BIMMERPOST BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 First Drive Review

[Suave]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

fuck me, why did I order the cayman GTS

Lmao. Wonder how many others are seeing that quote and saying the same thing!

[mithiral67]

Originally Posted by Suave

Lmao. Wonder how many others are seeing that quote and saying the same thing!

Ha, right? I made the move on Saturday as the allocations were drying up and couldnt wait for the reviews any longer. I wanted a more engaging car and wanted to get back into a porsche, but the gts is running me $10k more and its down 100hp and 150tq.

But it does look prettier . . . .

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

Ha, right? I made the move on Saturday as the allocations were drying up and couldnt wait for the reviews any longer. I wanted a more engaging car and wanted to get back into a porsche, but the gts is running me $10k more and its down 100hp and 150tq.

But it does look prettier . . . .

the weight savings alone will already get it closer to the actual to the ground power and speed....plus better seating position, better interior. plus NA!~! plus noises....i guess if you really need back seats youre shit outta luck lol.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

Ha, right? I made the move on Saturday as the allocations were drying up and couldnt wait for the reviews any longer. I wanted a more engaging car and wanted to get back into a porsche, but the gts is running me $10k more and its down 100hp and 150tq.

But it does look prettier . . . .

You picked the worst color for this car to compare to that sweet Cayman Red. No fair! I actually unloaded my 2013 Boxster S Spyder over the winter to make room for mine. I am only missing it because I have no sport car at the moment but only 6 weeks until delivery for me!

[Sir Loin]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

Ha, right? I made the move on Saturday as the allocations were drying up and couldnt wait for the reviews any longer. I wanted a more engaging car and wanted to get back into a porsche, but the gts is running me $10k more and its down 100hp and 150tq.

But it does look prettier . . . .

Don't kid yourself. You are still on bimmerpost M3/M4 forum. go back, cancel your cayman order, and go back to your BMW dealership and order a new M before you pass the point of no return.

[300hp]

Have you guys seen the American press reviews? All of them have a first drive section
C&D
Motortrend
Insideline

[mithiral67]

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

Don't kid yourself. You are still on bimmerpost M3/M4 forum. go back, cancel your cayman order, and go back to your BMW dealership and order a new M before you pass the point of no return.

Ha, even giving up my $5k deposit, the m4 will be cheaper.

[fbm3cab]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Ok, so you are talking about the driver. Not the car...

Because a race between a average driver in a E9x M3 vs a average driver in a F8x M3/4 will be a win for the F8x

Put a bad driver in the F8x and a good driver in the E9x, the E9x should win. Doesn't mean it's the better car that won, just the better driver

A friend shared this story about when he was at a week long BMW training course where the European instructors drove 325's and the participants drove 328's.

Of course the instructors in the 325's blew the 328's away on the course time after time and one of the instructors said "Oh, you Americans try to replace the lack of skill with power" he of course was including Canadians in this statement or perhaps he just said that about every country he went to but it did ring true excluding the labeling of a nationality.

[Sir Loin]

Originally Posted by mithiral67

Ha, even giving up my $5k deposit, the m4 will be cheaper.

What? The deposit is not refundable? Go beat up the dealer to get your money back.

[RoboM]

So am I right to say that a new M3/M4 is the best of all BMW ultimate driving machines?

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by RoboM

So am I right to say that a new M3/M4 is the best of all BMW ultimate driving machines?

If you ask me, yes (from what I know). Depends on what you consider ultimate. Each iteration gets better. M5/6 will carry you in more refined style, but not as true to M roots, IMO.

[RoboM]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

If you ask me, yes (from what I know). Depends on what you consider ultimate. Each iteration gets better. M5/6 will carry you in more refined style, but not as true to M roots, IMO.

Many thanks. So I guess M3/M4 is in terms of drivers' cars.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

First of all it just isn't more complex. Rupes' note gave enough parameters to make it simple:

"In other words, two identical cars with identical power delivery, one has 600 pound ft torque the other has 400. Both have the same HP, would the torque really matter in speed, or just in feel?"

That's all you need. The cars are identical, right down to making the same power at the same rpm (i.e. - "identical power delivery").

Well they can't have identical delivery because of the relationship between hp, torque and rpm. They must have radically different shaped power and torque curves which preserves peak values only, the rpm of the peak value(s) can not be maintained.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Secondly, Rupe didn't ask anything about how big or small the difference in ET or speed would be, nor did he specify a distance. Why bring it up?

Because details matter. You explanation serves to confound an issue which you typically help people strive for greater understanding and clarity. So yes, as we both said, a win, but it is far from a substantial win. More on that at the end.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Third, the actual performance difference would vary based on gearing and where the torque peak fell in relation to the power peak. The closer the gearing, the smaller the difference, and vice versa.

Nope, gearing can't change. IDENTICAL! Although in an such real car it would be changed.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Fifth, there is no way the 400 foot pound car will win a race from 60-130 over the 600 foot pound car. Just no way. You're using that moderately crappy software again instead of using your noggin. The 600 foot pound car makes more power everywhere except at the power peak. Period.

A particular case I ran with simulation was the following. A real E92 M3 M-DCT vs. a hypothetical one with DOUBLE the PEAK torque and the same PEAK power. The result is a very odd shaped torque curve that falls like off a cliff past about 2000 rpm, it must do so to limit the power to the same as the base line car. Due to a radically different torque curve shift points are also significantly changes. The stock car will do a considerable portion of a 60-130 run in 2nd whereas the hypothetical car with much more torque has to almost immediately go into 3rd gear resulting in much less acceleration and a bit of lost time to to shifting and possibly wheelspin. The result is that the car with half the torque does the 60-130 faster. I suppose I could also check the other case but if it is true with double/half if can certainly be true for some other similar contest perhaps not exactly 60-130 but maybe 50-120 or 70-150, etc.

The details matter.

I guess a good question here though is a torque curve such as this even practically realizable for any sort of ICE? Perhaps not.

Last but not least. Lets imagine the flip side case. Double a cars power but leave the torque the same. This is pretty well impossible without radically altering either redline or peak torque. However, bumping an E92 M3 to say 500 hp while maintaining both its peak torque and redline is perfectly possible (just from the math). Comparing this hypothetical car to either the base car or the other hypothetical car with double the torque results in said car with 500 hp will decisively destroy the other cars in most time to speed contests while just getting bested slightly off the line (and staying slightly behind) up to about 100 mph (again given a standing start), i.e. losing low to mid speed time to distance contests.

What is my point... Power is more important than torque in determining performance, which we fully agree on. It's certainly not that more torque is good. Particularly in the S55 the higher torque at lower rpms simply provides a lot more low and and midrange power and an improved average power.

[GBPackerfan1963]

Originally Posted by Sir Loin

What? The deposit is not refundable? Go beat up the dealer to get your money back.

[Brainofjjj]

Originally Posted by Bokke

Thanks, can't wait - week 23 build!!

So you're getting this and not the GT3? Decisions decisions

[ake]

Originally Posted by JoeFromPA

Nevertheless, the six-speed manual still seems to be the truly appropriate choice for the F8x. Especially since this one is significantly lighter than the gearbox used in the predecessor, thus increasing the weight delta between a manual and an automatic M3 and M4 to almost 90 lbs

Error in the data here. It's not a 90 pound difference. But again, why does it seem to be the truly appropriate choice here. Is it just an outstanding manual? Perfect clutch action? No context behind this comment

^ especially this... I'd like to hear more about manual vs DCT (also things like fuel economy what BMW states is a lot better with DCT)

[bucket328]

Plain and simple, a large group of people are upset that the M3/M4 has gone from NA to Forced Induction, and that the beloved and brilliant V8 has been axed and replaced by an i6. Because of this, the new car must be awful! It can't possibly be better then my E92..... blah blah blah.

You don't like it? Great don't buy it! Will BMW care? No because there core values appeared to have changed in some regards and they are now selling and marketing more cars than ever, but lets not open that can of worms.

But before everyone speculates and draws conclusions based on a bunch of fat blokes who got to enjoy a trip to Portugal and slide a car about, why not wait and drive it yourself???

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Well they can't have identical delivery because of the relationship between hp, torque and rpm. They must have radically different shaped power and torque curves which preserves peak values only, the rpm of the peak value(s) can not be maintained.

Really? Try this:

600 HP @7000 RPM, 600 foot pounds of torque @ 4000.
600 HP @7000 RPM, 400 foot pounds @ 4000.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Nope, gearing can't change. IDENTICAL!

Yes, identical. Here's what I said: "Third, the actual performance difference would vary based on gearing and where the torque peak fell in relation to the power peak. The closer the gearing, the smaller the difference, and vice versa."

No mention of changed gearing.

Originally Posted by swamp2

A particular case I ran with simulation was the following. A real E92 M3 M-DCT vs. a hypothetical one with DOUBLE the PEAK torque and the same PEAK power. The result is a very odd shaped torque curve that falls like off a cliff past about 2000 rpm, it must do so to limit the power to the same as the base line car. Due to a radically different torque curve shift points are also significantly changes. The stock car will do a considerable portion of a 60-130 run in 2nd whereas the hypothetical car with much more torque has to almost immediately go into 3rd gear resulting in much less acceleration and a bit of lost time to to shifting and possibly wheelspin. The result is that the car with half the torque does the 60-130 faster. I suppose I could also check the other case but if it is true with double/half if can certainly be true for some other similar contest perhaps not exactly 60-130 but maybe 50-120 or 70-150, etc.
The details matter.

Look, I realize this stuff is non-intuitive for you, but you need to step back and take a look at what you're saying here. In this case, the 600 car does not need to shift into third almost immediately. It should shift up there at 8400, like a stocker, because that's where peak power is. perhaps you should model a more real example such as the one I mentioned just above.

Originally Posted by swamp2

I guess a good question here though is a torque curve such as this even practically realizable for any sort of ICE? Perhaps not.

Right. Not any sort of a "normal" example. My example might be a ZR1 (638 HP @ 6500, 604 foot pounds @ 3800), with the 400 foot pound example obtained by limiting boost (and perhaps timing) at lower rpm.

Originally Posted by swamp2

What is my point... Power is more important than torque in determining performance, which we fully agree on. It's certainly not that more torque is good. Particularly in the S55 the higher torque at lower rpms simply provides a lot more low and and midrange power and an improved average power.

Certainly we agree that power is (much) more important than torque in determining performance - but more torque is just peachy.

Hey, the good part is that Rupes (and perhaps others) are getting a good education.

Rupes, I refer you here for some more basics.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Really? Try this:

600 HP @7000 RPM, 600 foot pounds of torque @ 4000.
600 HP @7000 RPM, 400 foot pounds @ 4000.

There is a "tiny" flaw in the example above, isn't there...

If you make 600hp at 7000rpm you will also have more than 400ft.lbs of torque at 7000rpm...

According to your own post (in the link you provided):

Horsepower * 5252
------------------- = Torque
RPM


600 x 5252
------------- = 450ft.lbs
7000

So, yes the engine might make 400ft.lbs at 4000rpm, but it continues to increase to 450ft.lbs at 7000rpm (as long as the engine makes 600hp @ 7000rpm)

Perhaps you should use a different example

And the other point being that you cannot have similar power delivery if you have one low torque and one high torque engine. It's in the maths you explained in the link. As long as RPM, HP and Torque is part of the equation you WILL get different HP or Torque numbers at each RPM, IF you change either HP or Torque numbers in the equation. You simply can't make the same hp at any given rpm if you don't have the exact same torque number, and vice versa! So your claim of identical power delivery on two engines, with different torque numbers through the rev range, simply cannot happen

To use your own example with two engines that make 400ft.lbs and 600ft.lbs @ 4000rpm:

Torque * RPM
---------------- = Horsepower
5252


400 x 4000
------------- = 304hp @ 4000rpm
5252



600 x 4000
------------- = 457hp @ 4000rpm
5252


So the high torque engine makes 153hp more at 4000rpm than the lower torque engine does. That's hardly "identical power delivery"...


--

[M4TW]

Do you guys even know what you are arguing about?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by M4TW

Do you guys even know what you are arguing about?

Yes

But it's a bit off topic though...

[JoeFromPA]

Listen guys, my twin turbo v10 puts out over 650 lb/ft of torque and thus I can declare that Bruce is in the wrong. There I played my card.

Bruce I really don't know what you are trying to prove. Acceleration is a function of total HP used within a given acceleration example. A 600lb/ft car that has the same peak HP as a 300 lb/ft car may not make any real difference because they spend the same amount of time at the high end of the powerband where their actual horsepower match each other. Now would the 600 lb/ft car produce more HP during the early launch phase? Sure, let's saw it produces notably more horsepower between 14-22 mph in 1st gear. Awesome. Assuming it can put that power down in 1st gear, it will have the slightest advantage in acceleration there.

After that, it'll be at the peak end of the powerband where it would need to match the horsepower of the other car and thus the difference will become negligible.

....

Now, all that being said, the better example is the s65 to s55 (on paper). The S65 makes alot less total HP during it's ~6000-8400 rpm run then the S55 does during it's ~5000-7400 rpm run, as a function of how that torque plateaus off.

Because the total HP available during a max acceleration run is always consistently higher in the S55, it's going to produce alot stronger acceleration - even though it's peak HP is only a tick higher.