30 replies to this topic

[jester1182]

Okay, you guys seem to be avoiding the facts.  If it's not an M you don't put the M on it, PERIOD.  If it's not an R you don't put the R on it period.  If you do you are just trying to make your car something it's not.

well obviously. every ricer in the world with his base model 84 civic is wishing his car wasent a peice when he puts on his typeR badges. same is true for every other idiot. badging your car like that jsut shows you want to have a nicer car but ae to lazy/incompetent/stupid to go out and get it.

[JDELUNA]

15% for RWD? I don't think so.

An what would you suggest for drivetrain losses for a RWD vehicle with a manual transmission ???

[VS Legend]

For BMW RWD MTs saying 17-18% is being very nice. Most BMWs end up having drivetrain loss in the mid-20s (23-27%). For an M5 the 15% would be acceptable, as the driveline is much more efficient. Actually a stock E46 M3 generally dynos at 21% drivetrain loss. So it's definitely more than 15%.

[freeskier8585]

15 would be good for fwd....

[turbor850]

Actually a stock E46 M3 generally dynos at 21% drivetrain loss.

M3 SToCK DyNO

333 X .15 = 50 - 333 = 283 . . . .

so, yeah . . .

[VS Legend]

NM - hadn't seen the link. And that's 343, not 333hp.

So:

343 * .21 = 72.03 - 343 = 270.97HP.


Booya!

Edited by Legend854T5R, 28 March 2004 - 04:21 AM.

[InlineTurbo]

I just don't get the appeal of the M3 engine. It is similar to the S2000. It doesn't make power until super high rpms. I mean you have to get that thing over 6K rpm to make close to its peak power.

People often complain about turbos being "laggy" so they like large displacement engines better because they wan't instant response. In the M3 engine you get worse lag than all but straigt out drag race turbos and an engine that is almost totally maxed out from the factory. Our cars make full torque around 3000 rpm and hold it until close to redline. I'll take that over a super high strung na engine any day.

Mercedes and Volvo have it right using forced induction. A C32 AMG will wipe the floor with an M3 unless a professional driver is driving the M3 and then it will be close. The C55 AMG will absolutely destroy the M5. Those best case magazine stats for the M3 don't translate into a whole lot of real world numbers. I mean the E36 M3 had mag numbers of 5.5 0-60, but in reality it was more like 6.0-7.0 for most drivers. Not that the M3 isn't cool, but it takes more than a weekend warrior to make use of its power.

Infact I read somewhere that BMW will be bringing the COMPACT version of the M3 here soon, imagine 333hp in a car that has the handling of the M3 but weights probably 300 pounds lighter !!!! 

They already had that here in 2000 and not many people bought it. It was really fast, but nobody liked the styling.

[VS Legend]

For that lightweight BMW thing, they've done the lightweight but not compact M3s before, including the 2003 BMW M3 CSL, only sold in europe I think. It weighed 400 lbs less than the standard 2003 M3 and had an additional 27 horsepower but was actually a teeny bit slower - go figure. It does handle a little better and looks a tidbit different. We'll have to wait and see how the *new* (I use the term lightly) compact version does.

Also, Inline the C55 AMG is an NA V8. And it hasn't existed and won't until 2005 and a new M5 should be surfacing then, too, and actually the current M5 has better consistant magazine times than the C55 AMG to be does so far. The C55 AMGs times run from 4.6 seconds all the way to 5.4 seconds. The absolute direct competition for the M5 and RS6 is the E55 AMG, and it runs a few cents higher than the M5. Of course MB also has the S55 AMG, so they can look at BMW and Audi and say, "pwnd." Also, the C32 AMG is a sedan. If you want an asskicker to more directly compete with the M3 you should look at the CL55 AMG. It will kick the M3s jerk even more.

Edited by Legend854T5R, 28 March 2004 - 05:11 AM.

[InlineTurbo]

My bad. I was thinking CL55 with the supercharged 5.5L. Forgot to type the "L."
We did have the "lightweight" M3 along with the "M" coupe that was very close to what the compact M3 was. Nobody liked the styling.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2000/bmw/m/828...erphoto..0.BMW*

Can't wait to see the new M6 though. That ought to be cool. I love the old 635Csi. Not very fast, but very cool looking.

The most interesting cars though are going to be the Mercedes diesel and the Volvo D5 if they bring it stateside. Tons of torque and 30+ mph for your luxury cruiser.

Edited by InlineTurbo, 28 March 2004 - 05:29 AM.

[VS Legend]

Someone on here's dad has an M Coupe. I almost bought an M Roadster. THOSE were nice.

[JDELUNA]

NM - hadn't seen the link.  And that's 343, not 333hp.

So:

343 * .21 = 72.03 - 343 = 270.97HP.


Booya!

Legend you sure that the USA E46 M3's are stock from the factory at 343hp ??? I really thought they all had 333hp and that the european version had the 343hp. Plus for the 15% I was just going by experience, I had an older 1991 325 5 speed that came stock from the factory with 168hp it dynoed at 143rwhp which is 15%. I would hate to think that the older cars drivetrain were more efficient than the new M3's.