e92 m3...best car ever?
Discussion
bigtime said:
Do people realise how heavy cars are these days. 1300kg is about 150 kilos less than a 911 carrera. This is a 3 series Bmw that will carry a family in comfort. Surely even a 2 seater Cayman is even more than 1300kg.
Cayman is around 1340kg according to Wikipedia. Sounds about right. A flyweight compared to something like an F-Type. I do believe an R8 tips the scales at over 1600kg too, I was very surprised to find that out but it explained why the V8 doesn't shift like a supercar. Astons are also ludicrously heavy. Amazing to read "carbon this, aluminium that, lightweight platform" etc... for the Vanquish and then you find it's still 1800kgdaz05 said:
You're a little of the mark here IMHO. You seem to be giving the engine a tough time but the issues you mention stem from the body it's in. GT3 is a different price point and correct me if I'm wrong but the figures aren't all that different to the gen 1 997.
No I'm not (IMVHO 
We're discussing engine performance here NOT price. Sorry, the figures mean nothing, the M3 feels pretty gutless below 6k rpm, trust me, a Gen 1 997 GT3 doesn't.daz05 said:
The s65 is based upon the v10 in the m5/6 also so seems strange to me that you can like one but not the other....
Correct, but they're still two very different engines. The V10 was as I understand it a clean sheet design from the sump to the cam covers, do you suppose the S65 was ? FYi my V10 M6 NEVER felt short on torque, on the contrary, I was always under the impression there were some clever electronics/mapping limiting the torque, in the process it made the car incredibly biddable in the dry or the wet, all the more so for a 500hp 17-1800kg car. Shame the dealers didn't understand them properly.Strange ? maybe.
toasty said:
Peak torque of E92 is 295lbft at 3900rpm compared to the 996.2 GT3 which is 284lbft at 5000rpm. Rather laughable? From what point of view?
You've not read what I posted previously. Drive both of them back to back and tell me which feels more torque laden ? (bearing in mind one is a reasonably modern 4.0 V8 and the other basically a 17 year old 3.6 flat six with its roots back in the 964 engine ....).What's laughable ? The S65's fuel consumption, and don't get me started on the V10 M6's fuel consumption ...
Slippydiff said:
daz05 said:
You're a little of the mark here IMHO. You seem to be giving the engine a tough time but the issues you mention stem from the body it's in. GT3 is a different price point and correct me if I'm wrong but the figures aren't all that different to the gen 1 997.
No I'm not (IMVHO We're discussing engine performance here NOT price. Sorry, the figures mean nothing, the M3 feels pretty gutless below 6k rpm, trust me, a Gen 1 997 GT3 doesn't.The m3 is heavier than a focused gt3 and serves a different purpose. Stands to reason that it will be a bit slower.
The V10 in your m6 had the same high revving characteristic so I'm not going to debate that with you.
daz05 said:
I thought you were off the mark the first time but now you are talking nonsense. Figures mean everything if you are discussing 'engine' performance. Remember you were critical of the s65 engine in comparison to the gt3s.
My newly acquired F30 330 D M sport feels as quick, or maybe quicker than, my old E90 335D M Sport Auto, I've not looked at the torque figures to compare them, cos there's no need to, the newer single turbo car feels as, or quicker than, the old twin turbo iteration.You can study and quote engine horsepower and torque curves till your blue in the face, but if BMW had done a better job of providing the S65 with increased torque low down, (something Porsche seem quite adept at doing from a smaller capacity engine BTW) there wouldn't be numerous comments on this thread (and all the others that have proceeded it) highlighting the fact the car lacks low down torque. Or maybe we're all wrong and you're right ??
daz05 said:
The m3 is heavier than a focused gt3 and serves a different purpose. Stands to reason that it will be a bit slower.
I think you may be missing the jist of my comments, first price, now differing purpose, what next ?daz05 said:
The V10 in your m6 had the same high revving characteristic so I'm not going to debate that with you.
You just did. And you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" the fact the M6 engine had an additional 2 cylinders and 100hp, but clearly they have nothing to do with it feeling relatively torquey compared with its S65 bretheren ....
Am I not right in thinking the M6 engine is nearly 100ft/lb torquier over the S65 too, and in the M6 at least is carrying a car which weighs barely any more than an E92 M3 anyway?
Based solely on memory, I would have said my E63 645Ci *felt* quicker than my E46 M3 in a straight line, certainly at low revs pickup.
Based solely on memory, I would have said my E63 645Ci *felt* quicker than my E46 M3 in a straight line, certainly at low revs pickup.
daz05 said:
I thought you were off the mark the first time but now you are talking nonsense. Figures mean everything if you are discussing 'engine' performance. Remember you were critical of the s65 engine in comparison to the gt3s.
The m3 is heavier than a focused gt3 and serves a different purpose. Stands to reason that it will be a bit slower.
The V10 in your m6 had the same high revving characteristic so I'm not going to debate that with you.
100% agree with your comments. You cant compare apples and oranges. The m3 is heavier than a focused gt3 and serves a different purpose. Stands to reason that it will be a bit slower.
The V10 in your m6 had the same high revving characteristic so I'm not going to debate that with you.
Some people on this thread seem to favour torque over all else, which is fine but it's not a fault with the S65 - just a preference. Interesting how the S65 won international engine of the year from 2008-2011, so the journos must have enjoyed it for quite some time.
cerb4.5lee said:
I think some of it is what you are used to and I had experienced a E90 330d for six years and also a TVR Cerbera for six years prior to me getting hold of a E92 M3, so from my point of view the M3 was always going to feel gutless low down compared to both of the cars I was used to.
The V8 M3 goes like the clappers after 6k revs but I also thought my Z4M was gutless low down as well purely because of what I was used to, my favourite car has been my stage one tuned 200SX and I loved everything about that and maybe these high rev engines just aren't my bag I suppose.
My Cerbera only revved to 7500rpm and it never felt wanting low down like the M3 and Z4M do, so you do pay a price for the high rev nature of the S54/S65 engines.
This is very true. When I bought a new 600 sports bike way back in 2002, I chose the GSXR600 over a Ducati 748 because it was more thrilling to have to thrash the Suzuki all the way to the 14,500 rpm limiter. The V8 M3 goes like the clappers after 6k revs but I also thought my Z4M was gutless low down as well purely because of what I was used to, my favourite car has been my stage one tuned 200SX and I loved everything about that and maybe these high rev engines just aren't my bag I suppose.
My Cerbera only revved to 7500rpm and it never felt wanting low down like the M3 and Z4M do, so you do pay a price for the high rev nature of the S54/S65 engines.
Since then, both of the M3s and Z4M I've owned had to be revved hard to get the best from them. I've not really owned a car with strong low-down torque, except for my VX220T and I really didn't like the turbo power delivery of that car.Slippydiff said:
You just did. And you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" the fact the M6 engine had an additional 2 cylinders and 100hp, but clearly they have nothing to do with it feeling relatively torquey compared with its S65 bretheren ....
Stop digging Slippy, the s65 feels less torquey than the gt3 lower down because it's installed in a heavier vehicle. End of discussion.Slippydiff said:
I think you may be missing the jist of my comments
We both are, I thought we were comparing the engine performance, i.e. your earlier post, but you keep comparing cars. I've never said the S65 is a torque monster, it isn't and its in quite a bulky shell, my point being is that it isn't the engine but the car that makes it feel low down on torque.The S65, if you care to compare the facts does comparatively very well in terms of its lower torque delivery in comparison to the GT3 engines you mention and also the S85( peak torque at 6100).
Go and take a look and you will see why I think you are talking nonsense.
JMBMWM5 said:
bennyboysvuk said:
So if the E90 seems a little heavy at over 1600kg, but is otherwise close to perfect, what can be done to lighten it up a bit without spending thousands on CF or aluminium parts?
CC brakes and lightweight wheels thats about it.bennyboysvuk said:
So if the E90 seems a little heavy at over 1600kg, but is otherwise close to perfect, what can be done to lighten it up a bit without spending thousands on CF or aluminium parts?
Remove the V8 and put a 2 litre turbo lump in. This will also reduce the rev limit but increase torque so will be perfect lol. daz05 said:
I've never said the S65 is a torque monster, it isn't and its in quite a bulky shell, my point being is that it isn't the engine but the car that makes it feel low down on torque.
Spot on and I would love to experience the S65 in something that weighs around 1200kg and I would imagine that to be a pretty good recipe for sure. bigtime said:
bennyboysvuk said:
So if the E90 seems a little heavy at over 1600kg, but is otherwise close to perfect, what can be done to lighten it up a bit without spending thousands on CF or aluminium parts?
Remove the V8 and put a 2 litre turbo lump in. This will also reduce the rev limit but increase torque so will be perfect lol. Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff