No compromise: M3 Sedan first drive!

[RC45]

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

[rave426]

Originally Posted by RC45 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.

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.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by rave426 With slighly less wieght, a meaner exhaust note, and over 1000 rpms more. 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?

[79TA]

Originally Posted by rave426 With slighly less wieght, a meaner exhaust note, and over 1000 rpms more. 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.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by 79TA 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.

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



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]

Originally Posted by RC45 I know which power/torque curve I would rather have... 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..

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]

Originally Posted by rave426 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" )

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 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 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 hehe)


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]

Originally Posted by RC45 Please show the math that allows you to come up with that conclusion (not "you" personally, but "them" ) 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 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 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 hehe) 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. 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.