C/D Full Test: M3 "The bar has been raised again"

[JYODER240]

Highs: Insanely high-revving engine, menacing hood bulge, balanced chassis.

I've never understood the fascination with high-revving engines for simply being nothing other than high revving.

It's a necessary byproduct, not a trait to aspire to.

I prefer the sound and feel of a high-reving engine to a low-reving engne.

[sportyaccordy]

Highs: Insanely high-revving engine, menacing hood bulge, balanced chassis.

I've never understood the fascination with high-revving engines for simply being nothing other than high revving.

It's a necessary byproduct, not a trait to aspire to.

Admittedly they're not much smaller or more fuel efficient than their larger, equally powerful counterparts. I think it's more of the fact that you're taking what would be an otherwise mundane, low displacement motor and utilizing every bit of potential from it. I mean the LS7 in the Z06 is a great motor, but what more could you expect from 7 liters? That motor is probably smaller and lighter than the V10 in the M6, but eh...

Not to mention... 8,000RPM just sounds cool. Plus there's something fun in a little motor making big power. My old Accord felt like it had a V6 when you went into VTEC.

[1 BAD 7]

+1

I have one and it is second nature to me. I also agree that it could use even faster speed. The second generation has better speed vs the first generation one. But a little more speed and even greater amount voice activation data bank would be quiet nice. 

Not sure why everyone gets so bent about i-Drive. I've driven with it several times and thought it was simple. Not quick, but simple to use. If I was driving with it on a regular basis I could work it without thinking. It reminds me of my car stereo. There was a high learning curb at first, but now it's like typing with 1 hand...

[Champ]

High revving motors are fun, but I wouldn't like one long term as a DD.  I do too much highway driving and always having to downshift is bothersome.

[sportyaccordy]

High revving motors are fun, but I wouldn't like one long term as a DD.  I do too much highway driving and always having to downshift is bothersome.

It's really not that bad. Horsepower is horsepower.

[MexicoCityM3]

High revving motors are fun, but I wouldn't like one long term as a DD.? I do too much highway driving and always having to downshift is bothersome.

OMG, its a 420hp V8 that makes 90% of its peak torque from less than 3,000 RPM!!! Why would you have to downshift frequently in normal driving situations? It's not a Civic Si, for crying out loud!

[GoCougs]

Here's something interesting:

The M3 4.0L V8 has a lower peak torque RPM than the Corvette 6.2L:

3900 (M3) vs. 4600 (Corvette)

[sportyaccordy]

Here's something interesting:

The M3 4.0L V8 has a lower peak torque RPM than the Corvette 6.2L:

3900 (M3) vs. 4600 (Corvette)

And of course it's geared shorter... so if they have the same shift points... in theory the M3 would feel torquier than a Corvette, at least off the line. Imagine that...

I wouldn't doubt the E92 M3 having more rolling torque in every gear than the 6.0L Vette...

[NomisR]

Well, i-Drive isn't something that would turn me off from the cars if I ever want to get one but it could be so much better designed with a more user friendly interface than what they currently have.  haven't they heard of a touch screen? 

As for small buttons though.. I dont' like it.. never did.. it makes for finding a button more difficult.  You have to take your eyes off the road longer than you would with a BIG button that does multiple tasks.   But then this seems to be an european car thing since it seems lik a majority of them have a similar setup..

again, could be more user friendly but not much of a problem.

[Champ]

It's really not that bad. Horsepower is horsepower.

Sure, but as a for instance:
My car makes about the same HP as my dad's S2000.  Sitting on the highway in 6th gear in the Honda and trying to accelerate is a joke.  You need to downshift to 4th to match the accel I get out of my car in top gear.  After driving his car for several days straight, then driving mine - I laugh when I get onto the highway.  It's SO much easier to drive my car there than it is his.  Granted, revving up to 8k is fun as buckets, it's just not practical.  I can get the same accel out of my car in top gear, use taller gears, and get better gas mileage out of a car that is heavier and with only 5 gears - but the same horsepower!

OMG, its a 420hp V8 that makes 90% of its peak torque from less than 3,000 RPM!!! Why would you have to downshift frequently in normal driving situations? It's not a Civic Si, for crying out loud!

I was generally referring to engines with very small torque but high HP (honda).  Of course the BMW V8 is the best engine ever made in the world with no other being remotely close, so I wasn't referring to that.  Since it's the jesus child of anything internal combustion.

Here's something interesting:

The M3 4.0L V8 has a lower peak torque RPM than the Corvette 6.2L:

3900 (M3) vs. 4600 (Corvette)

Nevermind that the Vette makes more torque at 2,000 RPM than the M3 does ever.

[Raza]

iDrive is a stupid idea that has been very influential. 

Buttons are a good thing.  They do one thing and they tell you what they do.  Operation is simple and quick. 

[565]

And of course it's geared shorter... so if they have the same shift points... in theory the M3 would feel torquier than a Corvette, at least off the line. Imagine that...

I wouldn't doubt the E92 M3 having more rolling torque in every gear than the 6.0L Vette...

This has gotten me curious, so I decided to try to find out.  Even if the M3's torque comes earlier, the Vette still has so much more.  In fact the vette makes about 300 ft-lbs of torque to the wheels right off idle.  That's more than the M3 makes at peak to the crank.


This was a car with 6 miles on it.  LSX engines take a long time to break in.

It's gonna take alot of gearing to over come that. 

In fact lets try to figure all this out with the limited data we have.  I couldn't find the full gear ratios for the E92 M3  (someone help me out on this).  I did find one site that listed them and they seem pretty legit, rather close to the E46, a bit longer in some gears, a bit shorter others.

Manual six-speed transmission with gear lever on floor, 4.055:1 first gear ratio, 2.396:1 second gear ratio, 1.582:1 third gear ratio, 1.192:1 fourth gear ratio, 1:1 fifth gear ratio, 0.872:1 sixth gear ratio and 3.678:1 reverse gear ratio ZF G and manual

http://cars.rte.ie/newcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=Details&vehicle_id=51191520070410&strSpecs=SSCIRL2002

But the problem is no final ratio, damn!  So we gotta try to figure it out from bits and pieces of data.  So there was a review that said the M3 spins at 2500rpms at 60mph in 6th.  So from that data we can back calculate the final ratio to be 3.598:1.

First we'll need to think about the M3's torque just off idle.  Too bad we don't have a dyno chart like the Corvette's.  BMW states 90% at under 3000rpms.  I would give it about 80% at around 1500rpms, which is pretty generous.  Then we need to remember to add in drivetrain losses so lets say 85% of that number.  295*.80*.85= 200 ft-lbs right off idle.  Which is a good amount of torque.

Thus for first gear at low revs we've got
200ft-lbs * 3.598 * 4.0055 = 2882.35 for M3
300ft-lbs * 3.430 * 2.9700 = 3056.13 for C6.

What about first gear at peak torque for the M3 (3900RPMS)?
250ft-lbs * 3.598 * 4.0055 = 3602.49
375ft-lbs *3.420 * 2.9700 =  3809.03



Of course this is all just speculative.  But the M3 doesn't look like it will decisively have any torque advantage over the vette even in it's short first gear.

[sportyaccordy]

Sure, but as a for instance:
My car makes about the same HP as my dad's S2000.  Sitting on the highway in 6th gear in the Honda and trying to accelerate is a joke.  You need to downshift to 4th to match the accel I get out of my car in top gear.  After driving his car for several days straight, then driving mine - I laugh when I get onto the highway.  It's SO much easier to drive my car there than it is his.  Granted, revving up to 8k is fun as buckets, it's just not practical.  I can get the same accel out of my car in top gear, use taller gears, and get better gas mileage out of a car that is heavier and with only 5 gears - but the same horsepower!

I'm guessing your dad has the 2.0L version... I found that one to be lacking on the low end as well. In fact, it was pretty weak throughout the whole rev range.

In my old Accord w/the Prelude motor (200HP/160TQ stock... I had an intake and a catless exhaust) top gear was geared so that 60MPH was at a little above 3K... basically my 5th gear was a normal car's 4th. However even at 80 it wasn't unreasonably loud and it still got a good 26-27MPG on the highway... AND it pulled CLEAN from about 1.5-2K. Not bad for a 2.2L motor.

As far as the M3, I forgot one tiny detail that would nullify any small advantage in rolling torque the M3 has... it's the fact that the Vette weighs a good couple hundred pounds less than the M3, naturally, having the less complicated motor and just being a smaller car inside and out. I'm sure they're close on the highway... but then you have to factor in drag, etc... way too complicated for 7:40 in the morning.

[Champ]

I'm guessing your dad has the 2.0L version... I found that one to be lacking on the low end as well. In fact, it was pretty weak throughout the whole rev range.

In my old Accord w/the Prelude motor (200HP/160TQ stock... I had an intake and a catless exhaust) top gear was geared so that 60MPH was at a little above 3K... basically my 5th gear was a normal car's 4th. However even at 80 it wasn't unreasonably loud and it still got a good 26-27MPG on the highway... AND it pulled CLEAN from about 1.5-2K. Not bad for a 2.2L motor.

As far as the M3, I forgot one tiny detail that would nullify any small advantage in rolling torque the M3 has... it's the fact that the Vette weighs a good couple hundred pounds less than the M3, naturally, having the less complicated motor and just being a smaller car inside and out. I'm sure they're close on the highway... but then you have to factor in drag, etc... way too complicated for 7:40 in the morning.

No he has the 2005 2.2L that revs to 8k  It is totally gutless under 4,000 RPM.  And barely any fun until 6k.

I hope by clean you don't mean fast.

[sportyaccordy]

No he has the 2005 2.2L that revs to 8k  It is totally gutless under 4,000 RPM.  And barely any fun until 6k.

I hope by clean you don't mean fast.

Dude you would be surprised. From 4K my Accord felt no slower than my current Maxima. Gearing + VTEC FTW!!!

[MexicoCityM3]

I was generally referring to engines with very small torque but high HP (honda).? Of course the BMW V8 is the best engine ever made in the world with no other being remotely close, so I wasn't referring to that.? Since it's the jesus child of anything internal combustion.

This being a thread about the M3 why would I guess that you were "extrapolating" from your dad's S2000 engine? Your original point was that the M3 lacks torque and you would have to downshift when "driving in the highway", which, I insist, is total BS.

For the S2000 it might be true. I couldn't care less and the S2000 reference is totally irrelevant to the M3's ability to do "highway driving".

[Champ]

This being a thread about the M3 why would I guess that you were "extrapolating" from your dad's S2000 engine?

For the S2000 it might be true. I couldn't care less and the S2000 reference is totally irrelevant to the M3's ability to do "highway driving".

We started talking about high torque/low rev vs. high rev/low torque engines, and since I have two very good examples I thought I would share.  I'm not sure anyone here has access to a better comparison as I do (2 engines that make same HP, but one revs lower but makes 150+ more ft-lb of torque).

Your original point was that the M3 lacks torque and you would have to downshift when "driving in the highway", which, I insist, is total BS.

Obviously you won't need to downshift the car to keep up with traffic, but that is more a function of the obscene amount of power it has, than having enough low end torque.  But to accelerate at the rate of which it could, you will need to be shifting more often than a car with more low end torque and less revs but same HP.

My guess is if you take the vette and M3 (who have similar HP) and put them both in top gear, the Vette will accelerate faster.

[565]

My guess is if you take the vette and M3 (who have similar HP) and put them both in top gear, the Vette will accelerate faster.

Definitely not.  Vette's have ungodly tall cruising 6th gears.  My 1987 Supra Turbo with 230hp has better passing power in top gear. The vette will burble around 1750 RPMs at 70mph, while the Supra spins at close to 3000rpms. 

[Submariner]

Definitely not.  Vette's have ungodly tall cruising 6th gears.  My 1987 Supra Turbo with 230hp has better passing power in top gear. The vette will burble around 1750 RPMs at 70mph, while the Supra spins at close to 3000rpms. 

The E-63 does 70 at about 1600.  Top Gear passing power isn't great, but It returns good fuel economy.

[SVT666]

i-Drive is mostly voice activated so why is it a problem?  My co-worker has it and he just tells it what he wants and it does it.

I'm with GoCougs on the high revving thing.

[Champ]

i-Drive is mostly voice activated so why is it a problem? My co-worker has it and he just tells it what he wants and it does it.

I just don't like voice activation.  My guess is that I can change the climate and radio faster than someone could with i-drive with or without using voice activation.

How well does it work when you have the radio turned up with the windows down?

[1 BAD 7]

When you press the voice activation button located on the steering wheel the volume of the radio automaticly gets turned down. As for the windows being down I dont think it effects the voice activation that much unless you have your windows down all the way and are traveling on highway at decent speed.

I just don't like voice activation.? My guess is that I can change the climate and radio faster than someone could with i-drive with or without using voice activation.

How well does it work when you have the radio turned up with the windows down?

[Soup DeVille]

i-Drive is mostly voice activated so why is it a problem?? My co-worker has it and he just tells it what he wants and it does it.

I'm with GoCougs on the high revving thing.

I guess there's just not that many things that I really want my car to do anyways. I've driven some pretty thoroughly equipped cars, but all I ever end up dong with them besides primary driving duties (go, stop, turn, change gears) is setting the climate control and turning on the radio.

As long as I have simple, functional buttons that will do that, and as long as the other stuff stays out of my way, I'm cool with it.

However, if I keep bumping buttons on the steering wheel that cause my radio to mute or me to call the pizza guy, it can get pretty annoying.

[Raza]

I guess there's just not that many things that I really want my car to do anyways. I've driven some pretty thoroughly equipped cars, but all I ever end up dong with them besides primary driving duties (go, stop, turn, change gears) is setting the climate control and turning on the radio.

As long as I have simple, functional buttons that will do that, and as long as the other stuff stays out of my way, I'm cool with it.

However, if I keep bumping buttons on the steering wheel that cause my radio to mute or me to call the pizza guy, it can get pretty annoying.

I like buttons.  Buttons are simple, straightforward, plainly marked, and easy to use.  I like things that are simple, straightforward, plainly marked, and easy to use.

[Soup DeVille]

I like buttons.? Buttons are simple, straightforward, plainly marked, and easy to use.? I like things that are simple, straightforward, plainly marked, and easy to use.

You like Lamborghinis, right?

In the old days (before the Countach), there were no labels on any of the switches in Lambos.

Ferrucio's explanation was, "if you can't remember what it's for, you have no business driving the car in the first place."

[sportyaccordy]

You like Lamborghinis, right?

In the old days (before the Countach), there were no labels on any of the switches in Lambos.

Ferrucio's explanation was, "if you can't remember what it's for, you have no business driving the car in the first place."

Yea but there probably weren't too many switches in early Lambos anyway. They probably didn't even have windshield wipers.

[Champ]

I like buttons.  Buttons are simple, straightforward, plainly marked, and easy to use.  I like things that are simple, straightforward, plainly marked, and easy to use.

There was an article I read in the last few months of an auto magazine that the guy was saying how cars are going away from the most simple control piece ever invented - the knob.  So many things (like radio volume) these days are using up/down switches or some other tomfoolery when a simple knob will almost always do a better job.

Kind of like BMW changing to that new stupid blinker system.  If it ain't broke, let's make it worse!

[Payman]

Hmmm... 60K US for this thing... BMW Canada will surely ask $85,000.
No thanks. I'd much rather an E30 M3 anyways.

[Soup DeVille]

Yea but there probably weren't too many switches in early Lambos anyway. They probably didn't even have windshield wipers.

They did too! and most also had heat and A/C

[Eye of the Tiger]

Lambos are for sissy posers, that's why they had windshield wipers and heat. Real cars, like Ferraris, don't need that shit.