e92 m3...best car ever?

e92 m3...best car ever?

Author
Discussion

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
fido said:
I have a new recently run-in engine from BMW - if someone can provide a free rolling road session .. smile
Would you be happy to have the engine taken out a put on an engine dyno?

survivalist

5,613 posts

189 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
IMHO the issue isn’t the engine’s power, it’s a combination of powerband an gearing. It’s one of the reasons i got the DCT rather than the manual.

It’s all well and good having a powerful engine, but if the gear ratios are too long and the power is all at the high end of the Rev range it will blunt performed in everyday use in the UK. So I get why folks like Lee were disappointed with the manual as a daily.

I’ve got a Z4M as well, and while it’s not a torque monster, the urge does seem to kick in lower down the Rev range. That said, a lower keen weight helps as well I’m sure.

I’ve not needed a daily for the past decade, so appreciate my choices don’t mirror the majority. I’m also not fussed about being the fastest car out there, it’s more about the experience.

I didn’t love the manual change in the E92, but it was more the gear ratios that put me off. 110mpg + in 3 rd makes a high Revving car mostly useless in all but 2 nd and 3 rd gear - at least the DCT has a fourth ratio that is vaguely usable.

All of that said, I do like a manual so maybe an e92 with a different diff ratio and a manual box is the answer.


stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
With a 6speed manual being geared for 22.6mph/1000rpm, if it could make the peak power rpm in top gear, it would make 187mph. So yeah, it is geared right for top speed.

Gear it any lower and the economy would be even worse.

fido

16,735 posts

254 months

Saturday 12th September 2020
quotequote all
survivalist said:
I didn’t love the manual change in the E92, but it was more the gear ratios that put me off. 110mpg + in 3 rd makes a high Revving car mostly useless in all but 2 nd and 3 rd gear - at least the DCT has a fourth ratio that is vaguely usable.
Yep. It’s been discussed on other forums but 3rd/4th gear in DCT blows away the manual by some margin. From a standing start, the manual has a shorter 1st gear but the quicker DCT will allow you to shift perfectly into 2nd every time.

jon-

16,492 posts

215 months

Sunday 13th September 2020
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
I would bet a virtual beer that if you took the engine out of a low mile E92 M3 and tested it in the same manner as it was certified, you would find it makes 420ps to DIN standards.

The difference in testing method is the reason a rolling road does deliver the same power. The method is massively different.
I understand what you're saying, but if true then all the cars that run on dyno dynamics and make book power, which includes many other BMWs, would actually be reading over. Which seems even more unlikely

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Sunday 13th September 2020
quotequote all
jon- said:
stevesingo said:
I would bet a virtual beer that if you took the engine out of a low mile E92 M3 and tested it in the same manner as it was certified, you would find it makes 420ps to DIN standards.

The difference in testing method is the reason a rolling road does deliver the same power. The method is massively different.
I understand what you're saying, but if true then all the cars that run on dyno dynamics and make book power, which includes many other BMWs, would actually be reading over. Which seems even more unlikely
The certified power is the minimum they engine can make if it is sold as advertised. WIth something as highly strung as the S65, manufacturing tolerances will be small, the variance from engine to engine across a production run will be small also. Some, more mass produced, engines will have a wider band of tolerance on the production run. What is essential for the manufacturer is the worst engine makes the certified power.

It reminds me of the Triumph Dolomite Sprint. It was to be marketed as the Dolomite 135 in reference to the power of the SOHC 16v 2lt engine. But, BL being BL, and the appalling QC in the '70, found the variance o the production engine was so large that they had to downrate the engine to 127hp. As Dolomite 127 was not so catchy a neame, they changed it to Sprint. If you got a Monday engine you might have 135hp or more. A Friday engine was probably 127hp.

testdrive

2,900 posts

194 months

Sunday 13th September 2020
quotequote all
survivalist said:
IMHO the issue isn’t the engine’s power, it’s a combination of powerband an gearing. It’s one of the reasons i got the DCT rather than the manual.

It’s all well and good having a powerful engine, but if the gear ratios are too long and the power is all at the high end of the Rev range it will blunt performed in everyday use in the UK. So I get why folks like Lee were disappointed with the manual as a daily.

I’ve got a Z4M as well, and while it’s not a torque monster, the urge does seem to kick in lower down the Rev range. That said, a lower keen weight helps as well I’m sure.

I’ve not needed a daily for the past decade, so appreciate my choices don’t mirror the majority. I’m also not fussed about being the fastest car out there, it’s more about the experience.

I didn’t love the manual change in the E92, but it was more the gear ratios that put me off. 110mpg + in 3 rd makes a high Revving car mostly useless in all but 2 nd and 3 rd gear - at least the DCT has a fourth ratio that is vaguely usable.

All of that said, I do like a manual so maybe an e92 with a different diff ratio and a manual box is the answer.
I've owned both an e92 m3 and the Z4m, the Z4m maybe feels more urgent because it's lighter and less refined but side by side in gear the reality is that there is most likely no difference.

E92 dct Vs 6mt side by side in gear is largely similar also, the dct just allows you to be in the gear you want to be in that bit quicker, the manual isn't a great manual that's for sure. Yes peak power is high up the rev range and 3rd is redlining at 110ish but it's certainly no slouch beyond 4000rpm, it's rewarding to hustle along and shift earlier especially with a louder exhaust.

For me there is plenty mid range in an e92, nevermind for a daily, I run a golf r now day to day and the only thing it does better on my commute is use less fuel.


A44RON

481 posts

95 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
I still love these, such a fantastic rewarding package.

I don't get why some complain about the lack of torque and significant weight - the Coupe with DCT is only 30-odd kgs heavier than an E46 M3 coupe

cerb4.5lee

30,041 posts

179 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
A44RON said:
I still love these, such a fantastic rewarding package.

I don't get why some complain about the lack of torque and significant weight - the Coupe with DCT is only 30-odd kgs heavier than an E46 M3 coupe
I've been thinking about this, and my 330i/Z4M/E92 M3 and my 370Z all feel like they don't have much torque. But I think the problem isn't the torque it is the weight of the cars(none of those cars are lighter than 1485kg) and the actual power delivery of the NA engines. All of those cars have max power right at the top of their rev ranges, so they give a feeling(to me) of being gutless.

Cog down a few gears and get the revs right up and they are fine, but in general driving they mostly feel like heavy cars to drive and they feel flat in terms of performance for me. Plus I've also been spoilt with turbo cars and that only elevates it even more I reckon.

time waster

676 posts

240 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
I find the torque is about right, the wheels don't spin too much at lower revs and almost prepares the tyres for the power that is about to come. Too much torque and you are just holding off on the accelerator.

KPB1973

917 posts

98 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
I've been thinking about this, and my 330i/Z4M/E92 M3 and my 370Z all feel like they don't have much torque. But I think the problem isn't the torque it is the weight of the cars(none of those cars are lighter than 1485kg) and the actual power delivery of the NA engines. All of those cars have max power right at the top of their rev ranges, so they give a feeling(to me) of being gutless.

Cog down a few gears and get the revs right up and they are fine, but in general driving they mostly feel like heavy cars to drive and they feel flat in terms of performance for me. Plus I've also been spoilt with turbo cars and that only elevates it even more I reckon.
I agree with that. I've just owned a car with 'notoriously' low torque (189bhp / 133ft lbs Elise) but due to its light weight, it rarely felt that it lacked punch unless I was dawdling in 6th gear at 40mph. In fact I was often quite surprised at how strong that engine felt off-cam.

Not that long ago, a mainstream petrol n/a 2.0 car with over 150ft lbs was considered quite a thing too.

bmwmike

6,897 posts

107 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
time waster said:
I find the torque is about right, the wheels don't spin too much at lower revs and almost prepares the tyres for the power that is about to come. Too much torque and you are just holding off on the accelerator.
Thats what i like about nasp engines too. The torque delivery is linear and predictable. The power (as a function of torque) keeps along with the revs. The turbos deliver what you would have had higher up the rev range, and some, but lower down in a big lump. What gearboxes do, is multiply torque at the cost of speed. Complaints about lack of torque are really just a complaint about final drive gearing, and ultimately, being in the wrong gear.


survivalist

5,613 posts

189 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
bmwmike said:
time waster said:
I find the torque is about right, the wheels don't spin too much at lower revs and almost prepares the tyres for the power that is about to come. Too much torque and you are just holding off on the accelerator.
Thats what i like about nasp engines too. The torque delivery is linear and predictable. The power (as a function of torque) keeps along with the revs. The turbos deliver what you would have had higher up the rev range, and some, but lower down in a big lump. What gearboxes do, is multiply torque at the cost of speed. Complaints about lack of torque are really just a complaint about final drive gearing, and ultimately, being in the wrong gear.
I think people want to have their cake and eat it for a daily driver. Slug of torque low down covers 90% of driving, but the ability to rev it out when having fun. Difficult to get right, but I have to say I was impressed with the S55 in the F80 M3, less so with the noise and steering. Still, made me see the appeal of the M2 Competition, however given the current prices and that I don't really need a daily driver means that I'm sticking with my E92.

cerb4.5lee

30,041 posts

179 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
survivalist said:
I think people want to have their cake and eat it for a daily driver. Slug of torque low down covers 90% of driving, but the ability to rev it out when having fun. Difficult to get right, but I have to say I was impressed with the S55 in the F80 M3, less so with the noise and steering. Still, made me see the appeal of the M2 Competition, however given the current prices and that I don't really need a daily driver means that I'm sticking with my E92.
Yes and I see the S55(I've had a go in a M4) as being as good as you're going to get in terms of the best of both. It still revs to 7500rpm which is high enough I reckon, plus it also has loads of lower end shove too.

It is just the noise that I'm a bit on the fence with, and for me it is one of the worst sounding turbo engines out there. That is a bit of a shame I reckon. AMG have proved with their petrol twin turbo engines that you can actually make them sound pretty good.

RichardM5

1,732 posts

135 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
rassi said:
I therefore nominate a different car for the best ever prize: The E39 M5 angel
This.

KPB1973

917 posts

98 months

Wednesday 14th October 2020
quotequote all
I tried a M4 before going down the AMG route. I thought the best bit about the car was the top end rush. Really impressive for a turbo lump that also has such good low-end response.

Sound-wise though - absolutely awful, especially given it feels 'engineered' rather than natural. It really put me off the car.

survivalist

5,613 posts

189 months

Saturday 17th October 2020
quotequote all
RichardM5 said:
rassi said:
I therefore nominate a different car for the best ever prize: The E39 M5 angel
This.
Looked at loads. They were all rusty. Settled for an E92 M2 for now.

Tony B2

606 posts

174 months

Monday 26th October 2020
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
Yes and I see the S55(I've had a go in a M4) as being as good as you're going to get in terms of the best of both. It still revs to 7500rpm which is high enough I reckon, plus it also has loads of lower end shove too.

It is just the noise that I'm a bit on the fence with, and for me it is one of the worst sounding turbo engines out there. That is a bit of a shame I reckon. AMG have proved with their petrol twin turbo engines that you can actually make them sound pretty good.
Just because it has a red-line at 7500rpm doesn't mean there is any point taking it there.

Thrashing around the Ring in the F82 there was little point - and certainly no pleasure - in going above 5500.

The E92 M3, however thrives all the way to 8300, sounding wonderful as it gets there.

cerb4.5lee

30,041 posts

179 months

Monday 26th October 2020
quotequote all
Tony B2 said:
Just because it has a red-line at 7500rpm doesn't mean there is any point taking it there.

Thrashing around the Ring in the F82 there was little point - and certainly no pleasure - in going above 5500.

The E92 M3, however thrives all the way to 8300, sounding wonderful as it gets there.
Yes and I think that it is a fine line. I definitely prefer turbos for a daily or commuting car, but I do really like a NA engine for an occasional car though.

I only drive my 370Z for fun(that redlines at 7500rpm) and I even find that hard(limited opportunity) to really stretch out in the higher gears at times. I'd definitely have another E9x M3 for an occasional car though, but I wouldn't want one again as a daily for sure.

The E9x M3 at the top end of the revs is something that you never stop enjoying for sure. thumbup

Stever

1,521 posts

248 months

Tuesday 27th October 2020
quotequote all
cerb4.5lee said:
. AMG have proved with their petrol twin turbo engines that you can actually make them sound pretty good.
The AMG does sound good and better on start up I agree yes but after that it's not a nice sound at all IMHO. Harsh and brappety if such a word existsscratchchin