New M3 engine details released
- Thread starter Rotty
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 137
- Location
- Essex
I think the front is nice (not as nice as e46) but the back IMO bares no resemblance to the family whatsoever, not even like the saloon....Spoils it for me...so I shant buy one!! <- sarcasm, I would love one (and just not look at the back)!!
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,775
- Location
- The Planet Houston
Gibbo said:I forsee that the new M3 will be an RS4 killer.
Not really a bold prediction, fella... the M3 has always been an RS4 killer
The RS4 will be ok once they ditch that silly 4WD nonsense and install mansize RWD
Gotta say I'm getting slightly tempted but I don't fancy going back to a regular manual (fixed on SMG now), and I'll struggle to move on from that CSL sound - will BMW ever match that in a road-car? I hope they do but I don't think this M3 will be the one...
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,775
- Location
- The Planet Houston
panthro said:Not many people can afford/warrant the horrific depreciation attached to brand new Sport BMW's
When I buy a car I ask myself "can I afford the asking price".
Gibbo said:I am tempted by one of these, but am amazed BMW only got 295Lb-Ft from a V8 engine, yes it has 250Lb-Ft available from my 2500rpm and its a high revving unit but I've got used to nearly twice the torque but can appreciate that this car will no doubt be absolutely sensational to drive.
It can rev to 8,300 rpm, where the pistons are moving at 20 metres per second and so require quite a short stroke, longer is better for torque but the stress on the pistons and connecting components would be too great, and the engine would never be able to reach those speeds.
![[huzeeee]](/styles/overclockers/avatars/3.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,661
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Surely that peak torque rpm point is wrong. No engine makes peak torque that high with limiter having to be around there. Its around s2000 lbft/litre i guess now. 
Going the better route of lots of revs + short gearbox to fill the midrange i guess rather than a turbo or what not. Much more elegant solution especially when you have the capacity.
What the torque on the e46 lump? Thats a 3.2 isnt it?
Going the better route of lots of revs + short gearbox to fill the midrange i guess rather than a turbo or what not. Much more elegant solution especially when you have the capacity.
What the torque on the e46 lump? Thats a 3.2 isnt it?
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,775
- Location
- The Planet Houston
Jonnycoupe said:
Mine (CSL so slightly more than M3) is 370Nm @ 4900RPM
They've obviously kept the size of the engine to 4L to keep the weight down and, in making sure they attain the required power, the torque has suffered a bit. I note the 4.2L in the RS4 makes the same power but has an extra 30Nm, will be interesting to see how the units compare.Gibbo said:I am tempted by one of these, but am amazed BMW only got 295Lb-Ft from a V8 engine, yes it has 250Lb-Ft available from my 2500rpm and its a high revving unit but I've got used to nearly twice the torque but can appreciate that this car will no doubt be absolutely sensational to drive.
Anyone know how much torque the E39 5L V8 put out? Tuned up, the power is comparable but I'd be interested to see how the torque compares.
I have to say, everyone seemed to rave about the RS4 engine and will no doubt also rave about this one but for me, Porsche are still the kings when it comes to engines. Take the 997 GT3 - 415bhp and 405Nm from a 3.6L six cylinder!
Gibbo said:I am tempted by one of these, but am amazed BMW only got 295Lb-Ft from a V8 engine, yes it has 250Lb-Ft available from my 2500rpm and its a high revving unit but I've got used to nearly twice the torque but can appreciate that this car will no doubt be absolutely sensational to drive.
It won't have the traction problems of the Mustang though
