleration at high rpms, not to mention the performance itself.
Look at the new M5 dyno plot. Looks like the S65 curve! Very atypical curve for a turbo car. Flat torque curve and completely linear power curve. Only difference is the curve is shifted 1200 rpms to the left. Makes some promise for the m3.

Keep in mind 415 hp will be clearly underrated given every single other turbo motor is. Probably realistically looking at 440hp and a couple hundred pounds less which is good for an equivelent of 25hp in acceleration/power or so given their power to weight. So realistically 50hp equivelent is realistica if you consider weight factored in
M3takesNYC is offline  
0
Reply With Quote