BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   BMW M3 and BMW M4 Forum > BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 Forum > BMW M3 (F80) and BMW M4 (F82) General Forum

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-06-2012, 06:48 PM   #199
Jspeed
Enlisted Member
Canada
0
Rep
42
Posts

 
Drives: E46 330i
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC

iTrader: (0)

This power vs. torque debate can go on and on... because neither side is wrong.

If you could only find out one thing about an engine, the HP is definitely more important than torque. It's just physics, and HP includes torque. However, to really get to know an engine, it's the area under the torque curve that matters. (it's still some form of average power, since width of the area is rpm and height is torque)

We'll just have to wait and see what the graph for the new M3/4 looks like.
Appreciate 0
      10-06-2012, 06:56 PM   #200
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post
Read my post again, I am referring to axle weight distribution, in response to the post I was replying to. Not overall weight distribution.

Using the centre of gravity as the referential, polar moment and axle weight distribution are not related. Polar moment depends on how weight is distributed around the centre of gravity (how much and how far). Axle weight distribution depends on the position of the centre of gravity relative to the axles.

Now under dynamic conditions, it gets more complicated, as a car does not necessarily rotate around the centre of gravity.

I don't want to get too technical here, but for those interested, there is a very good book published by the Society of Automotive Engineers called Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics by T. D. Gillespie that explain these principles very well (with plenty of equations ).
Still disagree. Getting way OT but...

Consider two equal masses m, a distance d apart, say equal to a wheelbase. This is an idealized two point mass "car". This results in 50:50 weight distribution and the polar moment I(about cg) = m d^2/2. Alter the weight distribution radically so 100% is on one axle. Weight distribution = 100:0, total weight unchanged. Now here I(about cg) = 0. For the more general case you can solve for the generalized I about the cg for any value of m1 and m2.

I = (m1 m2 d^2)/(m1+m2)

Again even though m1+m2 is fixed change their ratio and you can compute exactly how I changes.

Through this simple example you should be able to see that axle weight distribution and polar moment are intricately linked. You can extrapolate to the case of a continuous variation in mass along the length rather than two point masses. In both cases though change one and you change the other. In the simple cases there will be an analytical solution, in the general case certainly not.

Good book by the way!
Appreciate 0
      10-06-2012, 07:14 PM   #201
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jspeed View Post
This power vs. torque debate can go on and on... because neither side is wrong.

If you could only find out one thing about an engine, the HP is definitely more important than torque. It's just physics, and HP includes torque. However, to really get to know an engine, it's the area under the torque curve that matters. (it's still some form of average power, since width of the area is rpm and height is torque)
Keeping in the segueing theme here...

I not so sure if the area under the torque vs rpm curve has any particular meaning. Sure more is better but that is almost the same as saying more power at all rpms is better (or more torque...).

What does have a meaning is the integral in time of torque x rpm (well in SI units torque x ω, but the same thing if you have consistent units). This gives the total work done by the engine or equivalently how much change in kinetic energy has been given to the vehicle. From that you get exactly how fast it is going. The key thing is you need to plot torque vs. time, not torque vs. rpm. There is a key shortcut here as well though because power is just torque x ω (again basically torque x rpm but in SI units). Thus you can time integrate power instead of messing with torque and rpm! Power is fundamental!

Knowing power is absolutely more fundamental as it does not matter what the gear/final drive ratios are. But of course if you know the full torque curve vs. rpm then you can get the full power curve. You just CAN NOT use crank torque alone in many equations to determine speed or acceleration where you can use power alone! That's the power of power.
Appreciate 0
      10-06-2012, 08:52 PM   #202
Brandonm225
Registered
0
Rep
2
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 jet black e92 m3 zcp
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New Orleans

iTrader: (0)

As a e92 m3 owner I understand that it's early so I'll wait and see what the final numbers are but what they are coming up with now in my opinion is not enough coming from a e92 m3 I'm not the tuning type and if the new m3 is around 80k and has the same hp I won't be trading in my e92 for it I
Feel like its not enough to make me trade or upgrade to it. I understand that the m3 is about more than straight line performance I love my m3 but if the figures stay true to this thread then I don't need the new m3......
Appreciate 0
      10-06-2012, 08:57 PM   #203
Brandonm225
Registered
0
Rep
2
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 jet black e92 m3 zcp
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: New Orleans

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl L View Post
I agree re weight, but the VAST percentage of M3 owners will not tune their cars. I'm certainly not dropping 80k and having some aftermarket tuner fiddle with car and invalidate the warranty.

The 991 electric steering is very feelsome, I have little doubt M-division will do a decent job with the feedback.
+1
Appreciate 0
      10-06-2012, 10:20 PM   #204
///M3Lover
Captain
///M3Lover's Avatar
6
Rep
618
Posts

 
Drives: 04WhiteM3
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygirl View Post
the only good thing is that all these issues with the m5/6 will be resolved in the new m3/4
haha I guess.

I hope there won't be any recalls on their new tri turbo system.
Appreciate 0
      10-06-2012, 11:43 PM   #205
speedfan
Major
speedfan's Avatar
Vietnam
30
Rep
1,105
Posts

 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: HCM City

iTrader: (2)

Same hp but much lighter weight? Phock yeah!!!
Please deliver that promise!
__________________
My e90

Frozen Grey. Dry CF Roof. Vorsteiner Double Sided CF Boot Lid. OSS. BMW Performance Aero Kit. BMW Performance CF Diffuser Cover. BMW Performance CF Trim. Robson Design Steering Wheel. Advan RS. Michelin PSS. H&R Touring Cup Kit. BMW Performance Brakes. Eisenmann Race Rear Muffler. ESS Directflash
Appreciate 0
      10-07-2012, 12:28 AM   #206
CanAutM3
Brigadier General
CanAutM3's Avatar
Canada
72
Rep
4,372
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 M4 DCT
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2015 BMW M4  [4.75]
2006 Audi S4  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Still disagree. Getting way OT but...

Consider two equal masses m, a distance d apart, say equal to a wheelbase. This is an idealized two point mass "car". This results in 50:50 weight distribution and the polar moment I(about cg) = m d^2/2. Alter the weight distribution radically so 100% is on one axle. Weight distribution = 100:0, total weight unchanged. Now here I(about cg) = 0. For the more general case you can solve for the generalized I about the cg for any value of m1 and m2.

I = (m1 m2 d^2)/(m1+m2)

Again even though m1+m2 is fixed change their ratio and you can compute exactly how I changes.

Through this simple example you should be able to see that axle weight distribution and polar moment are intricately linked. You can extrapolate to the case of a continuous variation in mass along the length rather than two point masses. In both cases though change one and you change the other. In the simple cases there will be an analytical solution, in the general case certainly not.

Good book by the way!


The flaw in your example resides in the fact that you consider the masses limited to be directly over the axles.

Take your example of the two mass car but instead of combining both masses over one axle, combine them right in the middle of the two axles. You would also reduce I to zero but would maintain the 50-50 weight distribution.

As another example, let's assume a car of a given weight and polar moment. If the axles are positioned at equal distance from the centre of gravity, the car has a 50-50 weight distribution. Moving the front axle forward (assuming negligeable mass for the axles themselves) will shift the weight distribution towards the rear axle, but the polar moment around the CG remains unaltered.

In both examples one parameter could be changed without impacting the other.

Last edited by CanAutM3; 10-07-2012 at 02:50 PM.
Appreciate 0
      10-07-2012, 03:32 AM   #207
BMRLVR
Grease Monkey
BMRLVR's Avatar
Canada
39
Rep
2,332
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Keeping in the segueing theme here...

I not so sure if the area under the torque vs rpm curve has any particular meaning. Sure more is better but that is almost the same as saying more power at all rpms is better (or more torque...).

What does have a meaning is the integral in time of torque x rpm (well in SI units torque x ω, but the same thing if you have consistent units). This gives the total work done by the engine or equivalently how much change in kinetic energy has been given to the vehicle. From that you get exactly how fast it is going. The key thing is you need to plot torque vs. time, not torque vs. rpm. There is a key shortcut here as well though because power is just torque x ω (again basically torque x rpm but in SI units). Thus you can time integrate power instead of messing with torque and rpm! Power is fundamental!

Knowing power is absolutely more fundamental as it does not matter what the gear/final drive ratios are. But of course if you know the full torque curve vs. rpm then you can get the full power curve. You just CAN NOT use crank torque alone in many equations to determine speed or acceleration where you can use power alone! That's the power of power.
Exactly!

That is why torque by itself is useless........ Torque is a static measure of the amount of weight the crankshaft could lift if it had a lever 1 foot long on the end of it (I know you know this but many people don't) hence the unit Lb/Ft. Torque can't do work or accelerate an object unless it it delivered over time.

In my main area of knowledge, diesel engines, horsepower is the way all engines are rated, the torque numbers are mentioned of course, but in reality, the amount of horsepower the engine produces determines the amount of work it can do, not the amount of torque it produces. Everyone knows that diesels make huge torque numbers. For example, a Detroit Diesel Series 60 14L engine makes 1650 Lb/Ft @ 1100 RPM yet only makes 515 HP @ 1800RPM in it's most aggressive factory rating. http://www.demanddetroit.com/pdf/Eng..._S60_specs.pdf

So the moral of what I am saying is that torque is good but unless it can be maintained across a broad RPM range you can't make much horsepower with it. You can't make horsepower without torque, but torque itself can't perform work. A torquey engine is nice, but unless that torque curve is broad, the average horsepower output of the engine is many times not as good as an engine with a lower peak torque number and a broader/flatter torque curve.
__________________
2011 E90 M3 ZCP - Individual Moonstone/Individual Amarone Extended/Individual Piano Black With Inlay:LINK!!!
1994 Euro E36 M3 Sedan - Daytona Violet/Mulberry:LINK!!!

Last edited by BMRLVR; 10-07-2012 at 02:10 PM.
Appreciate 0
      10-07-2012, 10:40 AM   #208
car_fan
Captain
car_fan's Avatar
35
Rep
832
Posts

 
Drives: 2012 F12 650cic / 2012 E92 M3
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SoFla

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaehshim View Post
trust me, it's damn hard to overcome the S65 NA V8...
Not only it being advertised "the last NA BMW M made", this is probably the best engine BMW has ever produced...both in production stand point and racing field/world
Not only that it appears to be the last NA BMW engine period - at least for now
__________________
2012 650cic Space Gray/Vermillon Red/Blk.Top(retired)
2011 MINI CooperS BRGII/Lounge Green/Sport/Prem/Connect/Black Xenon/Black Conical Spokes/ACS springs/ACS exhaust/Alta Shorty/Continental Extreme DW
2012 M3 AW/FR NDH2/2MK/ZPP/ZCP/ZCW/752/6NR/OEM CF splitters/OEM CF Mirror caps
2012 X3 35i Titanium Silver/Black ZAP/ZPP/TECH/APPS/Breyton GTS/Continental Extreme DW
Appreciate 0
      10-07-2012, 12:29 PM   #209
grimlock
Lieutenant Colonel
59
Rep
1,811
Posts

 
Drives: F10 N52B30@255PS
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Hong Kong

iTrader: (0)

Torque is physical characteristic of the engine (at the output axle). as is rpm, but as a 'number' it is only relevant WITH rpm, because 'torque' is simply the physical force of the engine at its output, which can be manipulated any way you want, with gear/levers.. hence it MUST be stated WITH rpm (as HP, or power) otherwise it it truly meaning less.
Why it SEEMS relevant, is because turbo engines give high torque at low rpm, which is the equivalent of high HP at low rpm (the two are identical). The same with diesel engines. So it is a characteristic of the physical setup (NA vs turbo, diesels) which give higher power at low rpm (=high 'torque' at low rpm).
That said, it is a misleading number, as it leads people to draw wrong conclusions - but it is given simply as a statistic of the engine, for engineers to use.
So if you want to talk about something that is accurate, you should talk about HP@rpm (=torque*rpm@rpm), or if you want to see how fast a car is, you also consider how fast it revs.
Appreciate 0
      10-07-2012, 05:02 PM   #210
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimlock View Post
Torque is physical characteristic of the engine (at the output axle). as is rpm, but as a 'number' it is only relevant WITH rpm, because 'torque' is simply the physical force of the engine at its output, which can be manipulated any way you want, with gear/levers.. hence it MUST be stated WITH rpm (as HP, or power) otherwise it it truly meaning less.
Why it SEEMS relevant, is because turbo engines give high torque at low rpm, which is the equivalent of high HP at low rpm (the two are identical). The same with diesel engines. So it is a characteristic of the physical setup (NA vs turbo, diesels) which give higher power at low rpm (=high 'torque' at low rpm).
That said, it is a misleading number, as it leads people to draw wrong conclusions - but it is given simply as a statistic of the engine, for engineers to use.
So if you want to talk about something that is accurate, you should talk about HP@rpm (=torque*rpm@rpm), or if you want to see how fast a car is, you also consider how fast it revs.
Excellent post. 100% agree. I was actually thinking of adding the exact same comment during one of these all too often hp vs. torque debate. It is absolutely amazing how many car guys completely misunderstand the differences.
Appreciate 0
      10-07-2012, 06:12 PM   #211
BMRLVR
Grease Monkey
BMRLVR's Avatar
Canada
39
Rep
2,332
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E90 M3,1994 Euro E36 M3/4
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Excellent post. 100% agree. I was actually thinking of adding the exact same comment during one of these all too often hp vs. torque debate. It is absolutely amazing how many car guys completely misunderstand the differences.
Did you see my post above?

Check out the dynographs in the link and you can see how lots of torque can deliver small horsepower numbers, or rather, do little amounts of work. There are software/fuel injector/pump/turbo upgrades (aftermarket and OEM) available for small, and medium sized diesel engines. Many of these upgrades aren't aimed at increasing the peak torque numbers too much (they sometimes do increase a little bit but are controlled by the computer to a max number), but are aimed at making more torque higher in the RPM range. By not increasing peak torque numbers greatly, you are not increasing the BMEP's or IMEP's that the engine components are subjected to beyond design specs. Because of the multiplication effect that RPM's have on torque's ability to produce horsepower, holding that same peak torque higher into the RPM range allows lots more horsepower to be delivered without stressing the engine too greatly.

Torque is force, and force can't achieve any work unless there is movement measured over a time. This is what everyone needs to understand. Even when an engine is "torquey" the acceleration it achieves totally dependant upon the amount of horsepower that the torque develops at a specific RPM.
__________________
2011 E90 M3 ZCP - Individual Moonstone/Individual Amarone Extended/Individual Piano Black With Inlay:LINK!!!
1994 Euro E36 M3 Sedan - Daytona Violet/Mulberry:LINK!!!
Appreciate 0
      10-07-2012, 09:06 PM   #212
KG3356MT
Second Lieutenant
KG3356MT's Avatar
United_States
3
Rep
268
Posts

 
Drives: E90 M3 DCT
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: queens,NY

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewlef
Quote:
Originally Posted by KG3356MT View Post
+1 not impressed at all. looks like I'm going GTR after this lease is up.
Sorry for the slightly OT post.

My M3 lease is up in August 2013, so I'm also trying to figure out my next step. Aside from performance, could you live with a GT-R? I've asked myself the same thing and I'm not sure I could. The GT-R is great, don't get me wrong. But, the interior is pitifully subpar and tiny. My previous car was a 335ix and I seriously considered the GT-R, but ended up with the M3. Keep in mind, my M3 is my DD; I don't have another car.
I have another car.
__________________
2011 E90 M3 DCT
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2012, 12:14 AM   #213
vase330
Colonel
vase330's Avatar
United_States
37
Rep
2,676
Posts

 
Drives: E92 335i ; 14 RangeRover SSC
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Arlington, Va

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by techwhiz View Post
Too little.
With n54 engines able to produce numbers in that range without a lot of work, this does not seem compelling. We are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 65-70 large for one that isn't even maxed out with options.

Sorry, but the M5 got a real HP and torque bump.
This isn't anything to write home about. Not impressed......
Thats exactly my thoughts. I already have more than that under the hood of my N54 E92. I also have an LSD, so really not compelling in my case. Delivery is very factory-like too. BMW already knows whats been done out there with these engines so it begs the question.
__________________
E92 335 | Space Gray | Saddle Brown Dakota | Dark Burl Trim | ZPP | ZSP | AT | Idrive | 6FL | FBO | Dinan CAI | Quaife LSD | STG3 PROCede.
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2012, 12:18 AM   #214
Ohh_5H1T
Captain
Ohh_5H1T's Avatar
22
Rep
720
Posts

 
Drives: Backwards
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Yonkers, NY

iTrader: (0)

The OP render photo looks like a Hyundai Genesis Coupe. Not feeling it at all. Hope the actual final product turns out nicer-looking!
__________________
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2012, 08:33 AM   #215
jerseygirl
Private First Class
1
Rep
133
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 e92 m3
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: new jersey

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Still disagree. Getting way OT but...

Consider two equal masses m, a distance d apart, say equal to a wheelbase. This is an idealized two point mass "car". This results in 50:50 weight distribution and the polar moment I(about cg) = m d^2/2. Alter the weight distribution radically so 100% is on one axle. Weight distribution = 100:0, total weight unchanged. Now here I(about cg) = 0. For the more general case you can solve for the generalized I about the cg for any value of m1 and m2.

I = (m1 m2 d^2)/(m1+m2)

Again even though m1+m2 is fixed change their ratio and you can compute exactly how I changes.

Through this simple example you should be able to see that axle weight distribution and polar moment are intricately linked. You can extrapolate to the case of a continuous variation in mass along the length rather than two point masses. In both cases though change one and you change the other. In the simple cases there will be an analytical solution, in the general case certainly not.

Good book by the way!
thanks for clarifying that. now its so simple
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2012, 11:30 AM   #216
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanAutM3 View Post


The flaw in your example resides in the fact that you consider the masses limited to be directly over the axles.

Take your example of the two mass car but instead of combining both masses over one axle, combine them right in the middle of the two axles. You would also reduce I to zero but would maintain the 50-50 weight distribution.

As another example, let's assume a car of a given weight and polar moment. If the axles are positioned at equal distance from the centre of gravity, the car has a 50-50 weight distribution. Moving the front axle forward (assuming negligeable mass for the axles themselves) will shift the weight distribution towards the rear axle, but the polar moment around the CG remains unaltered.

In both examples one parameter could be changed without impacting the other.
Good counterpoints. Although I would say these are somewhat special cases. Let me restate. You stated polar moment and axle weight distribution are not related. My counterpoint showed that in some cases they certainly are related, although I over generalized to which you provided counterpoint.

Arbitrary changes in the density (or mass) distribution in a vehicle will change its axle weight and will change it polar moment as both are sums (integrals) of the density distribution. Also, a more even axle balance (at a given fixed weight) produces a lower I whereas a more unbalanced axle ratio will produce a lower I (that comes from the simple formula I provided prior).
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2012, 06:06 PM   #217
MWM
Enlisted Member
0
Rep
46
Posts

 
Drives: 335i (E90)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Birmingham, AL

iTrader: (0)

N54 owners who bolt on a single 62mm hairdryer are going to slapping the new M3 silly. Where are all the fanboys now who said the E9x had plenty of torque?
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2012, 06:25 PM   #218
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MWM View Post
N54 owners who bolt on a single 62mm hairdryer are going to slapping the new M3 silly. Where are all the fanboys now who said the E9x had plenty of torque?
You must recognize how silly this comparison is...

1. Stock to modded, always a lame comparison.
2. More apples to apples might be a software only modded F82 M4 vs. software only modded N54 3er. The M will destroy it.
3. Another comparison might be on the track vs. a drag race. The cars are more designed for the former.
4. Crank torque is meaningless. Power is what dictates acceleration at any speed in any gear.
5. The E9X M3 puts more torque to the wheels than many modified N54 3ers and this beats them in races. That is because it makes more power. Sure extensively modded N54s can out drag an E9X M3, no big surprise there.
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2012, 08:58 PM   #219
DiavelM3
4 Star General -Twilight Zone
DiavelM3's Avatar
United_States
17
Rep
1,025
Posts

 
Drives: '11 E92 M3 ZCP
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 5280

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MWM View Post
N54 owners who bolt on a single 62mm hairdryer are going to slapping the new M3 silly. Where are all the fanboys now who said the E9x had plenty of torque?
LOL! It amazes me that people still try to compare a modded car to a stock one.
I can slap a Hayabusa 1300cc motor into a smart car and it will spank your precious little 335 all day long -> 0-60, 1/4 mile etc.. How about an STI with a chip and down pipe compared to your stock 335?
We can make other comparisons? Does any of that make sense yet?
__________________
'12 Ducati Diavel
'06 E46 M3 (sold) | '97 325is - Dinan (sold)
'02 Z3 3.0 coupe (sold)
Past - '84 Ferrari 308 GTSI | '88 Ferrari 328 GTS | '05 Dodge Viper Copperhead Edition #180/300 | Audi S4
Appreciate 0
      10-08-2012, 09:35 PM   #220
Carl L
Captain
Carl L's Avatar
9
Rep
877
Posts

 
Drives: '15 M3
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: West Coast

iTrader: (0)

Don't feed the troll people.
__________________
-prev M-cars: E60, E92, E46, E36
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
2013 bmw m3, 2013 bmw m4, 2013 m3, 2013 m4, 2014 bmw m3, 2014 m3, 2014 m3 forum, 2014 m3 torque, 2014 m3 weight, 2014 m4 torque, 2014 m4 weight, 2015 m4 torque, 2015 m4 weight, bmw f80, bmw f80 forum, bmw f80 forums, bmw f80 m3, bmw f80 m3 sedan, bmw f82, bmw f82 forum, bmw f82 forums, bmw f82 m3, bmw f82 m3 coupe, bmw f82 m3 forum, bmw f82 m4, bmw f82 m4 coupe, bmw f83, bmw f83 m3, bmw f83 m4, bmw m forum, bmw m forums, bmw m4, bmw m4 coupe, bmw m4 coupe forum, bmw m4 forum, bmw m4 forums, f80, f80 forum, f80 forums, f80 m3, f80 m3 forum, f80 m3 forums, f80 m3 sedan, f80 m3 torque, f80 m3 weight, f80 m4 weight, f82, f82 coupe, f82 forum, f82 forums, f82 m3, f82 m3 coupe, f82 m3 forum, f82 m4, f82 m4 coupe, f82 m4 forum, f82 m4 forums, f82 m4 torque, f83 m3, f83 m4

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.




f80post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST