No compromise: M3 Sedan first drive!

[blue8]

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//media/roadtests/firstdrive/2008/bmw.m3.sedan/08.bmw.m3.sedan.act.f34.5.500.jpg
You can never really have too much of a good thing.

Just look at the 2008 BMW M3 Sedan. Introduced as a coupe only six months ago, now it has two more doors and added trunk space to boot. All this without any compromise in performance.

That's what we said to ourselves as the speedometer swung to an indicated 175 mph on the autobahn in Germany this week. And there was another 1,000 rpm to go on the tachometer before the rev limiter could be expected to kick in.

No compromise.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124806#3

[styla21]

Thanks!! Looks great, and eager to see both coupe and sedan with the SMG.:clap:

I am the biggest M fan you will ever meet. I do hope though that BMW don't start producing everything with an m badge - eg. the 3 series station wagon that the article referred to. Leave the sports designation-to-everything to AMG. :thumbdown:

Still, the sedan m3 remains a purists car and can't wait to see them on the road here.

[RC45]

It seems as if this new M3 is the old M5 reborn.

[5vz-fe]

^It is almost the same weight after all.

[rave426]

It seems as if this new M3 is the old M5 reborn.

With slighly less wieght, a meaner exhaust note, and over 1000 rpms more. :mrgreen:

You know whats crazy. If you integrate the area relation of time vs. torqe for first gear. The new M3 actually puts more torque to the ground in first gear than a Corvette Z06. <<< Its all due to the S65's extremly flat touque curve.

[5vz-fe]

^Just for the record, so is a tractor LOL :P~

[RC45]

With slighly less wieght, a meaner exhaust note, and over 1000 rpms more. :mrgreen:

You know whats crazy. If you integrate the area relation of time vs. torqe for first gear. The new M3 actually puts more torque to the ground in first gear than a Corvette Z06. <<< Its all due to the S65's extremly flat touque curve.

Is this "time vs torque" the new version of "hp/l"? A pointless number that doesnt translate to meaningful performance? ;)

[Ghostbat]

Thanks!! Looks great, and eager to see both coupe and sedan with the SMG.:clap:

I am the biggest M fan you will ever meet. I do hope though that BMW don't start producing everything with an m badge - eg. the 3 series station wagon that the article referred to. Leave the sports designation-to-everything to AMG. :thumbdown:

Still, the sedan m3 remains a purists car and can't wait to see them on the road here.

I think they abandoned the SMG for the new M DKG/DCT ("doppelkupplungsgetriebe"/"double clutch transmission").

Oh and if you are such a big M fan maybe you recall previsous M station wagons..

[enzoferrari]

How much?

[79TA]

With slighly less wieght, a meaner exhaust note, and over 1000 rpms more. :mrgreen:

You know whats crazy. If you integrate the area relation of time vs. torqe for first gear. The new M3 actually puts more torque to the ground in first gear than a Corvette Z06. <<< Its all due to the S65's extremly flat touque curve.

Perhaps the best way to get a good time x torque number would be to have a car get bogged down with little torque so it could stay in first gear longer. :laugh:

[RC45]

Perhaps the best way to get a good time x torque number would be to have a car get bogged down with little torque so it could stay in first gear longer. :laugh:

:laugh:

I know which power/torque curve I would rather have...

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/822/z06m3br1.th.jpg (http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=z06m3br1.jpg)

p.s. I had to cobble this together from a metric multiscale M3 chart and an imperial multiscale low resolution chart - so the M3 doesnt cross at 5252. but its as close as I coul dget.. ;)

[rave426]

:laugh:

I know which power/torque curve I would rather have...

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/822/z06m3br1.th.jpg (http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=z06m3br1.jpg)

p.s. I had to cobble this together from a metric multiscale M3 chart and an imperial multiscale low resolution chart - so the M3 doesnt cross at 5252. but its as close as I coul dget.. ;)

:mrgreen: Nice graph.

You guys are missing my point. Its not to say its better or more usable than the Z06, its more for enlightening the fact that the engine is very impressive. Many people who dont understand the science of torque have been complaining about how the engine only produces 295 lb-ft...Yes its a low peak for a V8 like that, but its how its laid to the pavement that matters. A torque curve that flat for an 8400rpm N/A engine is unheard of.

[RC45]

:mrgreen: You guys are missing the point. Its not to say its better or more usable than the Z06, its more for enlightening the fact that the engine is very impressive. Many people who dont understand the science of torque have been complaining about how the engine only produces 295 lb-ft...Yes its a low peak for a V8 like that, but its how its laid to the pavement that matters. h A torque curve that flat for an 8400rpm N/A engine is unheard of. Peak torque is great, but when you think about the fact that the ity bity 4.0L is putting more torque to the ground than a beastly 7.0L in one gear, its rather impressive.

Please show the math that allows you to come up with that conclusion (not "you" personally, but "them" :P)

From what RPM to what RPM is the calculaiton being done?

It appears the LS7 produces as much torque from 1000rpm as the M3 peaks at, and then never gets lower, so I ahve struggling to see how even with an extra 1400rpm there is that much more area aunder the curve... but I am off to do the math :P hehe

[edit] Based roughly on the trapezoid rule it is true that there is more area under the M3's torque curve... 2,163,350 units vs 1,788,750 units... or 17% more "torque under the curve" - but in this case it is a pointless of a number as hp/l ;)

[re-edit] Looks like I had a HUGE error in my math :P The answer bothered me, so I redid it.. and now I get that the area under the Z06 curve is actually 2,666,300 units... or 19% more "torque under the curve"... Do you have the actual number/value being claimed - maybe I am calculating the incorrect thing. :)

Just for shits and giggles I overlaid my curve - 3,195,114 unit under the curve (if this is even a real number :P hehe)
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9440/m3zcamzhz9.th.jpg (http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m3zcamzhz9.jpg)

p.s. Lest anyone think I am "slagging" on the V8 M3, I am not - I am just trying to understand this new "measure of performance" - integrated area of time spent in 1st gear vs the torqe - I think I prefered countering the HP/L claims ;)

[rave426]

Please show the math that allows you to come up with that conclusion (not "you" personally, but "them" :P)

From what RPM to what RPM is the calculaiton being done?

It appears the LS7 produces as much torque from 1000rpm as the M3 peaks at, and then never gets lower, so I ahve struggling to see how even with an extra 1400rpm there is that much more area aunder the curve... but I am off to do the math :P hehe

[edit] Based roughly on the trapezoid rule it is true that there is more area under the M3's torque curve... 2,163,350 units vs 1,788,750 units... or 17% more "torque under the curve" - but in this case it is a pointless of a number as hp/l ;)

[re-edit] Looks like I had a HUGE error in my math :P The answer bothered me, so I redid it.. and now I get that the area under the Z06 curve is actually 2,666,300 units... or 19% more "torque under the curve"... Do you have the actual number/value being claimed - maybe I am calculating the incorrect thing. :)

Just for shits and giggles I overlaid my curve - 3,195,114 unit under the curve (if this is even a real number :P hehe)
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/9440/m3zcamzhz9.th.jpg (http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m3zcamzhz9.jpg)

p.s. Lest anyone think I am "slagging" on the V8 M3, I am not - I am just trying to understand this new "measure of performance" - integrated area of time spent in 1st gear vs the torqe - I think I prefered countering the HP/L claims ;)

LOL. Its not a new measure of performance. Its just a caclulation one of the guys I know performed. I never did it myself. I could, but I guess I never felt the need to.:thumbup: Actually running around today at work, thinking........The only way this may be true is if the guy calculated area from the point of where torque is initially developed and scaled lineraly in the horizontal direction and made and end point verticaly aligned to the point where torque ended.

Sh*T..........I REALLY dont feel like doing integration. I'll have to see this for myself now. :-P

[79TA]

Yea, the bimmer has a nice flat torque curve and I commend them for it. However, I believe the best way to get a good torque x time number is to just get bogged down longer. For instance, I could leave my Trans Am at 2200 rpm where it makes 320 pound-feet of torque (rpm can be constant as it accelerates because it's an automatic; the torque converter does the work) and probably own the vette and bimmer. Part of this is due to the fact that I only have 3 gears (4 speed auto swap coming in the future after engine swap) so it'll take longer to get to second.

[blue8]

http://www1.autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/109306_450.jpg
http://www1.autozeitung.de/online/bildDB/109336_450.jpg
M3 (E90) vs C63 AMG
Overview: http://www1.autozeitung.de/online/render.php?render=115947 Results: http://www1.autozeitung.de/online/render.php?render=115950

[nthfinity]

I think they abandoned the SMG for the new M DKG/DCT ("doppelkupplungsgetriebe"/"double clutch transmission").

Oh and if you are such a big M fan maybe you recall previsous M station wagons..

Why are all of your posts lately attacking members here?