with all the talk about high performance cars lately, the topic of torque has come up quite a few times, especially the lack of tq on the m3 compares to the is-f and of course the massive c63.

i was reading around and found the following thread which i find very interesting. apparently when measuring the real tq at the wheels, the m3 actually isn't bad at all, thanks to its high rev design and also gearing selection

think it's a pretty good read
http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showthread.php?t=23608

 

This is why I've always said the newer GS350/IS350s are faster than the 2nd gen GS400/430 despite having a disadvantage torque figure. Gearing can make up for the torque deficit through torque multiplication. Sure you lose a bit of top end, but thats where the extra revs come in handy. Cars like the M3 and S2000 may not have a lot of engine torque, but their awesome short gear ratios and high revs works so nicely together.

 

i don't know enough about the s2k to comment, but for sure the high rev in my m3 helps a lot when i am pushing it. the car just seems to keep on pulling and pulling

i didn't know much about details, but some guys on that forum seem to be very knowledgeable and i learned a few things

 

Nice find on with the site. True gear heads on that board.

 

I've driven both the latest-generation 335i and the M3, and, to me, the 335i felt just as strong, as not stronger, as an M3 at low and mid-range RPMs. I don't know exactly how much torque is actually reaching the wheels, but the published figures of the twin-turbo 335i's 305 ft-lbs, compared to the M3's 295, felt pretty accurate. Of course, at higher speeds and engine RPM's, the M3 much stronger 414 HP (to the 335i's 305) then catches up and overtakes it. But the M3's max HP, like the Honda S2000 and the post-2000 Toyota Celica GT, comes at close to a stratospheric 8000 RPM, which, IMO, is impractical for day-to-day driving.

 

sweet thread.

now where's my nerd stamp . . .

 

hehe, if you want, just stay around 5000rpm and that's more than enough

 

There is nothing really new in the thread there. Perhaps it makes it easier to read or understand but it boils down to high revving engines using shorter gearing. Taken to the extreme it is the old F1 19K RPM with little TQ but plenty to the "wheels".

If you do the graph the IS-F comes out looking pretty good thanks to the 8 ratios. Put the IS350 final drive in and it would be "even better".

 

so are you going to change out the rear end?

well i always know about the high rev and short gears on the m3 helps, but i see a lot of people complaining about the low tq on the m3 so thought this would be interesting to show people how that doesn't necessarily matter

 

Seems to support why the BMW, Audi, and Merc diesels arriving on US shores are ALL automatics..........

 

There are exceptions, but, in general, automatics, especially conventional, torque-converter automatics, can handle large amounts of torque without undue wear or damage better then manuals. That's because the fluid inside the torque-converter box absorbs and re-distributes some of the torque load, instead of funneling it all directly onto the clutch disc and pressure-plate. BMW, for its M-cars, a few years back, did come up with some SMT automated-manual transmissions that could handle high torque, but they had unacceptable harshness and shift characteristics that were the subject of numerous customer complaints, and were dropped. Now, BMW, I understand, is working in dual-clutch automanual designs, with much better shift characteristics than the old SMT, like the superb VW/Audi DSG.

 

Between the economy/job market, stock market, still having the GS400 and getting ready for the first of three to hit college I'm holding back on the mods.

But as with the GS before it a real LSD (with different ratio), exhaust, suspension and lighted door sills (extra HP! ) are the four mods I would make.

 

Very interesting post.

I think while there are true enthusiasts for ultra high performance cars out there, most of us are probably just too caught up with this "lack of torque" belief when it comes to every day driving.

Less than 2 decades ago, even GM's own big DeVille/Fleetwood with 4.5 liter V8 (245lbs of torque) and the updated 4.9 liter V8 (275lbs of torque) had less torque than the current M3. And even back then 275lbs of torque was more than enough to move these big front wheel driven Caddies swiftly (if not quickly).

Move the clock to present day. You have the M3 (which interestingly, weighs just as much as (if not more than) the old Caddy FWD Deville/Fleetwood). But it has 400hp instead of Caddy's 180hp/200hp.

Additionally, even the Merc. E420's V8 engine from the late 90s didn't generate more than 295lbs of torque. And this was supposed to be a car that was considered one of the quickest sedans back then

I think even with spirited drivers 295lbs of torque is more than adequate. I am also pretty certain that the V8 powered M3 doesn't have to spend the most of its life running its engine at more than 5k RPM if it's just a daily driver.

Jon

I do have to admit though... the higher capacity V8s from other manufacturers may generate these figures at lower RPMs than the M3 does. But still....

 

I see the point made but the stock c6 vette still dusted the M3 on the freeway. I saw the video and I was surprised, but none the less the M3 got its *** handed to it. High revving will not get you out of every jam , its good to have ***** ( torque) as opposed to having to ring the damn cars neck to extract maximum acceleration. I am thinking in terms of the c63 AMG benz that shames the M3 when it comes to torque. The benz has solid gearing as well AND torque. The M3 is a scalpel, the C63 is a sword

most racing that goes down will happen from a stop light or while cruising on the freeway. I cant think of any instance where the massive increase in torque wouldnt help. The M3 is better for track days, the Benz is better for everything else.