11-22-2013, 08:37 PM | #45 |
General
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 21156
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-22-2013, 09:54 PM | #46 | ||
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
As for the M3/M4 we can only speculate right now, but BMW up to now is promising us 250 lbs off the weight of a similarly optioned E9X M3. My E92 weighed on certified scales with 1/2 tank of gas (no driver) weighs 3550 lbs, and I'm nearly fully loaded (no DCT or sound system). 250 lbs off gives is a 3300 lb curb weight. I'm not saying we'll actually see this, of course, but we can still hope. At any rate, 3400 lbs curb weight seems likely, and that is STILL less than the new vette. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-22-2013, 09:58 PM | #47 | |
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
![]() This. I wish everyone on this forum would read this. Peak Power is a fairly meaningful figure to quote without any other knowledge of a car. For one thing, peak power to weight has meaningful and accurate performance correlations. Peak torque on the other hand means very little because of the effect of gearing. Peak torque to weight means little to nothing, and a peak torque value even with the gearing ratios is fairly meaningless without the torque curve. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 04:14 AM | #48 | ||
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
![]() If you read my entire post you both can see that I emphasize the power to weight ratio when I argue that the M3/M4 should be close. As an afterthought I mention that the Stingray has more torque than the M3/M4 (you might misunderstand that and I see that it could have been excluded from the post, to avoid that confusion. But I just thought that some fact wouldn't be wrong, seeing that we discussed the power and weight of two cars, why not just mention their respective torque figures as well?). And, didn't you know that we DO know the torque curve of the S55? In this post we have both the power/torque chart and a statement on the rev range the S55 have peak power and peak torque. http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=892746 Peak torque is delivered from "under 2000 RPM to over 5000 RPM" and peak power is delivered "from 5000 RPM to 7300 RPM" |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 05:42 AM | #49 | |
General
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 21156
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
All I have read so far is BMW quoting 80kg (175lbs) less than a similarly equipped E92... When I weighed my well optioned M3 (DCT, Nav, premium sound, CF roof) with a full tank, it came to 3688 lbs. Our numbers line up pretty well: 3550lb + 45lb (DCT) + 50lbs (½ tank of fuel) = 3645 (33lb variance). Last edited by CanAutM3; 11-23-2013 at 06:03 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 05:48 AM | #50 | |
General
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 21156
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 07:35 AM | #51 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
If we will see the promised weights on the M3 is another matter, but given BMW's stated DIN weight of under 1500kg in base version (just as the Stingray's weight also is quoted for a base version) the M3 shouldnt lag far behind the Stingray... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 07:44 AM | #52 | |
Major General
![]() ![]() ![]() 1727
Rep 5,110
Posts |
Quote:
BMW's official weights (in brochures etc) are stated per EU legislation with driver and 90% fuel and fluids. The Sport Auto article mentioned that the 1500kg weight was according to DIN. If it's DIN 70020, then that also includes fuel, driver and fluids. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leergewicht Before 2006 there was also a DIN norm that operated with "dry weight", but from 2005 all type approved vehicles have a curb weight consisting of vehicle, including a full tank of fuel (in the German system, 90% according to EU), driver, tool kit, warning triangle and spare tire (when fitted). The stated curb weight for the E92 M3 is 1580kg and 1500kg is a 80kg save over the E92 M3, so it seems like the 1500kg weight should be fairly accurate... Especially when we take into account the weights provided above and that the officially quoted weights is the bare bones base version. How many 1500kg M3/M4 that actually will be sold is a different matter though... Most will have some options that add weight. Last edited by Boss330; 11-23-2013 at 09:39 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 11:43 AM | #54 | ||
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 12:13 PM | #55 | |
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
And yes, I know we have the torque curve now for the S55. That makes it even more egregious when people blindly compare peak torque figures between the stingray and the new M3/M4. The information is out there, but we don't use it because quoting peak torque is much easier (and more easily communicable) than looking over curves. Unfortunately, alone it doesn't really mean a significant amount. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 12:26 PM | #56 | |
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
"The lightest version of the new cars will weigh less than 3,307 pounds...." From: http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/2014...-revealed.html So, to be fair, I was really working off my assumption that the lightest E92 M3's were about 3550 lbs, and this "3307 lb' quoted figure chopped off about 250 lbs. My article is also 2 months old now; is there a new "best reference" on expected weight for this thing? I always prefer to see them actually quoting curb weight versus simply telling us "XXX" lbs lighter, since that just leads us all to argue about how much the E9X M3 weighed. And yeah, looks like our weights agree. I'm about to make a major move across country, so I'll be weighing my car empty and loaded (with house items; work compensates me to an extent for the move) on certified scales again. I'll be interested to see if there's any significant variance between my previous weighing (on certified scales) and this weighing. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 12:31 PM | #57 | |
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
I won't say I'm optimistic that the production car is down to their quoted curb weight estimates, but if they've been ANYWHERE close to being honest, we should see a car that meets or beats the new corvette's 3450 lbs. As for me, I'm still waiting on reviews, but I won't be a strong potential buyer if this thing doesn't weigh somewhere near the "less than 3307 pounds" talk for the lightest optioning of the car. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 12:48 PM | #58 | |
General
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 21156
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
![]() Further, even saying "average power is the area under the torque curve" is not true... Last edited by CanAutM3; 11-23-2013 at 02:42 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 01:29 PM | #59 | ||
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 02:29 PM | #60 |
General
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 21156
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 02:30 PM | #61 | |
Captain
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
EDIT: Doing more research now, and I'm beginning to question if everything I know is wrong. Just a quick search led me to this power point presentation (haven't vetted the source yet): http://www.tazcobra.com/torque.pdf Is the area under the torque curve only a good approximation of average power..? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 02:36 PM | #62 |
General
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 21156
Rep 20,745
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Think about it...
Calculate the area under the curve between 7000 and 8000 RPM of an engine that makes 250lb-ft in that range: (8000-7000) x 250 / 5252 = 48 avg hp ![]() In reality, it makes (7000x250/5252 + 8000x250/5252)/2 = 357 avg hp Last edited by CanAutM3; 11-27-2013 at 12:19 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-23-2013, 04:34 PM | #63 |
Perception is King
![]() 131
Rep 1,702
Posts |
4.3= 0 to 60 isn't very good at considering or current M3 can do that, and the M4 should make more power A Lot more torque and is lighter.
__________________
Perception and Reality are Two totally different Things.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2013, 05:54 AM | #65 |
Second Lieutenant
![]() 3
Rep 228
Posts |
The 0-60 time will be as good as the m5's. BMW simply will not list a lesser model's performance better or equal to their flagship models that cost much more. Also, I would wager the actual power of the new m3/4 is at least 450hp, and around 400 ft lbs torque.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2013, 07:02 AM | #66 |
Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() 166
Rep 444
Posts |
I am hoping that figure is mixed, not highway.
An e92 335i riding on slightly narrower tires can get 30mpg highway easily. With fatter tires and probably more efficient engine, I think 30mpg hwy should be attainable. |
Appreciate
0
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|