RE: New BMW M3 - details

[British Beef]

Zod said:

pilchardthecat said:

Zod said:

The engine noise through the stereo is not fake. It's the sound of the real engine. I'd rather they did it by removing sound-deadening materials, but at least it's not actually fake.

Can you turn it off? it's a deal breaker for me (irrational maybe but i just couldnt live with a car that's lying to me)

My understanding is that you can turn it off. It's not lying though. It's just playing the real sound through speakers.

Personally, I'd rather have teh full engine sound, whcih is why I drive with the windows open whenever I can, but not everyone is like people here.

I agree with Pilchard on this topic, playing engine sounds through the speakers is absolutely inexcusable in any car claiming to be a performance car with an internal combustion engine. Its just wrong and goes against the grain of what I want from a performance car.

Out of principal I can categorically say that I will never purchase a car that resorts to such gimickery!!

[GroundEffect]

Fidgits said:

to be fair, i managed to get 27.7 out of my E92 M3 last night...

I can get 32-34 from my Z4M on the motorway at 60mph. And I find that bad enough!

[GroundEffect]

pilchardthecat said:

The litmus test - does it have one of those silly sound symposer things that plays fake engine noises through the stereo? or have BMW found their mislaid plot again?

A sound symposer doesn't use the speakers. A symposer is a tube running from the airbox through the bulkhead that allows the intake noise to reach the cabin. Sometimes they put a diaphram in them to make them only operate at specific RPMs (through vibration). Not fake. Just piped.

And most of the complaints of these systems are bks anyway - exhausts have been tuned for noise for YEARS. Certain lengths to remove harmonics, certain baffles in the boxes to change the tune. It's just the same thing.

[British Beef]

GroundEffect said:

pilchardthecat said:

The litmus test - does it have one of those silly sound symposer things that plays fake engine noises through the stereo? or have BMW found their mislaid plot again?

A sound symposer doesn't use the speakers. A symposer is a tube running from the airbox through the bulkhead that allows the intake noise to reach the cabin. Sometimes they put a diaphram in them to make them only operate at specific RPMs (through vibration). Not fake. Just piped.

And most of the complaints of these systems are bks anyway - exhausts have been tuned for noise for YEARS. Certain lengths to remove harmonics, certain baffles in the boxes to change the tune. It's just the same thing.

I think you are wrong - the new M5 and M6 both play engine sound through the stereo speakers, so is totally artificial sound reproduction of engine noise.

Other systems, whether tuned exhaust or even conduits to carry engine noises into the cabin are at least transporting the actual noise, albeit tuned for our ears. If I was the regulator in charge of policing sports car sound, I would say this is acceptable, playing sh!t through the speakers is definately not.

[Fidgits]

MNut said:

Fidgits said:

to be fair, i managed to get 27.7 out of my E92 M3 last night...

Wow I bet that was an exciting drive......

The thing with the e92 is you have to drive it ever so gently to get any decent mpg figures from it.

I bet this new turbo motor will be much more frugal without even trying to drive it economically.

I for one can't wait to chop in my e92 for one, not just for mpg but also for the tuning potential.

well, it was the M4 and A419 at rush hour, so no chance of being exciting anyway, so stick the cruise on with the traffic flow and relax...

of course, took the B4000 home, and was probably in single figures

[Guvernator]

What I'm interested in is that they mention a "new system to keep the turbo spinning to improve throttle response" which sounds like a mild form of anti-lag (ALS) system to me. Does anyone have any more info on this?

I always thought ALS was a bit of a no no on road cars due to the extra wear it placed on the turbo's? If they've managed to get around the reliability\longevity issues of running ALS it may get around the poor throttle response that a lot of people who don't like turbo charged cars seems to complain about.

[MiseryStreak]

Gary C said:

No not quite.

If the 350 car has a sufficiently flat torque curve around that peak, then as it is revving higher (to produce the same power) and is therefore geared lower, then the torque on the gearbox output shaft is the same at the peak torque. If the area around the peak of torque is flat enough to cover then gap between gear ratios the performance would be very similar. The car with the flatter and higher torque car would be easier to drive fast but not necessarily faster.

No. It will be as I stated, you have made your own assumption about gearing. I have said that the 350 car makes that at a peak rpm, i.e. it doesn't have a flat torque curve. They could very well make their peak power at the same engine speed. The car with more torque will be producing more power over a wider range of engine speeds and will therefore be accelerating faster in every gear.

We can have a silly debate about it all day but we all understand how an engine works and know that a turbocharged straight six with similar maximum power as a naturally aspirated V8 will be quicker. This is why the 1M is as fast as the E90 M3 even though it's nearly 90bhp down on power.

[AdeV]

Gary C said:

AdeV said:

I guess the entire performance engine industry is wrong then, eh?

I'll just go tell 'em.

Adev, you are obviously not an engineer.

Power is a function of torque and rpm and effectively quantifies them both. One without the other is meaningless. Power gives an easy measure to compare the potential of two engines.

That said it does not describe the characteristic of an engine which is why people then tend to include a description of its torque curve.

Er, yes, I know this. There seemed to be some confusion which was suggesting that "torque" was meaningless and "bhp" was all that mattered. Which is, as any fule know, rubbish.

However, It's quite possible that I misread the original argument, 'cos I was having a st week frankly.

An engine which produces more torque will automatically be producing more bhp at the same rpm. A flat torque curve (the holy grail of engines) just means that the engine produces more bhp lower in the rev range, which for road use at least is better.

IMHO, when I'm looking at a dyno sheet, I'm more interested in the shape of the torque curve than I am in the peak BHP, although the latter number is the one that everyone fixates on.

[E38Ross]

MiseryStreak said:

No. It will be as I stated, you have made your own assumption about gearing. I have said that the 350 car makes that at a peak rpm, i.e. it doesn't have a flat torque curve. They could very well make their peak power at the same engine speed. The car with more torque will be producing more power over a wider range of engine speeds and will therefore be accelerating faster in every gear.

We can have a silly debate about it all day but we all understand how an engine works and know that a turbocharged straight six with similar maximum power as a naturally aspirated V8 will be quicker. This is why the 1M is as fast as the E90 M3 even though it's nearly 90bhp down on power.

Except the 1M isn't as fast as an M3 if you're going for it. Up to about 100mph or so admittedly there's not a great deal of difference but once drag really increases the M3 is noticeably quicker.

Hence the 1M takes around 5-6 seconds longer to get from 100-150mph

Edited by E38Ross on Friday 27th September 13:13

[Guvernator]

Can we stop bickering about torque vs power blah blah blah and get back to discussing the new M3 please chaps.

[Mermaid]

E38Ross said:

Except the 1M isn't as fast as an M3 if you're going for it. Up to about 100mph or so admittedly there's not a great deal of difference but once drag really increases the M3 is noticeably quicker.

Hence the 1M takes around 5-6 seconds longer to get from 100-150mph

Have you driven any of these cars

[E38Ross]

Mermaid said:

E38Ross said:

Except the 1M isn't as fast as an M3 if you're going for it. Up to about 100mph or so admittedly there's not a great deal of difference but once drag really increases the M3 is noticeably quicker.

Hence the 1M takes around 5-6 seconds longer to get from 100-150mph

Have you driven any of these cars

Yes, both actually, and you already know full well I'd already driven at least one of them.

[pilchardthecat]

Guvernator said:

What I'm interested in is that they mention a "new system to keep the turbo spinning to improve throttle response" which sounds like a mild form of anti-lag (ALS) system to me. Does anyone have any more info on this?

I always thought ALS was a bit of a no no on road cars due to the extra wear it placed on the turbo's? If they've managed to get around the reliability\longevity issues of running ALS it may get around the poor throttle response that a lot of people who don't like turbo charged cars seems to complain about.

"Impulse Charging"

[E60M5]

Any one up for a S85B50 swap?!

[Zod]

pilchardthecat said:

Guvernator said:

What I'm interested in is that they mention a "new system to keep the turbo spinning to improve throttle response" which sounds like a mild form of anti-lag (ALS) system to me. Does anyone have any more info on this?

I always thought ALS was a bit of a no no on road cars due to the extra wear it placed on the turbo's? If they've managed to get around the reliability\longevity issues of running ALS it may get around the poor throttle response that a lot of people who don't like turbo charged cars seems to complain about.

"Impulse Charging"

As used on the M5 engine.

[Luther Blisset]

Somewhere on The Internet said:

In "Sport" and "Sport Plus" settings, the turbochargers are "pre-tensioned," which means that they keep spinning at a high rate of speed even after you have taken your foot off the throttle. This trick ensures ultra-quick response times fully comparable to those of a naturally aspirated engine. To bring engine revs down, cylinders are deactivated. The system doesn't work for extended time, but it operates under racetrack conditions and whenever the car senses quick bursts of acceleration and deceleration.

Is this like a pre-turbo butterfly valve?
That's my guess going off the pics and from the little I know about these things.

[Gary C]

MiseryStreak said:

Gary C said:

No not quite.

If the 350 car has a sufficiently flat torque curve around that peak, then as it is revving higher (to produce the same power) and is therefore geared lower, then the torque on the gearbox output shaft is the same at the peak torque. If the area around the peak of torque is flat enough to cover then gap between gear ratios the performance would be very similar. The car with the flatter and higher torque car would be easier to drive fast but not necessarily faster.

No. It will be as I stated, you have made your own assumption about gearing. I have said that the 350 car makes that at a peak rpm, i.e. it doesn't have a flat torque curve. They could very well make their peak power at the same engine speed. The car with more torque will be producing more power over a wider range of engine speeds and will therefore be accelerating faster in every gear.

We can have a silly debate about it all day but we all understand how an engine works and know that a turbocharged straight six with similar maximum power as a naturally aspirated V8 will be quicker. This is why the 1M is as fast as the E90 M3 even though it's nearly 90bhp down on power.

I did say not quite. If the lower torque car delivers the same power then it's delivered higher up. If the curve around that lower torque peak is spread sufficiently so that the gearing can make full use of it at higher revs than the car with higher torque, then it can hold a lower gear and deliver similar torque out of the gearbox, with a similar net result. If you have two cars with the same peak power but the torque curve has less area under IN THE USEFULL area (ie you have to consider gearing, that's fundamental) then it would be slower.

[161BMW]

Re Manual V SMGII/DCT for BMW M4
I have a Manual CS and there are times sometimes I wished I had SMGII. However, had I had SMGII I sure there be times I wish I had manual when sometimes feels a bit too clinical.

Plus a louder more vocal exhaust and induction from BMW M is always more welcome. I find the CS a bit quiet personally.

[Leins]

^^^ The beauty of SMGII is that it doesn't feel clinical at all IMO. Can't vouch for DCT, but then that's a very different sort of gearbox

[velocgee]

torres del paine said:

Frankly, I find manual transmission tedious these days. My e46sE90 M3 is great but crikey, faffing about between 1st, 2nd and 3rd around town is not rewarding anymore for me, especially when it's cold.
My next car will be DCT for faster driving, which is what I'm in it for.

Took the words right out of my mouth