Power, Now vs Then vs Reality

[elementad]

I'm not going to be popular for saying this but also it's easy for a lot of people to fall into the camp of "there's no need for power, only good handling" because those types of machine are more financially accessible to them. (decent handling little power)
I'm talking engineered power factory standard not 500bhp because someone in a shed has bolted 2 turbos and a st of nitros. The kind of power that's factory standard and comes with warranty. Higher bhp cars naturally come with more costs, insurance, tyres, tax etc.
Only stating the obvious. Not true with everyone but certainly a few.
Also a lot of folk talk as though there aren't cars that mix the two ingredients up. Like its black or white and only the purests go for handling. As I mentioned before Porsche do a pretty good job and ivd not heard any complaints from owners of 300bhp plus caymans.

[Twincam16]

elementad said:

I'm not going to be popular for saying this but also it's easy for a lot of people to fall into the camp of "there's no need for power, only good handling" because those types of machine are more financially accessible to them.
I'm talking engineered power factory standard not 500bhp because someone in a shed has bolted 2 turbos and a st of nitros. The kind of power that's factory standard and comes with warranty. Higher bhp cars naturally come with more costs, insurance, tyres, tax etc.
Only stating the obvious. Not true with everyone but certainly a few.
Also a lot of folk talk as though there aren't cars that mix the two ingredients up. Like its black or white and only the purests go for handling. As I mentioned before Porsche do a pretty good job and ivd not heard any complaints from owners of 300bhp plus caymans.

True, but there's no avoiding the fact that a lot of high-performance cars are difficult to exploit to their full extent on the road, and unless you do take them on track, the only difference over lesser models in most motoring conditions will be higher fuel consumption, insurance, servicing and maintenance costs.

The fact that so many manufacturers have concentrated on outgunning each other has left a gulf of affordable enjoyment out there, which is why it's refreshing to see Toyota making real-world fun the aim of the GT-86 and not really giving a toss about what its rivals are putting out.

[2thumbs]

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 14:45

[elementad]

Twincam16 said:

elementad said:

I'm not going to be popular for saying this but also it's easy for a lot of people to fall into the camp of "there's no need for power, only good handling" because those types of machine are more financially accessible to them.
I'm talking engineered power factory standard not 500bhp because someone in a shed has bolted 2 turbos and a st of nitros. The kind of power that's factory standard and comes with warranty. Higher bhp cars naturally come with more costs, insurance, tyres, tax etc.
Only stating the obvious. Not true with everyone but certainly a few.
Also a lot of folk talk as though there aren't cars that mix the two ingredients up. Like its black or white and only the purests go for handling. As I mentioned before Porsche do a pretty good job and ivd not heard any complaints from owners of 300bhp plus caymans.

True, but there's no avoiding the fact that a lot of high-performance cars are difficult to exploit to their full extent on the road, and unless you do take them on track, the only difference over lesser models in most motoring conditions will be higher fuel consumption, insurance, servicing and maintenance costs.

The fact that so many manufacturers have concentrated on outgunning each other has left a gulf of affordable enjoyment out there, which is why it's refreshing to see Toyota making real-world fun the aim of the GT-86 and not really giving a toss about what its rivals are putting out.

Absolutely, agreed. I know that I'll never take MY car on track, BUT I will drive another (same model as mine) on track and I do enjoy going over to the isle of man and driving the circuit around TT time which is a great experience. It's nice to know that you have that power and to exploit it on the odd slip road here and there etc makes it worth while (for some) as well

Forgot to mention, it's also the SOUND and characteristics that attract for powerful cars. I love the sound of V8s and V6s with their burble without the need for overkill big exhausts.

Edited by elementad on Friday 10th February 14:45

[300bhp/ton]

otolith said:

Someone also said that you have enough power when you can leave black lines from the exit of one corner to the braking point of the next.

I guess a road car is underpowered in absolute terms if you are on full throttle all the way from the exit of each corner to the braking point of the next, but that doesn't require a great deal of power unless you have very short straights or like being well into three figures on B-roads.

I think he was still referring to road cars

Was a few years back, but at a time when they'd launched the limited edition 5.4 litre Cobra-R and the 10.8 litre and the gob-smacking 10 litre (yes you read it right ) 2000 Boss Mustang




855hp/790lb ft
0-100mph in 5.5 sec

Edited by 300bhp/ton on Friday 10th February 14:47

[RobCrezz]

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 14:45

I cant understand that. I know the M3 requires revs to get the best out of it, but I would still imagine it to make more low down torque with an extra 400cc (or extra 200cc in the case of the pre evo E36).

[J4CKO]

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 14:45

I cant understand that. I know the M3 requires revs to get the best out of it, but I would still imagine it to make more low down torque with an extra 400cc (or extra 200cc in the case of the pre evo E36).

I think this is one of those situation where its not a win/win, it isn't always the case when you go up an engine, or a couple of engines that the more powerful one is preferable in every eventuality, like the perennial Golf 8V vs 16 valve debate.

[RobCrezz]

J4CKO said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 14:45

I cant understand that. I know the M3 requires revs to get the best out of it, but I would still imagine it to make more low down torque with an extra 400cc (or extra 200cc in the case of the pre evo E36).

I think this is one of those situation where its not a win/win, it isn't always the case when you go up an engine, or a couple of engines that the more powerful one is preferable in every eventuality, like the perennial Golf 8V vs 16 valve debate.

But the Golf 8v vs 16v debate was cleared up with a graph showing the 16v makes more torque everywhere in the rev range than the 8v....

[redgriff500]

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Which M3 have you got ?

I used to hear this about the 3.0 E36 and having driven one it's certainly true that they come alive at the top end.

The later 3.2 is much better.

[2thumbs]

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 14:45

I cant understand that. I know the M3 requires revs to get the best out of it, but I would still imagine it to make more low down torque with an extra 400cc (or extra 200cc in the case of the pre evo E36).

I wouldn't have believed it myself. When I first bought my m3 I still owned my 328 & the m3 really disappointed me. If you ever get the chance to drive one then the other, you will see what I mean.

The M3 engine makes it's power higher up the rev range.

[2thumbs]

Mine is a 3.2

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 15:53

[RobCrezz]

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 14:45

I cant understand that. I know the M3 requires revs to get the best out of it, but I would still imagine it to make more low down torque with an extra 400cc (or extra 200cc in the case of the pre evo E36).

I wouldn't have believed it myself. When I first bought my m3 I still owned my 328 & the m3 really disappointed me. If you ever get the chance to drive one then the other, you will see what I mean.

The M3 engine makes it's power higher up the rev range.

What M3 do you have?

Perhaps the M3 has longer gearing?

[2thumbs]

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 14:45

I cant understand that. I know the M3 requires revs to get the best out of it, but I would still imagine it to make more low down torque with an extra 400cc (or extra 200cc in the case of the pre evo E36).

I wouldn't have believed it myself. When I first bought my m3 I still owned my 328 & the m3 really disappointed me. If you ever get the chance to drive one then the other, you will see what I mean.

The M3 engine makes it's power higher up the rev range.

What M3 do you have?

Perhaps the M3 has longer gearing?

It's a 3.2 with the 6 speed box, so should be shorter gearing maybe? I'm no expert

[RobCrezz]

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Edited by 2thumbs on Friday 10th February 14:45

I cant understand that. I know the M3 requires revs to get the best out of it, but I would still imagine it to make more low down torque with an extra 400cc (or extra 200cc in the case of the pre evo E36).

I wouldn't have believed it myself. When I first bought my m3 I still owned my 328 & the m3 really disappointed me. If you ever get the chance to drive one then the other, you will see what I mean.

The M3 engine makes it's power higher up the rev range.

What M3 do you have?

Perhaps the M3 has longer gearing?

It's a 3.2 with the 6 speed box, so should be shorter gearing maybe? I'm no expert

Then I dont understand why it would have less low down torque than the 328i

In almost all cases, adding displacement would increase torque.

[2thumbs]

RobCrezz said:

Then I dont understand why it would have less low down torque than the 328i

In almost all cases, adding displacement would increase torque.

You & me both. I don't know enough about engine design to form a valid opinion why it's the case, it just is.

[RobCrezz]

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

Then I dont understand why it would have less low down torque than the 328i

In almost all cases, adding displacement would increase torque.

You & me both. I don't know enough about engine design to form a valid opinion why it's the case, it just is.

Anyone got Dyno graphs for a E36 328i and M3 evo?

[Wills2]

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

Then I dont understand why it would have less low down torque than the 328i

In almost all cases, adding displacement would increase torque.

You & me both. I don't know enough about engine design to form a valid opinion why it's the case, it just is.

Anyone got Dyno graphs for a E36 328i and M3 evo?

Wiki says: e36 Evo 260lb/ft e36 328i 210lb/ft the Evo makes it's torque lower down the rev range as well.

I guess gearing will play a major part in how that torque feels.

[redgriff500]

RobCrezz said:

Then I dont understand why it would have less low down torque than the 328i

In almost all cases, adding displacement would increase torque.

Just tried Googling to compare and I can't find a std Dyno of either car !

[Wills2]

elementad said:

As I mentioned before Porsche do a pretty good job and ivd not heard any complaints from owners of 300bhp plus caymans.

And as we all know Porsche ponies tend to pull harder.

[300bhp/ton]

redgriff500 said:

2thumbs said:

RobCrezz said:

2thumbs said:

Good point. I miss my 328 for that exact reason, it had a good dose of low down grunt, my m3 hasn't any.

I think its how your body perceives it. Im pretty sure a M3 has more low down grunt than the 328i.

Strange but true. Yo have to work harder with the m3, It's quite lethargic & only really starts to sing when you push it. the 328 pulled effortlessly from standstill.

Which M3 have you got ?

I used to hear this about the 3.0 E36 and having driven one it's certainly true that they come alive at the top end.

The later 3.2 is much better.

But coming alive at the top end, doesn't mean it's making less in the lower rpms compared to a 328i, just that it's a lot quicker when you really get into the powerband.