Roadfly.com         Roadfly Home | Features | Car Review Videos | Car Reviews | Cars For Sale | Used Car Parts Classifieds | Forum | Car Review Archives | Forum Archives Index



PDA



M3 maniac
09-17-1999, 12:37 PM
Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...

i
09-17-1999, 01:49 PM
<i>: Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p></i>i know it faster that e36.let say about 5.0 second.torque around ,,310 at 3400rpm.and horsepowers around 325 at 5600rpm.any guess.

Paul E
09-17-1999, 02:01 PM
<i>: : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: i know it faster that e36.let say about 5.0 second.torque around ,,310 at 3400rpm.and horsepowers around 325 at 5600rpm.any guess.<p></i> Where on earth do you get that torque figure??! Its already been frequently stated that torque will be approx 270; power approx 341. Live with it.

icedog16
09-17-1999, 05:05 PM
<i>: Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p></i>I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!

don't you think?
09-17-1999, 08:48 PM
I hope you are right but that sounds to good to be true. 4.4sec ??? If that's true, let me be the first in line. I think it should be closer to low 5's. but I'm not even sure.<p><i>: : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p></i>

Not bloody likely!
09-17-1999, 09:59 PM
<p>: : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p><br>

i
09-17-1999, 10:29 PM
<i>: : : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: : i know it faster that e36.let say about 5.0 second.torque around ,,310 at 3400rpm.and horsepowers around 325 at 5600rpm.any guess.<p>: Where on earth do you get that torque figure??! Its already been frequently stated that torque will be approx 270; power approx 341. Live with it.<p></i>

ChasM3
09-18-1999, 08:52 AM
Euro M3 with 321HP did 0-100km/h in 5.5", which is not much quicker than the current US M3. I don't expect any sub 5" numbers from the E46 with 340HP.<p><i>: : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p></i>

fred
09-18-1999, 09:56 AM
<i>0-60 timing is determined largely by torque. The 341 HP sounds nice, but w/o 340 ft-lbs to back it up, forgetaboutit. I have an AA stage 1 turbo w/ about 340HP AND 340ft-lbs of torque and the best it does is about 5.0 sec<br></i>

fatboy
09-18-1999, 01:43 PM
<i>: : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p></i>

icedog16
09-18-1999, 03:41 PM
<i>: : : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: : I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p></i>

icedog16
09-18-1999, 03:55 PM
<i>: I hope you are right but that sounds to good to be true. 4.4sec ??? If that's true, let me be the first in line. I think it should be closer to low 5's. but I'm not even sure.<p>: : : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: : I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p></i>This is for all responses on this topic. Apparently, a couple of issues must be touched upon here. Number one, I am not the person who wrote the Car Test software so I cannot be held accountable for its results. Number two, the software does not take into account botched shifts or individual driving styles - the guy who clocked 5.0s in his modified E36 M3 could possibly be outperformed by another driver driving his car and vice versa. Number three, one must realize that an additional 100hp makes quite a bit of difference. Look at how much of a difference and additional 47hp makes between the 328i and the M3. Car and Driver has clocked an M3 at 5.5s 0-60 where as the 328i is around 6.4s, so while a 4.4s run may be optimistic it is not entirely impossible. For what it is worth, I have put the specs in for my 323i and accounting for the average driver, it ran 7.1s 0-60 which sounds kinda familiar. I have been able to get down to around 6.8 with extremely quick shifts. In summary, I would say that the E46 M3 will be significantly faster than the current one.<p>BTW, all of this is speculation on everyone's part, so can't a person dream?!?

on gearing, etc (e)
09-18-1999, 05:12 PM
<i>: : I hope you are right but that sounds to good to be true. 4.4sec ??? If that's true, let me be the first in line. I think it should be closer to low 5's. but I'm not even sure.<p>: : : : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: : : I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p>: This is for all responses on this topic. Apparently, a couple of issues must be touched upon here. Number one, I am not the person who wrote the Car Test software so I cannot be held accountable for its results. Number two, the software does not take into account botched shifts or individual driving styles - the guy who clocked 5.0s in his modified E36 M3 could possibly be outperformed by another driver driving his car and vice versa. Number three, one must realize that an additional 100hp makes quite a bit of difference. Look at how much of a difference and additional 47hp makes between the 328i and the M3. Car and Driver has clocked an M3 at 5.5s 0-60 where as the 328i is around 6.4s, so while a 4.4s run may be optimistic it is not entirely impossible. For what it is worth, I have put the specs in for my 323i and accounting for the average driver, it ran 7.1s 0-60 which sounds kinda familiar. I have been able to get down to around 6.8 with extremely quick shifts. In summary, I would say that the E46 M3 will be significantly faster than the current one.<p>: BTW, all of this is speculation on everyone's part, so can't a person dream?!?<p></i>

larry
09-18-1999, 07:20 PM
Hi-<p> I've got news for you- no 3400lb street car w/266 lb-ft will go from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, unless you have rediculous (non-street) gearing and 4.XX:1 differential. <br> >>13.1@109.2<<<br> Heheh. Dude- your "Car Test" calculator is WRONG. Again, to drop ~1 full second from the 1/4mi time of the E36 M3, you'd need one HELL of a lot more than +30 lb-ft torque, considering you've added 200+lbs. With ~300lb-ft engine torque, such a feat may be possible if gearing is appropriate.<br> Anyway, the E46 will not have an I-6, it'll have a V8. Source= friends very close to ///M GMBH. This one's a pig, folks; I'm really pissed that BMW & ///M have lost their focus, as evidenced by the new E46 M3 <baby M5>.<p>Bummed,<p>Larry<br>E36 A/A Turbo M3

larry
09-18-1999, 07:23 PM
Hi-<p> You're right- that guy is not a student of automotive power-to-weight issues.<br> HOWEVER, the A/A Stage 1 car does 0-60 in ~4.5 seconds. I had one for a year, until I went to Stage 2+ two years ago. Stage 2 won't get u there much faster due to small rear tires (255/40 ZR18). 1/4 mi is a different story :).<p>Larry

Henry
09-19-1999, 01:05 AM
<i>: Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p></i><p>If engine is the almighty basis for performance than all the car manufacturer has to do is drop a tractor engine and beef up the chassis to sustain the torque. Performance car should always have a small engine tuned with a lot of horsepower to take advance of the power to weight ratio. Try autoxing a car with 4000 pounds that produces 500 hp. It just won't cut it. Likewise, a lot of postings here talk about the M3 E46's horsepower and yet very little people seem to know how it will drive other than use it for drag racing. There's other cheaper ways to hot-rod a car for redline drag racing.

john
09-19-1999, 01:54 AM
from what I guess .... because dian super charge<br>M3 has 340 HP has did something like <br>4.8 sec 1/4 in 13.5/106 MPH<p>so I guess S/C M3 should be have smailer performace as new E46 M3 <p><i>: : : I hope you are right but that sounds to good to be true. 4.4sec ??? If that's true, let me be the first in line. I think it should be closer to low 5's. but I'm not even sure.<p>: : : : : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: : : : I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p>: : This is for all responses on this topic. Apparently, a couple of issues must be touched upon here. Number one, I am not the person who wrote the Car Test software so I cannot be held accountable for its results. Number two, the software does not take into account botched shifts or individual driving styles - the guy who clocked 5.0s in his modified E36 M3 could possibly be outperformed by another driver driving his car and vice versa. Number three, one must realize that an additional 100hp makes quite a bit of difference. Look at how much of a difference and additional 47hp makes between the 328i and the M3. Car and Driver has clocked an M3 at 5.5s 0-60 where as the 328i is around 6.4s, so while a 4.4s run may be optimistic it is not entirely impossible. For what it is worth, I have put the specs in for my 323i and accounting for the average driver, it ran 7.1s 0-60 which sounds kinda familiar. I have been able to get down to around 6.8 with extremely quick shifts. In summary, I would say that the E46 M3 will be significantly faster than the current one.<p>: : BTW, all of this is speculation on everyone's part, so can't a person dream?!?<p></i>

icedog16
09-19-1999, 12:22 PM
<i>: Hi-<p>: I've got news for you- no 3400lb street car w/266 lb-ft will go from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, unless you have rediculous (non-street) gearing and 4.XX:1 differential. <br>: >>13.1@109.2<<<br>: Heheh. Dude- your "Car Test" calculator is WRONG. Again, to drop ~1 full second from the 1/4mi time of the E36 M3, you'd need one HELL of a lot more than +30 lb-ft torque, considering you've added 200+lbs. With ~300lb-ft engine torque, such a feat may be possible if gearing is appropriate.<br>: Anyway, the E46 will not have an I-6, it'll have a V8. Source= friends very close to ///M GMBH. This one's a pig, folks; I'm really pissed that BMW & ///M have lost their focus, as evidenced by the new E46 M3 <baby M5>.<p>: Bummed,<p>: Larry<br>: E36 A/A Turbo M3<p></i>Larry, I've got news for you. If what you say is true regarding the capabilities of a 3400lb car, then Car and Driver must be off its rocker! They estimate that the M5, which has a similar power-to-weight ratio as the upcoming M3 should do 0-60 in the sub-5 second range - it weighs in at 3800 lbs. And I suppose that it was impossible to clock the 911 Carrera Cabriolet at 4.9s 0-60 and 13.5s 1/4-mile despite its 10.93 lb/hp ratio. The car weighed 3235lbs and engine specs are 296hp and 258lb-ft of torque. Its final-drive ratio is 3.44:1. Even the portly 3618lb S4 Quattro can run a 14.2s 1/4-mile @ 98mph with 250hp and 258lb-ft of torque. These are real world measurements which kinda throws a monkey wrench in your argument above.<p>As far as the Car Test software is concerned, I have said that I did not write it. But it does seem to be pretty close on most counts. After all the BS I have seen regarding its accuracy, I also ran a 1997 stock M3 and a 1998 Dinan Supercharged M3. The stock times were 5.5s to 60mph and 14.3s @ 98.4mph in the 1/4. Car and Driver has clocked an M3 at 5.5s to 60 and even the most recent test car which did not seem to be performing 100% did the quarter mile in 14.6s @ 95mph. The supercharged M3 took 4.4s to 60mph and ran the 1/4 in 12.9s @ 111mph. The figures used to generate that run were 354hp and 296lb-ft of torque at a 3400lb weight. I really don't think that the software is that far off. It's not like I called the Psychic Friends hotline to get these numbers. <p>As I have said before, all of this is purely speculation on anyone's part and until the car is released, no one will really know. I also said that I believe that 4.4s is optimistic, but I don't think that high-4s are out of the question. The only reason why I posted the results in the first place was to at least give an idea of performance that might be expected. I'll be sure to get you the real numbers when I get mine!

icedog16
09-19-1999, 12:29 PM
<i>: Hi-<p>: You're right- that guy is not a student of automotive power-to-weight issues.<br>: HOWEVER, the A/A Stage 1 car does 0-60 in ~4.5 seconds. I had one for a year, until I went to Stage 2+ two years ago. Stage 2 won't get u there much faster due to small rear tires (255/40 ZR18). 1/4 mi is a different story :).<p>: Larry<p></i>

mkl[
09-19-1999, 02:50 PM
<i>: : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p><br>: If engine is the almighty basis for performance than all the car manufacturer has to do is drop a tractor engine and beef up the chassis to sustain the torque. Performance car should always have a small engine tuned with a lot of horsepower to take advance of the power to weight ratio. Try autoxing a car with 4000 pounds that produces 500 hp. It just won't cut it. Likewise, a lot of postings here talk about the M3 E46's horsepower and yet very little people seem to know how it will drive other than use it for drag racing. There's other cheaper ways to hot-rod a car for redline drag racing. <p></i>don't know anything about engineering.need to get some educations.F=mA=Ma.

So...whaddaya got there???
09-19-1999, 03:33 PM
<i>Err-<p>>>Larry, I've got news for you. If what you say is true regarding the capabilities of a 3400lb car, then Car and Driver must be off its rocker! They estimate that the M5, which has a similar power-to-weight ratio as the upcoming M3 should do 0-60 in the sub-5 second range - it weighs in at 3800 lbs. And I suppose that it was impossible to clock the 911 Carrera Cabriolet at 4.9s 0-60 and 13.5s 1/4-mile despite its 10.93 lb/hp ratio. The car weighed 3235lbs and engine specs are 296hp and 258lb-ft of torque. Its final-drive ratio is 3.44:1. Even the portly 3618lb S4 Quattro can run a 14.2s 1/4-mile @ 98mph with 250hp and 258lb-ft of torque. These are real world measurements which kinda throws a monkey wrench in your argument above.<<<p> You are confused. The new M5 will have ~360-370lb-ft. Of course it will run slightly sub-second 5's, even if it weighs ~3800lbs. <br> RE: 911- it weighed 3235 lbs, not 3400. It has flat-6 w/ 258lb-ft/. I said: "no 3400lb street car w/266 lb-ft will go from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, unless you have rediculous (non-street) gearing and 4.XX:1 differential." I meant it. The 911 weighs ~170lbs less than new M3 and has ~equivalent torque with flat-head delivery characteristics. Therefore, it CAN drop sub 5 sec 0-60 runs.<br> >>These are real world measurements<<<br> HA! Car mag tests are "real world measurements???" Veeerrry interesting...<br> Anyway, it's important to realize that numbers like these are the sum total of each automobiles' parts. And it still stands that "no 3400lb street car w/266 lb-ft will go from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, unless you have rediculous (non-street) gearing and 4.XX:1 differential." <br> Also: "to drop ~1 full second from the 1/4mi time of the E36 M3, you'd need one HELL of a lot more than +30 lb-ft torque, considering you've added 200+lbs. With ~300lb-ft engine torque, such a feat may be possible if gearing is appropriate."<br> Neither your 911, Audi, nor M5 figures refute any of what I said; if anything, they confirm my point. <p>Larry<p><br></i>

icedog16
09-20-1999, 06:49 AM
<i>: Err-<p>: >>Larry, I've got news for you. If what you say is true regarding the capabilities of a 3400lb car, then Car and Driver must be off its rocker! They estimate that the M5, which has a similar power-to-weight ratio as the upcoming M3 should do 0-60 in the sub-5 second range - it weighs in at 3800 lbs. And I suppose that it was impossible to clock the 911 Carrera Cabriolet at 4.9s 0-60 and 13.5s 1/4-mile despite its 10.93 lb/hp ratio. The car weighed 3235lbs and engine specs are 296hp and 258lb-ft of torque. Its final-drive ratio is 3.44:1. Even the portly 3618lb S4 Quattro can run a 14.2s 1/4-mile @ 98mph with 250hp and 258lb-ft of torque. These are real world measurements which kinda throws a monkey wrench in your argument above.<<<p>: You are confused. The new M5 will have ~360-370lb-ft. Of course it will run slightly sub-second 5's, even if it weighs ~3800lbs. <br>: RE: 911- it weighed 3235 lbs, not 3400. It has flat-6 w/ 258lb-ft/. I said: "no 3400lb street car w/266 lb-ft will go from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, unless you have rediculous (non-street) gearing and 4.XX:1 differential." I meant it. The 911 weighs ~170lbs less than new M3 and has ~equivalent torque with flat-head delivery characteristics. Therefore, it CAN drop sub 5 sec 0-60 runs.<br>: >>These are real world measurements<<<br>: HA! Car mag tests are "real world measurements???" Veeerrry interesting...<br>: Anyway, it's important to realize that numbers like these are the sum total of each automobiles' parts. And it still stands that "no 3400lb street car w/266 lb-ft will go from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, unless you have rediculous (non-street) gearing and 4.XX:1 differential." <br>: Also: "to drop ~1 full second from the 1/4mi time of the E36 M3, you'd need one HELL of a lot more than +30 lb-ft torque, considering you've added 200+lbs. With ~300lb-ft engine torque, such a feat may be possible if gearing is appropriate."<br>: Neither your 911, Audi, nor M5 figures refute any of what I said; if anything, they confirm my point. <p>: Larry<p><br></i>All of these cars have very similar power to weight ratios, with the exception of the Audi which has a 14.5 lb/hp ratio and runs very near the current M3. As you have pointed out, the power to weight ratio plays an important part in the acceleration of a vehicle. And if you can't expect a significant improvement in performance of the your beloved E36 - which I do not knock as I have one as well - when you drop the power-to-weight ratio from 13.3lb/hp to around 10lb/hp, I would like to know what Physics class you took in college. The Porsche IS about 200lbs lighter, but it still gives up 44hp and probably some torque to the new M3. I would say that if anything, this would make it a dead heat.<p>Also, one thing that has not been addressed when talking about your vehicle in particular is turbo lag. Unless you have a very lightweight impeller, I would suspect that you are not producing any where near 340hp until that turbo is at full boil. Until then you have marginally more power than a stock engine. A normally aspirated engine does not have this problem. <p>You have done nothing to convince me or anyone else that sub-5s runs are not possible.

andy s.
09-20-1999, 03:46 PM
<i>: : Hi-<p>: : I've got news for you- no 3400lb street car w/266 lb-ft will go from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, unless you have rediculous (non-street) gearing and 4.XX:1 differential. <br>: : >>13.1@109.2<<<br>: : Heheh. Dude- your "Car Test" calculator is WRONG. Again, to drop ~1 full second from the 1/4mi time of the E36 M3, you'd need one HELL of a lot more than +30 lb-ft torque, considering you've added 200+lbs. With ~300lb-ft engine torque, such a feat may be possible if gearing is appropriate.<br>: : Anyway, the E46 will not have an I-6, it'll have a V8. Source= friends very close to ///M GMBH. This one's a pig, folks; I'm really pissed that BMW & ///M have lost their focus, as evidenced by the new E46 M3 <baby M5>.<p>: : Bummed,<p>: : Larry<br>: : E36 A/A Turbo M3<p>: Larry, I've got news for you. If what you say is true regarding the capabilities of a 3400lb car, then Car and Driver must be off its rocker! They estimate that the M5, which has a similar power-to-weight ratio as the upcoming M3 should do 0-60 in the sub-5 second range - it weighs in at 3800 lbs. And I suppose that it was impossible to clock the 911 Carrera Cabriolet at 4.9s 0-60 and 13.5s 1/4-mile despite its 10.93 lb/hp ratio. The car weighed 3235lbs and engine specs are 296hp and 258lb-ft of torque. Its final-drive ratio is 3.44:1. Even the portly 3618lb S4 Quattro can run a 14.2s 1/4-mile @ 98mph with 250hp and 258lb-ft of torque. These are real world measurements which kinda throws a monkey wrench in your argument above.<p>: As far as the Car Test software is concerned, I have said that I did not write it. But it does seem to be pretty close on most counts. After all the BS I have seen regarding its accuracy, I also ran a 1997 stock M3 and a 1998 Dinan Supercharged M3. The stock times were 5.5s to 60mph and 14.3s @ 98.4mph in the 1/4. Car and Driver has clocked an M3 at 5.5s to 60 and even the most recent test car which did not seem to be performing 100% did the quarter mile in 14.6s @ 95mph. The supercharged M3 took 4.4s to 60mph and ran the 1/4 in 12.9s @ 111mph. The figures used to generate that run were 354hp and 296lb-ft of torque at a 3400lb weight. I really don't think that the software is that far off. It's not like I called the Psychic Friends hotline to get these numbers. <p>: As I have said before, all of this is purely speculation on anyone's part and until the car is released, no one will really know. I also said that I believe that 4.4s is optimistic, but I don't think that high-4s are out of the question. The only reason why I posted the results in the first place was to at least give an idea of performance that might be expected. I'll be sure to get you the real numbers when I get mine! <p></i>

KJK
09-20-1999, 07:18 PM
<i>: Euro M3 with 321HP did 0-100km/h in 5.5", which is not much quicker than the current US M3. I don't expect any sub 5" numbers from the E46 with 340HP.<p>: : : Can't wait to burn those 911 drivers...<p>: : I ran acceleration figures on Car Test using figures of 340 hp and 266 lbs-ft of torque. I left all other specs as in the current M3. The predicted 0-60 is 4.4s and the quarter mile was run in 13.1s at 109.2mph. I can't wait to get one!<p></i>C&D tested my 3800 lb M5, 310hp,265tq, 0-60 5.6--yes, I am sure they fried the clutch, etc. Other magazines got anywhere from 5.8-6.1. Who the hell cares? These are BMW's. Get on a backroad and keep it in the powerband--horsepower does make a difference at higher speeds and higher rpms. If you want tons of torque from a normally-aspirated engine you need a big V-8. I have had rides in E30 M3's on the track and the pretty average 0-60 times of those cars didn't really factor into the fact that we were f*** flying around the track, revving the crap out of that little //M motor. All you guys should just by a Nissan TT with "dial a boost" since it is all you care about.

Larry- the guy that can't convince...
09-20-1999, 10:54 PM
God, dude:<p>First off:<p>>>Unless you have a very lightweight impeller, I would suspect that you are not producing any where near 340hp until that turbo is at full boil. Until then you have marginally more power than a stock engine.<<<p> What are u talking about? At full "boil", my turbo I-6 makes 380hp/lb-ft@wheels- 450bhp/lb-ft to you. Full boost @ 4000RPM in 2nd gear, @lower revs in higher gears. Guess what? It makes 340 bhp at ~4500RPM. At lower revs, you don't need positive boost to overcome lower engine compression, just partial to zero vacuum. <br> Look man- it's obvious that I know a great deal more than you do about technical automotive engineering issues. Wanna learn? Read tech manuals, tune cars. You'll soon see that the formulas are jump-off points, not acid tests. <p>>>The Porsche IS about 200lbs lighter, but it still gives up 44hp and probably some torque to the new M3. I would say that if anything, this would make it a dead heat.<<<br> <br> No- the 911 has more aggressive gearing. ALSO- it does NOT give up much torque to any 270lb-ft M3- it's Flat-6 config allows for even better torque characteristics. 200lbs makes all the difference. <br> Your formulaic approach and power to weight ratio calcs are over-simplifications when you're talking 0-60 & 1/4mi runs; again, a 3400lb M3 w/270lb-ft and 340bhp I-6 WILL NOT DROP SUB-6sec 0-60 without very aggressive gearing.<p>>> You have done nothing to convince me or anyone else that sub-5s runs are not possible<<<br> <br> Well, you and "everyone else" can believe whatever you want. I doubt you have close to as much experience as I do with tuning. If you think I'm bluffing, ask my anything about any normally aspirated or forced-induction application, real or theoretical. Point blank.<p>Larry

Larry- the guy that can't convince...
09-20-1999, 11:02 PM
Dropping the niceties,<p>>>. Until then you have marginally more power than a stock engine. A normally aspirated engine does not have this problem<<<br> <br> You're silly. What "problem?" Turbo lag? Of course a normally aspirated engine doesn't have turbo lag problems. Real turbo lag is seen with a 3.2L I-6 ONLY when you go over 700CFM turbo (in an M3 application). <br> "Marginally more power..."?? Clueless. A Stage 1 turbo I-6 makes a lot more torque/bhp than stock at all 2500+RPM, B/C it's a 500CFM turbo that spools faster than you can say "Derrrr, really?" <p>Stop this neophyte crap & admit you're a would-be expert,<p>Larry

JPS
09-21-1999, 01:06 PM
It takes a lot more power to pick up a full second from 0-60 once you get in the sub 5.5 range than say to increase from 10 to 9 seconds. Traction becomes a huge issue. When you can already spin the tires through first gear and into second, more power doesn't always increase a 0-60 time. The additional power only comes into play for the portion of the event after you have hooked up. The best way to pick up time from 0-60 is to buy some sticky (MT ET streets) tires.

icedog
09-21-1999, 02:40 PM
be a V8 and not an I6, even when BMW has released that it will be an I6. For knowing so much about BMW, you really don't know that much. You can't make up your mind whether its gearing, power-to-weight ratio, or torque. Which is it? Judging by the posts of yours which I have read, you seem to contradict yourself alot. (e.g., you now say that it won't even run a sub-6s 0-60.)<p>Regarding the turbo issue, every turbo car I have EVER driven with the exception of some with twin sequential turbos has exhibited lag to some degree. <p>I'll tell you one thing, if owning an M3 makes me as much of a tool as yourself, I'll have to get myself a Porsche with more agressive gearing and better torque delivery characteristics. This issue is dead! Go visit BUMMER.ORG!<br></i>

Jason L
09-22-1999, 01:54 PM
Ok guys, lets talk weight for a second: I drag my M3 at the New York International when they have open racing.. My runs without a passenger and WITH one run exactly 0.2 seconds apart. Basically what I am doing is adding 200lb to the vehicle by taking a passenger along. Assuming similar traction, gearing, TORQUE AND POWER CURVES (also important) we should tack .2 seconds onto the current M3's quarter mile, then deduct for the power/torque boost of the new motor to get a decent guess at the E46. I don't think a 4.9 or 5 second 0-60 run is unreasonable.<br> Then again, look at the M5. It weighs about 100lb more then the 540? It has 120 more horsies, yet BMW is claiming it can do 0 to 60 only a few tenths of a second quicker than 540 manual... So who knows? There is no point in arguing over guesses!

larry
09-26-1999, 01:15 AM
Um,<p>>>Which is it? Judging by the posts of yours which I have read, you seem to contradict yourself alot. (e.g., you now say that it won't even run a sub-6s 0-60.)<<<p> You people are just plain out there- 6 secs was obviously a TYPO- read me prev posts again...<br> RE: Which is it? Arrg- still don't get it, do you? It's a COMBINATION OF EVERYTHING. Your reading comprehension sucks, pal.<p>: Regarding the turbo issue, every turbo car I have EVER driven with the exception of some with twin sequential turbos has exhibited lag to some degree. <p> Idiot- I did not say "no lag"; I gave an in-depth description of when full boost is achieved. You're just another clueless wannabe.<br> <br>: I'll tell you one thing, if owning an M3 makes me as much of a tool as yourself, I'll have to get myself a Porsche with more agressive gearing and better torque delivery characteristics. This issue is dead! Go visit BUMMER.ORG!<br> **** you, *******. Get an education.<br> <br>Larry

larry
09-26-1999, 01:18 AM
Agreed!<p>>>There is no point in arguing over guesses! <<<br> <br> Especially when certain other folks don't know **** about auto dyamics in the first place.<br> <br>Larry

George Fotopoulos
09-28-1999, 02:56 PM
<i>: Hi-<p>: I've got news for you- no 3400lb street car w/266 lb-ft will go from 0-60 in less than 5 seconds, unless you have rediculous (non-street) gearing and 4.XX:1 differential. <br>: >>13.1@109.2<<<br>: Heheh. Dude- your "Car Test" calculator is WRONG. Again, to drop ~1 full second from the 1/4mi time of the E36 M3, you'd need one HELL of a lot more than +30 lb-ft torque, considering you've added 200+lbs. With ~300lb-ft engine torque, such a feat may be possible if gearing is appropriate.<br>: Anyway, the E46 will not have an I-6, it'll have a V8. Source= friends very close to ///M GMBH. This one's a pig, folks; I'm really pissed that BMW & ///M have lost their focus, as evidenced by the new E46 M3 <baby M5>.<p>: Bummed,<p>: Larry<br>: E36 A/A Turbo M3<p></i>

icedog16
09-28-1999, 10:28 PM
<i>: Um,<p>: >>Which is it? Judging by the posts of yours which I have read, you seem to contradict yourself alot. (e.g., you now say that it won't even run a sub-6s 0-60.)<<<p>: You people are just plain out there- 6 secs was obviously a TYPO- read me prev posts again...<br>: RE: Which is it? Arrg- still don't get it, do you? It's a COMBINATION OF EVERYTHING. Your reading comprehension sucks, pal.<p>: : Regarding the turbo issue, every turbo car I have EVER driven with the exception of some with twin sequential turbos has exhibited lag to some degree. <p>: Idiot- I did not say "no lag"; I gave an in-depth description of when full boost is achieved. You're just another clueless wannabe.<br>: <br>: : I'll tell you one thing, if owning an M3 makes me as much of a tool as yourself, I'll have to get myself a Porsche with more agressive gearing and better torque delivery characteristics. This issue is dead! Go visit BUMMER.ORG!<br>: **** you, *******. Get an education.<br>: <br>: Larry<p></i>One needs an education to ramble and use expletives, huh? I won't sink to your level. BTW, I know it is a combination of all factors, but you never explained why one car weak in one area can have similar performance in another. Sorry about your miserable existence.


Roadfly Home | Car Reviews | Forum Archives Index