RE: The new BMW M3

[Mr Whippy]

squeezebm said:

ANOTHER "i could drive this or i could drive that,but i CHOOSE to run a banger" and then proceed to tell everyone what is wrong with their chosen car................Dreamers R US.

A banger? It's only 6 years old and is as perfect as you'd find one. A banger would be a car in a state of poor repair, and perhaps with little sports focus in the context of your point. Or is any old car a banger in your eyes? How about a £3k 1989 BMW 325i 3dr in excellent condition? A banger, or a true BMW enthusiasts car, maybe they can't have an opinion either because they have a 'banger'?

I'm not saying what is wrong with other people's cars, I'm saying what is wrong with them relative to what came before, or what I feel they should have been. I'm an enthusiast and would have liked to see BMW do something for the M badge, not sell something using the M badge.

Dave

PS, I'll have to remember to keep an eye on your posts and make sure you don't comment on anything with a value above that of your own car, and if you do I'll point out your a cheapskate with a banger.

Right, so were starting at about £35k now for your diesel daily runabout, and that will be £28k next year, right. Hmmm, the cost of a nice E30 M3, a nice occasional car for a BMW enthusiast

Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 13th July 21:30

[Mr Whippy]

Miguel said:

Mr Whippy said:

3dr E39 M5 replacement?

If I won the lottery tomorrow I still wouldn't buy one, an E46 M3 CS seems a much better 'small' fast sports saloon...

Feels from the way it's described that the E36 ethos has shown it's head again...?

I think it's the looks and E39 size that puts me off, even if everything else is spot on.

Dave

As someone else pointed out, you must've meant 2 door, rather than 3 door. Anyway, looking at the lengths of the E46 M3 and the current E92 3 series, I see a length increase of 9 cm, or about 3.5 inches. Like all modern cars, it's also heavier than before. Even with these increases in size and weight, it's still closer to the dimensions of the previous M3 than it is to those of the E39 M5, not to mention that the engine characteristics and power delivery must be completely different, one having a 4 L engine with over 100 hp/L and redlining at over 8k, while the other is a near 5 L unit with about 80 hp/L and a 7k redline. IMHO, these cars are night and day and probably feel it, too.

Miguel

Fair enough on overall dimensions it's still closer to the E46, but the car has a fair chunk of volume. The door lines are higher, I guess the bonnet will be too, the clam-shell bootlid seen on the 7 and E60 5 has now become a full on really high boot on the E90/92...
I would say the volume of the E92 ~ the same as the E39...

As per delivery, yes the engine has a different delivery, but the E39 made about the same power.

M5 V8,
500Nm @ 3800rpm, 86% (430Nm) of that at 1500rpm. 398bhp @ 6600rpm ~ 425Nm @ 6600rpm.

M3 V8,
395Nm @ 3900rpm, 85% (336Nm) of that at 2100rpm. 414bhp @ 8400rpm = 346Nm @ 8400rpm.


Sooo, normalise the M3 output with the M5's we'll take it's rpm's down by 6600/8400 (0.79) and up it's torque appropriately for the reduction...

M5 V8,
500Nm @ 3800rpm (480Nm @ 3000rpm), 86% (430Nm) of that at 1500rpm. 400bhp @ 6600rpm ~ 425Nm @ 6600rpm.

M3 V8,
502Nm @ 3064rpm, 85% (427Nm) of that at 1650rpm. 414bhp @ 6600rpm = 440Nm @ 6600rpm.

So really the engine is less torquey down low, it's only just 20Nm ahead in the mid-range, and the power speaks for itself at the top-end anyway... 414 vs 400...

The engine is, for all intents and purposes, doing almost the same real work at the wheels, it's just showing bigger numbers on the rpm gauge, making a higher pitched noise, and using a bigger final drive reduction. We all know this is a more effective way of making power, so it is technically a better V8.

It'll respond and sound different, but when putting your foot down a nice Hartge H50 (E46) will probably feel much the same 'push in the back wise' as an E92 M3 through the revs and in-gear...

IMHO these cars are not really day and night, the tyres and suspension will make it 'feel' different, but I'm quite sure the reality is they are closer in alot of ways than the E60 M5 and the E39 M5!

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

squeezebm said:

Oh Great a stalker,oh and my runabout is not a diesel but a lovely E39,so i do actually like older cars,but you can jump to as many conclusions as you like,because you are much more informed than anyone i have ever known.

Apart from tell other people they are wrong because their cars are bangers or they can't afford the cars in question, you haven't really said anything with any real content to it to back up your views.

Get on topic and add something to counter my views rather than attack them, it really is a rather naff way to attempt to make people see your point of view.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

squeezebm said:

Mr Whippy, you keep on "simulating" fine performance cars,and informing people of your very keen knowledgeable views,and i'll keep DRIVING such cars.

Again, another fine answer that simply attacks my credentials to have an opinion about cars that I haven't spent a few thousand miles behind the wheel of. Well sorry for being so young and not having £100k to spend on a few cars to try out for a few months and get on track

If your so good at understanding cars, and a fine enthusiast, why not educate me with some of your experiences.

It's odd because you have managed to say nothing of your experiences while other here have. Your in exactly the same boat as me except your only contribution is knocking my lack of experience while adding nothing of any value yourself.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

DoctorD said:

Mr Whippy said:

It'll respond and sound different, but when putting your foot down a nice Hartge H50 (E46) will probably feel much the same 'push in the back wise' as an E92 M3 through the revs and in-gear...

IMHO these cars are not really day and night, the tyres and suspension will make it 'feel' different, but I'm quite sure the reality is they are closer in alot of ways than the E60 M5 and the E39 M5!

Dave

I understand why you might think that, but you could not be further from the truth.

It will be interesting to stick an E92 on the scales and see how it 'really' compares with an E46. It certainly didn't feel heavier, in some respects it feels lighter, certainly lighter than I thought it would feel.

The E92 M3 feels nothing like an E39 M5, not even close. Firstly it feels smaller, much lighter and a lot more agile. Secondly it doesn't sound or feel like it has a V8 engine. The M5 sounded like a V8 and had that kind of lazy flywheel feel that most V8s have, although it was more sporty than most. The E92 M3's V8 sounds and feels in some ways like a S54 straight six from the E46, but with 4 litres rather than 3.2 litres. When you drive one you will realise just how much of a red-herring the V8 classification really is. I own two cars right now with the S54 3.2 six and I cannot think of one thing that the new V8 does that isn't better (apart from maybe its apparent thirst).

As for the eulogies about the E30 M3 and how M-division has lost its way. I agree that the base product that BMW provides M-division with has got bigger and contains more toys, but the E30 Sport Evo that I drove a few months ago also had switchable dampers (sport, comfort etc) and whilst it felt marginally lighter than my CSL, I was happy to conclude that my 2002 M-car was just as pure and focused as they were kicking them out back in the early-1990s. Sometimes it helps to drive them side by side to realise.

I guess it's the lower engine inertia that makes it so much sweeter to rev, and the engines will have widely varying perceived characters. But just like the old M5 V10 vs C6 Z06 V8, the two engines do the same thing with widely varying methods. One is rather new tech pushing specific output and using rpms, the other is using old tech with the finest knowledge available (a true evolution than something brand new) to do the same.

My point is it doesn't matter really does it? 4.0 V8 or 5.0 V8? Weight apart, and emissions issues aside is the new V8 a 'better' engine?
Mainly, did the high cost of developing this new engine pay more dividends than spending the money per unit increasing the usage of carbon fibre components? Bonnet, boot lid, wings? Another 50kg here and there and you are back near E46 M3 weight and with a CSL engine under the hood who would want for more?

As to the point of the post you responded to, E60 M5 vs E39 M5. Is there a greater difference there, or is there a greater difference between the E92 M3 vs E39 M5?

Just curious on that point.

As per the Sport Evo vs your 2002 car, yes I guess in raw performance terms and technology BMW M have managed to progress comforty and refinement while not compromising the focus.

I think my curiosity lies with the idea that *IF* BMW didn't offset the tech/component benefits with the weight/kit downsides (well for performance) what would they have today?

That E30 M3 in the back of PCC this month looked stunning for example, old engine taken to 8000rpm and re-developed in many areas. It kinda shows what happens when you just take the best of tyres, brakes, engine tech developments in the last 15 years but leave behind the extra weight/size

Point is still the same however limited my experience is. I just wanted to see more from BMW for the M enthusiast. A bit of the more is less ethos. Roll on the CSL

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

StuH said:

Mr Whippy said:

Miguel said:

Mr Whippy said:

3dr E39 M5 replacement?

If I won the lottery tomorrow I still wouldn't buy one, an E46 M3 CS seems a much better 'small' fast sports saloon...

Feels from the way it's described that the E36 ethos has shown it's head again...?

I think it's the looks and E39 size that puts me off, even if everything else is spot on.

Dave

As someone else pointed out, you must've meant 2 door, rather than 3 door. Anyway, looking at the lengths of the E46 M3 and the current E92 3 series, I see a length increase of 9 cm, or about 3.5 inches. Like all modern cars, it's also heavier than before. Even with these increases in size and weight, it's still closer to the dimensions of the previous M3 than it is to those of the E39 M5, not to mention that the engine characteristics and power delivery must be completely different, one having a 4 L engine with over 100 hp/L and redlining at over 8k, while the other is a near 5 L unit with about 80 hp/L and a 7k redline. IMHO, these cars are night and day and probably feel it, too.

Miguel

Fair enough on overall dimensions it's still closer to the E46, but the car has a fair chunk of volume. The door lines are higher, I guess the bonnet will be too, the clam-shell bootlid seen on the 7 and E60 5 has now become a full on really high boot on the E90/92...
I would say the volume of the E92 ~ the same as the E39...

As per delivery, yes the engine has a different delivery, but the E39 made about the same power.

M5 V8,
500Nm @ 3800rpm, 86% (430Nm) of that at 1500rpm. 398bhp @ 6600rpm ~ 425Nm @ 6600rpm.

M3 V8,
395Nm @ 3900rpm, 85% (336Nm) of that at 2100rpm. 414bhp @ 8400rpm = 346Nm @ 8400rpm.


Sooo, normalise the M3 output with the M5's we'll take it's rpm's down by 6600/8400 (0.79) and up it's torque appropriately for the reduction...

M5 V8,
500Nm @ 3800rpm (480Nm @ 3000rpm), 86% (430Nm) of that at 1500rpm. 400bhp @ 6600rpm ~ 425Nm @ 6600rpm.

M3 V8,
502Nm @ 3064rpm, 85% (427Nm) of that at 1650rpm. 414bhp @ 6600rpm = 440Nm @ 6600rpm.

So really the engine is less torquey down low, it's only just 20Nm ahead in the mid-range, and the power speaks for itself at the top-end anyway... 414 vs 400...

The engine is, for all intents and purposes, doing almost the same real work at the wheels, it's just showing bigger numbers on the rpm gauge, making a higher pitched noise, and using a bigger final drive reduction. We all know this is a more effective way of making power, so it is technically a better V8.

It'll respond and sound different, but when putting your foot down a nice Hartge H50 (E46) will probably feel much the same 'push in the back wise' as an E92 M3 through the revs and in-gear...

IMHO these cars are not really day and night, the tyres and suspension will make it 'feel' different, but I'm quite sure the reality is they are closer in alot of ways than the E60 M5 and the E39 M5!

Dave

I can understand where you're coming from but you really have to drive different V8's to realise just how different in character they can be! My e39 V8, feels like you would expect a V8 to feel, the 355 V8 feels nothing like it! In fact i struggle to imagine two more different engines in character. If the new M3 engine is anything like the fezza v8 in character then i really can't wait

Of course, the 355 is a flat plane crank, very nice

And I know an engine is infinitely different simply through throttle body size, audible sensation, today there is drive by wire, rate of change of acceleration, even the inclination of the seat back can mask serious pace (upright Evo VII feels brutal wheras a laid back Chimaera can feel quite subtle)

I also understand the torque curve is just one aspect, the braking friction and torque is an issue, and the smoothness a function of all sorts of factors, inertia and response... they are not electric motors, they don't have a linear action from 0 throttle to 100% throttle through the curve I point out.

But in absolute raw performance terms (on a bit of paper) the E39 engine isn't really behind the new V8 at all. I doubt that they are as night and day as suggested. Perhaps in absolute terms a test driver pushing both to the limit may find issue, but I think to suggest the new engine totally over-shadows (day and night) the E39 M5 engine outside of the relatively tiny performance gap is a bit much.

Again, I know the car will still be very good, just I'm not so keen on the looks (prefer the subtle and more regal looking E92 330Ci, or even the 'CAR magazine' photochop from Feb07 issue, which is more like the 335Ci, which I think actually looks very nice) and I wish that BMW just could have done something a bit silly with it, like a carbon bonnet and bootlid, just to point more to weight saving.

Maybe they are waiting for the CSL as mentioned, to make the 'real' Motorsport car, I just hope that they make it prettier somehow.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Miguel said:

Hi again Dave,

Now that I read this post that you wrote, I see where our perceived differences of opinions are coming from. I believe that you misinterpreted what I said. When I said that the two M V8's are night and day, I was not trying to imply that the new one is superior, as you stated above. By night and day, I simply meant that they're very different, with no implication of which one is better. In fact, it's not a matter of being better, simply different strokes for different folks, horses for courses, etc.

Miguel

Indeed. I'm sure both are great engines, just more modern engineering and requirements of weight and emissions means we have moved on, and the engines will always feel a bit different.

Even my old 2.0 GTi6 engine feels a world apart in alot of ways to the almost identical 2.0 Mi16 that it was based on.

Reality is a dyno readout shows they are fairly close. I think it's the lumps and bumps, the sounds, and the response that give an engines it's character.

I'm a firm believer that if we put thick headphones on, put different numbers on the rpm gauge, and gave ourselves a nice local anasthetic on the throttle foot, we wouldn't know what engine we were driving...

Thats not a bad thing, I just think it's interesting It's a bit of the old 'stick a K&N filter on and it's louder and you think it's faster' I guess... hmmmmm....

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

What exactly WOULD satisfy everyone here for the next M3? I've got a deposit down on one, and I'd go spare if it had as much road noise as an E30. I've owned 5 E30s in my time, I've crawled underneath them and fitted an LSD, had loads of fun. I don't want a faster E30 out of my E92 M3, I want a Focus with a more enjoyable driving experience and more performance. The Focus takes 4 adults, a decent amount of luggage, I can drive it to work, it's quiet on the motorway, and starts first time. The E30 could take 2 adults and 2 kids, not much luggage, and noisy on the motorway.

Some of my friends are asking if I'm spendind £55k, why don't I get a Noble? It doesn't fulfil the criteria that I want. If BMW built a Porsche GT3 RS then they wouldn't sell nearly as many, everyone would buy an RS4.

I think a lot of people are approaching this from the wrong point of view, they are asking what BMW could technically do. What they should do, is do what BMW did. Work out what the majority want. If you want to have some crazy, unreliable, noisy, uncomfortable, impractical car, there are plenty of niche manufacturers who do exactly that, and fill a niche.

Grrr, rant over!

Why not get a remapped 335Ci or 335Cd then?

The Motorsports model in my view should be the 'halo' technical masterpiece, ferocious car, there are all the options you need in the rest of the range.

335Ci would be brutally quick still, more so with a remap, and leave change for something properly fun too

Not knocking your choice, just curious why people settle for one car when you can get two more resolved packages (ie, one more everyday, one more sports) for the same amount?

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

DoctorD said:

Mr Whippy said:

Not knocking your choice, just curious why people settle for one car when you can get two more resolved packages (ie, one more everyday, one more sports) for the same amount?

Dave

Because it doesn't always boil down to such simple and rational economics. You buy these cars with your heart rather than your head and I personally find the M3 much more interesting (to drive and explore its character) than a 335i/335d (chipped or otherwise).

Yeah, but thats why you buy a 111R or Caterfield or something else with the difference. Again, not knocking it, but he did mention he wanted alot of things that the 335Ci/Cd would have, and it's a huge chunk of money less! And then he could get that hardcore bit in even bigger doses when he wanted it with a second car...!?

I guess then it's good it doesn't boil down to rational economics, makes cheap M3's for me a few years down the line

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

havoc said:

Olf said:

Ok so we're all waiting for the CSL then.

We all love a bit of cardboard!

Your first point, while tongue-in-cheek, is sadly correct...but it shouldn't BE that way.


Your second point is a little off the mark - why should a modern performance car be as heavy as they seem to be making them?!? And you don't need to use cardboard or glassfibre either, compare the weight of the S2000 against the Z4:-
S2000 - 1,260kg
Z4 2.5 - 1,335kg
Z4 3.0 - 1,350kg

Yet the S2000 has all the performance, kit, and practicality of the Z4. And is built VERY well, so the difference isn't build-quality. (IMHO it's a little too heavy itself...smaller than a Focus Mk1 but the same weight...)

Exactly, like the Civic Type R came out and what real Type R people are waiting for now is the Type R R...

Why not just make a BMW 340i for those who want a very fast saloon, and make the M3 the model for people who want a fast saloon in the form of what the CSL is to start with?

The reality is the M badge sells irrespective of what the car is actually like for an increasing proportion of the newer buyers. The buyers wanting that coveted badge is what is diluting the brand because BMW are making a car more and more to just appeal to people who want a fast easy to live with saloon that costs the most (i guess)

Still the buyers who want the proper M car, not putting them down, but in a sense they are getting less and less what they want and more and more what the majority want which is just the badge and big numbers on paper.


As per Havoc's second point. Why is it acceptable to see more weight each time we get a new model? That is my issue. As I've said in this thread before, we have advancements in dampers, tyres, brakes, suspension components and geometry optimisations, but we offset almost all of this progress with weight, so we never really get the generational leap we *could* have.

Thats what is a shame, BMW **are** capable of more, but they are not doing it because the M badge is too good a sales thing... an engine will get in the punters with on-paper figures etc. A taught lightweight chassis without headline power figures won't... even if it's just as fast and tons nicer to drive...

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

havoc said:

900T-R said:

Doesn't Autocar weigh the cars as part of their full road test?

Oh...and DoctorD...how can 'most of 100kg' be in the unsprung weight?!? Are the Audi's alloys made of lead?!? I know you're a BM fan, but I do think you're being a little disingenuous there...


...and if Autocar's weights ARE genuine (no reason to doubt them), how the **** can BMW bring a rwd car in above a 4wd competitor, weight-wise?!?
I said it earlier on re: the Z4 weight...engineering laziness on BM's part, IMHO!

I can't believe anyone really goes on manufacturer figures, they never properly add up. Just see Evo's weights where they have weighed cars, most are over, only a few are under...

Most of 100kg additional is in the unsprung? Are Audi not using ally multi-pistons that are much lighter than the usual BMW cast single piston sliders. I'd say that saves the Audi 15kg all round vs the BMW straight away, if not more!

Again, I'd only go on someone weighing bits themselves with a decent reference to what was in/on the car. Cripes, even tyre wear can alter weight by alot when they get this big. Think 10kg between all four from new to 75% worn...

All manufacturer figures need to be read with big pinches of salt.

As per M3, I bet with the optional sunroof, and hence no carbon roof, it adds another 20kg. Niceee.... why they didn't have a carbon bonnet and bootlid that could stay irrespective of kit is beyond me... the CofG benefit aside (increasingly less effective as car weight goes up)

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

Why not get a remapped 335Ci or 335Cd then?

The Motorsports model in my view should be the 'halo' technical masterpiece, ferocious car, there are all the options you need in the rest of the range.

335Ci would be brutally quick still, more so with a remap, and leave change for something properly fun too

Not knocking your choice, just curious why people settle for one car when you can get two more resolved packages (ie, one more everyday, one more sports) for the same amount?

Dave

Really simple answer to this.

The 335i is an obvious alternative, and I'd definitely get one if I didn't mind aftermarket additions. For the 335i to satisfy me, it would need an LSD and a remap. I'm assuming switchable dampers are an option too, as I'd need these. I don't care for a lot of the stuff the M3 brings; don't care about the badge, carbon roof, flashy wheels, M button on steering wheel, or insurance premium.

Aye, guess the remap and LSD would ruin the warranty BMW would offer. Certainly a rather 'uber saloon' choice in four or five years though

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

DoctorD said:

900T-R said:

DoctorD said:

The RS4 is not lighter than the M3, its just under 100kg 'heavier'.

I think the gist of that snippet quoted here, is that the actual, observed weights are different from the factory quotes? Doesn't Autocar weigh the cars as part of their full road test?

No, they don't. All Autocar printed were the published weights by the manufacturer. In fact they quoted these weights 'exactly'. So that is the DIN weight for the RS4 (which has actually been weighed by EVO as considerably more), and the EU1 weight for the M3 (which includes 75kg for driver and luggage + 90% full tank of fuel weighing approx 40kg). So using the published weights that would give you around 1540kg if they had quoted the M3's weight to the same DIN standard as the RS4.

Too many random assumptions. Get them on the scales side by side with no fuel or driver and see which is lighter.

Hate all these DIN/Euro specs on weight. They, imho, are intended to mislead rather than inform, afterall, right now we are confused. Job done!

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

DoctorD said:

Mr Whippy said:

Hate all these DIN/Euro specs on weight. They, imho, are intended to mislead rather than inform, afterall, right now we are confused. Job done!

Dave

I agree they are confusing, why can't all manufacturers be made to quote to a common standard?

Bear in mind though, that the RS4 when weighed at the same time as an M6 was only around 15kg lighter than the M6. So it doesn't take a scientist to work out that the M3 will be quite a bit lighter - unless you are assuming that the M3 will be heavier than the M6?

Depends on what was in the M6 really.

I put my car on the scales, drove as steady as I could to filling station to work out the amount to fill, took mileage at avg.mpg, then took everything out of the car, and weighed it, and got 1131kg, 4kg under book weight. Pretty close really.
BUT, there are sooo many factors, even Evo's figures are with values that can vary alot per car. Ie, a GT car has a big fuel tank and so if you say 50% fuel, it might be maybe 15kg more for a GT3 or something like that vs an Evo IX for example...

Then you have kit/options, maybe 15kg either way there on some models...

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

m12_nathan said:

The Noble pulled better from 1k rpm that either of my vtec engined cars and that is FI. The accord specifically was really poor low down, however, that is what the gear stick is for so it is a crap comparison anyway.

Was that a 2.5 or 3.0 V6? vs a 2.0 inline four?

Off boost the Noble engine still has loads going for it, along with low vehicle weight... no wonder it felt better low-down.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Miguel said:

Now that even more power is desired, and especially now that other car manufacturers can also build very potent engines, purpose-built power plants of greater capacity and cylinder count are going to be the norm, regardless of the nostalgia and romance associated with their straight sixes.

And thats the problem. All that costs £££, but they spend bugger all on making the cars lighter, the REAL way to go to improve performance.

It's just all about the numbers and to be honest it's got really boring now. Oooo, another 400bhp+ normal saloon car. Whoopie doo. How about one with 350bhp and weighing 1300kg? Now THAT would grab my attention

Next generation M3, 500bhp and 1700kg? Wow, can't wait

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

It is good engineering, in isolation.

The package is the issue for me. A carbon bonnet, bootlid and front wings might add another £1500 to the cost, but save another 25kg...

Might be a bit noisier, which would loose sales, might be a bit too expensive, so loosing sales, might be more to repair, so pushing up insurance costs and loosing sales...

BUT, 25kg is just one of those figures you can't offset with more power.

I know it's all down to sales, it's just gutting that the standard carbon roof, and brand new superb engine, improved brakes and tyres etc, are dulled in their effectiveness because the new car weighs more.
Just imagine it with 80-100kg less to accelerate, brake, corner, dampers control, inertia etc...

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Olf said:

Mr Whippy said:

It is good engineering, in isolation.

The package is the issue for me. A carbon bonnet, bootlid and front wings might add another £1500 to the cost, but save another 25kg...

Might be a bit noisier, which would loose sales, might be a bit too expensive, so loosing sales, might be more to repair, so pushing up insurance costs and loosing sales...

BUT, 25kg is just one of those figures you can't offset with more power.

I know it's all down to sales, it's just gutting that the standard carbon roof, and brand new superb engine, improved brakes and tyres etc, are dulled in their effectiveness because the new car weighs more.
Just imagine it with 80-100kg less to accelerate, brake, corner, dampers control, inertia etc...

Dave

I can imagine it - it's one fat passenger and a box of pies in the boot. Lets not go crazy here.

It all adds up. If it's 'not that much' then why not just use the heavier 5.0 V8 from the E39 M5? Dinan run one with upto 480bhp with some work. Afterall, it's just 20kg more weight.
Why bother with the carbon roof, it's 'just' 10kg. Why bother with lightweight wheels and not use some a few kg heavier all round, it's just a few pies...

That higher standard weight is thrown into the extremes of the design of the car, the tyres ratings, size, suspension stiffness. Weight kills performance in EVERY aspect. How can you justify 100kg? Because it's got 60bhp more...? That will lead to one thing, fast but crap cars.

It all adds up. 100kg more on the dampers = more heat and required shaft stiffness or geometry deformation, increased tyre wear, reduced acceleration, reduced decelleration, reduced tyre performance, decreased engine efficiency etc etc etc...

Or is 100kg irrelevant? While everyone blurts on about it's superior acceleration and Ring lap time, like it really matters, then weight WOULD hurt all these things, or improve them if it was reduced.

Afterall, the best way to performance in ALL aspects, is to add less weight. Simple.

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

edb49 said:

Mr Whippy said:

Afterall, the best way to performance in ALL aspects, is to add less weight. Simple.

Sorry, I'm going to start a religious war and say that's rubbish.

There is only so far you can go to reduce weight from a mass produced car, like a BMW 3 series. It is *better* to add more tyre, more power, bigger brakes.

Look at the Cayenne vs. Exige in Evo a few months back. Yes, the Exige is a featherweight, but it doesn't really help it set a storming lap time compared to a 2.5 ton SUV.

When will people get it into their heads that weight isn't the be all and end all to performance, it is only the be all and end all to economy.

So why are all racing cars as light as possible if they don't have to be for performance?

Dave

[Mr Whippy]

Miguel said:

Let's just say that after driving it, its weight was the last thing on my mind. The car was incredible

I agree it's good, but it'd be even better.

I'm sure half the problem is that these cars limits are now so high they are not even approached on most roads by most drivers, so they don't realise the issues that the weight imposes.
Get in a Teggy DC2 and drive it hard and you'll be happy of the low weight because your approaching the limits and enjoying the experience alot more.

Different kind of car then. Luxo barge rather than involving car?

Again, if weight is such a little issue why does almost every racing car aim to be as light as possible, with weight added as a penalty? Weight kills performance, full stop.

Big fat tyres and loads of power mask that on the road, but in doing that they push the limits further from your average driver and in my view thats why these cars are far less interesting as anything but big fast cars, but Merc have been making those for years.

Dave