Butt-O-Meter

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

C6/base/LS3 numbers:
428 ft lb * 2.66 (1st) * 3.42 (final) = 3893 ft lb

C6/Z51/LS3 numbers:
428 ft lb * 2.97 (1st) * 3.42 (final) = 4347 ft lb

So M3 is a little higher in 1st, not way higher.

According to this link on the C6 registry the 2005 had 400 ft lb, that was the specific model I was referring to. Its engine was enhanced during its lifecycle. However, I did cross the MT and AT final drive, yours is correct. Thus for 400 hp the value is 3638 ft lb.

Either way even with your smaller number the M3's advantage is a full 15% that is significant.

For those more interested in the torque vs. hp thing this is a very good example of meaningful numbers vs. meaningless ones (i.e. crank torque). The 414 hp M3 and the 400 hp Vette are pretty close in performance. The M3 has a small peak power advantage and the advantage from a fast shifting DCT. The C6 is quite a bit lighter. The massive amount more of crank torque is again pretty well meaningless. If you bother computing crank torque x transmission ratio x final drive ratio you basically get a number that represents the power of the car, no, it's units are not power, it is still torque, but meaningful torque. Low torque high redline engines often have lower crank torque but make up for it with gear torque multiplication. Higher crank torque cars can't typically spin the rpms so high so must use longer gears/FD to achieve reasonable in gear speeds and nicely spaced gears all the way to top speed.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by swamp2

According to this link on the C6 registry the 2005 had 400 ft lb, that was the specific model I was referring to. Its engine was enhanced during its lifecycle. However, I did cross the MT and AT final drive, yours is correct. Thus for 400 hp the value is 3638 ft lb.

Yes, that is why I referenced the LS3. C6 vettes came with LS2 engines for 3 model years then the LS3 from 2008 until the model was retired. The LS3 was much stronger than the LS2, despite a close power rating, having a redesigned cylinder head.

Originally Posted by swamp2

For those more interested in the torque vs. hp thing this is a very good example of meaningful numbers vs. meaningless ones (i.e. crank torque). The 414 hp M3 and the 400 hp Vette are pretty close in performance. The M3 has a small peak power advantage and the advantage from a fast shifting DCT. The C6 is bit lighter. The massive amount more of crank torque is again meaningless...

One of the best examples to make this precise point is a comparison of the 335d and the E9x M3. The 335d has 425 ft lb of torque against the M3 295 ft lb in pretty much the same body. If crank torque mattered, the 335d would be faster than the M3 but it isn't. Not by a long shot.

Pat

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by Boss330

So, they call it razor sharp while others say it's not quite razor sharp...

A long time ago, after reading over and over again "journalists" writing about driving cars that I knew well, and seeing them write total nonsense, I realized the only thing automotive "journalists" are good for is publishing instrumented metrics for comparison purposes, 1/4 mile times and speeds, etc.

Take the F10 M5, for example. It has lots of turbo lag, unpleasant amounts even, and yet the deniers are everywhere. It feels nothing like a naturally aspirated car and I bet the F80 M3 will be the same but you won't hear most journalists say this.

Why is this? Because as far as I can tell, there are no qualifications needed to write about cars.

[BimmerBoomer]

Funny that I was chief advocate for the F80/F82 and now won't commit to buying one. http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324295

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by catpat8000

A long time ago, after reading over and over again "journalists" writing about driving cars that I knew well, and seeing them write total nonsense, I realized the only thing automotive "journalists" are good for is publishing instrumented metrics for comparison purposes, 1/4 mile times and speeds, etc.

Take the F10 M5, for example. It has lots of turbo lag, unpleasant amounts even, and yet the deniers are everywhere. It feels nothing like a naturally aspirated car and I bet the F80 M3 will be the same but you won't hear most journalists say this.

Why is this? Because as far as I can tell, there are no qualifications needed to write about cars.

Extremely interesting comment... especially when the turbos are relatively small and we are dealing with a 4.4L V8 motor. Lag is the last word that I would use to describe that motor. If anything, I would consider the S65 to be a laggy motor... not turbo lag obviously but the lack of oomph below 4K rpm sure makes it feel that way.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Extremely interesting comment... especially when the turbos are relatively small and we are dealing with a 4.4L V8 motor. Lag is the last word that I would use to describe that motor. If anything, I would consider the S65 to be a laggy motor... not turbo lag obviously but the lack of oomph below 4K rpm sure makes it feel that way.

We've had this discussion ad-nauseum in other threads. I'll summarize for you here: somewhat shockingly, the majority of people who post on this board don't seem to understand what the term "turbo lag" means so it is impossible to communicate much along these lines.

The fact that you responded as you did suggests you do not understand the defn of turbo lag either.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ASAP

If anything, I would consider the S65 to be a laggy motor... not turbo lag obviously but the lack of oomph below 4K rpm sure makes it feel that way.

Here you come again with the same BS. We had the exact same debate in another thread that got deleted by the mods.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Here you come again with the same BS. We had the exact same debate in another thread that got deleted by the mods.

ok excuse me...

lifeless below 4K... most interested in the F80 can agree. I don't get what you are doing here or where your interest lie or why you ordered the car if you are to keep on an on about this old car and motor.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ASAP

ok excuse me...

lifeless below 4K... most interested in the F80 can agree. I don't get what you are doing here or where your interest lie or why you ordered the car if you are to keep on an on about this old car and motor.

As I demonstrated in the other thread, the E9X M3 puts down more torque at the wheels at 2000RPM in 6th than a 335i does at the same gear and RPM. Yet every 335i owner raves about low end punch .

BTW, if you look at my post history on the F8X forums, there is not that much raving about the S65; but when someone makes unfounded claims, I do like to input some facts into the picture.

I ordered the new M4 because I am a long time fan of the ///M3. I have really enjoyed owning different generations thus far and I am also expecting to enjoy the M4. I am no fanboy though, and remain objective and critical about some aspects of the new car. The engine is definitely one of them.

As I posted elsewhere, IMO, the S65 is what defined the E9X, it is what made it special and memorable. A fantastic chassis is what I believe will define the F8X, not so sure about the engine.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

As I demostrated in the other thread, the E9X M3 puts down more torque at the wheels at 2000RPM in 6th than a 335i does at the same gear and RPM. Yet every 335i owner raves about low end punch .

BTW, if you look at my post history, there is not that much raving about the S65; but when someone makes unfounded claims, I do like to input some facts into the picture.

I ordered the new M4 because I am a long time fan of the ///M3. I have really enjoyed owning different generations thus far and I am also expecting to enjoy the M4. I am no fanboy though, and remain objective and critical about some aspects of the new car. The engine is definitely one of them.

As I posted elsewhere, IMO, the S65 is what defined the E9X, it is what made it special and memorable. A fantastic chassis is what I believe will define the F8X, not so sure about the engine.

Dynos tell a different story... that is what i feel in reality... not a calculator and Matlab...

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Dynos tell a different story... that is what i feel in reality... not a calculator and Matlab...

Don't get me going on dynos

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Dynos tell a different story... that is what i feel in reality... not a calculator and Matlab...

Don't get me started on how unreliable butt dynos can be... In short both bias in understanding about performance as well as vehicle NVH can and typically do affect perception of performance.

CanAutM3 - just refer him to one of your fine prior posts on the topic and perhaps my observations about the M3 dyno database (natural variability across nearly identical vehicles...

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by BimmerBoomer

Funny that I was chief advocate for the F80/F82 and now won't commit to buying one. http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=324295

Ha, ha. Nice blast from the past from over 4 years ago! A pretty epic thread. We did the 'a FD mod makes my car so much faster' side argument there also, which still keep cropping up... We did lazy driving. We also did that extensive round of "fact vs. opinion". There was also the DCT bashing. Your posts seem pretty well balanced back then even if you like a lot of power at low rpm ;-)

[ASAP]

^lol this guy.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ASAP

^lol this guy.

Yeah, your funny, everyone is laughing but only at how wrong you are on a whole slew of topics. How about adding some posts with some decent discussion, facts or conclusions instead of mouth diarrhea like that above? Hell even decent humor would be a welcome change at this point.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Yeah, your funny, everyone is laughing but only at how wrong you are on a whole slew of topics. How about adding some posts with some decent discussion, facts or conclusions instead of mouth diarrhea like that above? Hell even decent humor would be a welcome change at this point.

LOL u mad...

months of incorrect math and calculations and someone's butt is tight.

1.65 60' on a rwd street car with street tires.

120 MPH traps



I am staying out at this point. What you're still doing here is beyond me.

The difference between you and me is that outside of having access to generic sw like Matlab that literally every engineer in the world has... I also have real world experience. Both on the track and tuning cars.

[///ADMAN]

And so we come to end of this thread.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ASAP

LOL u mad...

months of incorrect math and calculations and someone's butt is tight.

1.65 60' on a rwd street car with street tires.

120 MPH traps



...

The difference between you and me is that outside of having access to generic sw like Matlab that literally every engineer in the world has... I also have real world experience. Both on the track and tuning cars.

Nope, not mad, just mildly amused. Keep up the silly little icons, it's really buying you a lot of additional credibility.

Have you ever heard of "missing the forrest for the trees"? That is precisely what your criticism of my performance analysis of the new M3/4 is. So far the data across a very wide spectrum or results matches the test data really well. Yes there are items of less accuracy, the same is typically true of any simulation. And where exactly did I predict or estimate 120 mph traps? Nowhere, sorry, that is completely false much like a lot of your drivel. Next I am not using Matlab for my modeling. Got anything else you can get wrong? You've completely screwed both the big picture and the minor details. Just about time to give up.

You also might want to take note where way back in 2010 I pretty well nailed a broad range of the cars performance results long before we knew much of anything about it. Link.

Also how do you know anything whatsoever about my general experience with cars?

You're a real piece of work.

Originally Posted by ASAP

What you're still doing here is beyond me.

Obviously!

Originally Posted by ASAP

I am staying out at this point.

Time to let the grown ups continue their discussion here. Please do adhere to your promise, please.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The 7600 rpm redline is artificial, not really needed and kind of represents a poseur-ish statement by BMW knowing the outcry when they release an engine with a redline having the first digit a 6.... or even something like 7250, which is probably all that is needed. A big part of the thrill of the S65 is gone and for me that is very unfortunate.

Some thoughts to get us back on topic:

Redline shifts (7500RPM) from 1st to 2nd and from 2nd to 3rd are theoretically needed for optimal acceleration. A lower redline could have very slightly reduced acceleration performance. Although, one could argue that there is not sufficient traction in first gear anyway and a short shift to second is better for acceleration (as the LC seems to be doing on the videos seen thus far). LC does seem to shift at 7500 in 2nd gear though.

I feel that the 7600RPM fuel cut off might be more of a benefit for 6MT cars on the race track. It is sometimes beneficial to "stretch" a gear before the next corner instead of having to lose time with an upshift.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Some thoughts to get us back on topic:

Redline shifts (7500RPM) from 1st to 2nd and from 2nd to 3rd are theoretically needed for optimal acceleration. A lower redline could have very slightly reduced acceleration performance. Although, one could argue that there is not sufficient traction in first gear anyway and a short shift to second is better for acceleration (as the LC seems to be doing on the videos seen thus far). LC does seem to shift at 7500 in 2nd gear though.

I feel that the 7600RPM fuel cut off might be more of a benefit for 6MT cars on the race track. It is sometimes beneficial to "stretch" a gear before the next corner instead of having to lose time with an upshift.

Thanks!

The last section/claim seems reasonable. However, in general just about any car can benefit from a few extra 100 rpm. But also, such benefits would only be realized under very unique circumstances, i.e. peak straight speed just about what 7250 rpm would give and just below what 7600 would give...

You know me, I'll just say it was as much BMW ///Marketing not willing to shed of all former guiding principles and the understanding that the market too would be unwilling to do so!

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Thanks!

Originally Posted by swamp2

The last section/claim seems reasonable. However, in general just about any car can benefit from a few extra 100 rpm. But also, such benefits would only be realized under very unique circumstances, i.e. peak straight speed just about what 7250 rpm would give and just below what 7600 would give...

The 7500RPM redline is only 200RPM past the power peak (plateau).

I was mentioning the 6MT because the shifts are so quick and easy with DCT, that you would not lose any time with an additional upshift and downshift. So those 200RPM are pretty useless with DCT (except for the 2-3 shift, but that could be resolved with better gearing ).

Originally Posted by swamp2

You know me, I'll just say it was as much BMW ///Marketing not willing to shed of all former guiding principles and the understanding that the market too would be unwilling to do so!

I don't disagree with this. Marketing and perception management is strong at BMW.

BMW is also playing with the terms. The specify a 7600RPM redline but the tach shows redline closer to 7500RPM. Engine speed limiter might be at 7600RPM.

[catpat8000]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I don't disagree with this. Marketing and perception management is strong at BMW.

BMW is also playing with the terms. The specify a 7600RPM redline but the tach shows redline closer to 7500RPM. Engine speed limiter might be at 7600RPM.

Didn't they do this with the E9x also?

You could look at my E90 tach using a microscope and you'd see the redline was 8250 rpm. The DCT in S6 shifted at 8250 rpm but BMW insists it has an 8400 rpm redline. I still don't believe it.