2009 BMW M3 Sedan: Making Sweet Dyno Music

Looking at the tortured sheetmetal I recall the post on how good looking the G8 was. Doesn't the G8 GXP put out similar numbers?

Mikeolan, the G8 GXP has a 6.2L pushrod V8, that cranks out the same hp, but also 415 lbft of torque. I'm not sure what the red line on the LS3 in the GXP is. Both make a lot of power, but in different ways.

Wow, that video gives me goosebumps!

@adrean8j: There's a speech that was cut from "Pulp Fiction" where Mrs. Wallace (Uma Thurman) tells Vincent Vega (John Travolta) that there are Elvis fans and Beatles fans. Beatles fans can like Elvis, Elvis fans can like the Beatles, but somewhere deep inside, everyone makes a choice.

The same can be said of turbo and NA fans. We can (and will) endlessly discuss and compare the virtues and pitfalls of the N54 v the S54 or S65 and the like, but deep down everyone's already made their choice, and there will be no converts.

you can HEAR the refinement of this car.

And people say these engines make good torque at higher revs only.

It's not that engine doesn't possess a relatively flat torque band, it's that the engine simply doesn't have that much of it offer. For 95% of buyers, the turbo 6 would be a superior engine for 95% of driving circumstances. I still fail to see the benefit of super high revving high specific output low displacement engines. They sacrifice torque for revs, they burn just as much if not more fuel than a larger displacement engine of equal horsepower and they are more tempermental. Plus larger displacement engines simply sound much better no matter how you slice it. The AMG 6.2 sounds infinitely better yet still has a nice lofty 7000+ rpm redline. That is what I call an engine that has ZERO compromises. Basically with this M3 engine, all you are paying for are those "exotic" noises at the extreme tip of its rev range.

I agree chavis10, but I would still like to take a broken-in M3 for a spin! If I bought a BMW it would be the 335i.

Yeah- so would I. But the bottom line is this: if you're gonna install a V8 in a car, make sure it has some balls and a proper exhaust note. This isn't formula one- small V8s are for sissies.

@epbrown: My point was not about converting a M3 buyer into a 135/335 buyer. I just think it would be an interesting comparison/discussion given the virtues of BOTH engines. I do not think the same could be said of turbo vs. NA fans either....as I have had both and enjoy both. The Uma Thurman statement is purposefully ambiguous....

Not that I can afford either, but both those engines are at the apex of human engineering and technology. I would hate to lose either one to economic or environmental considerations. It's like the Les Paul and Stratocaster guitars. Different, but you need at least one or two of both. Or, a hybrid of both like the 4.4 liter...

What happens at 6700 to crank the power up again? Looks sort of like a larger version of the Honda SI 2 liter with a cam switch...

@chavis

Small v8's are for people that are smarter than you...

I don't know what balls yall are talkin about but if they can get you to 60 in 4.1 sec then, hell, sign me fuck up.

There are some quite misinformed statements bing made above. Don't care enough to dispute them, but for an interesting discussion of the characteristics of the new M3 engine this is an interesting read:
http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showthread.php?t=23608

Woah, a 1.05 correction factor? Last time I ran a car at MD it was close to 70F with 30-40% humidity and the correction factor was 0.97 using the new SAE corrections (which correct to something like 89F standard now). How hot was it?

I say this because usually 360 something is a good number for the M3 on a dynojet, and I've seen them dyno even lower.

Some have asked what the point of a high revving V8 is, and how big v-8's and turbo's are so much better.
Let me put it this way:
///M (i.e. high-revving) is for tracking
Turbo is for impressing
AMG is for enhancing... what is lacking.

BTW epbrown, you are SO right.

i. love. that. car.

zacbol very interesting link. I don't know if it is all correct, but still interesting.

Dyno the SMART car already. Word on the street is that it's motor is underrated.

"Wow, that video gives me goosebumps!"

Although one has to respect the performance those large displacement push rod V8's can dish out there is just something about a small displacement, high output, high revving engine that give me those same goosebumps BimmerJay.

Like the way the engine note hardens as one approaches the rev limiter yet these engines seems like they could rev and pull forever. BMW, Ferrari and BMW have executed that feeling perfectly while providing the expected refinement at any engine speed.

"Yeah- so would I. But the bottom line is this: if you're gonna install a V8 in a car, make sure it has some balls and a proper exhaust note. This isn't formula one- small V8s are for sissies."

Chavis, its all boils down to personal preference as there is nothing sissy about the M3's V8.

"BMW, Ferrari and BMW have executed that feeling perfectly while providing the expected refinement at any engine speed."

That should have said "BMW, Ferrari and Honda..."

"I still fail to see the benefit of super high revving high specific output low displacement engines."

Some people get it some don't. There is no real benefit in performance having a low displacement high output engine however its the finesse, the intense rush to red line, the music they make and the hummingbird like character they possess that attracts me. Its as if these types of engines are always wanting to play instead of loafing along in 6th gear/70mph @ 1300rpm. Sure these engine may get worse gas mileage due to tighter gearing, however, Id take revs over brute torque anyway.

chavis10 , come down south and I'll take you on a lap around the track in my "sissy' car

the c63 has a slushbox only. if that doesn't define "sissy" I don't know what does

"chavis10 , come down south and I'll take you on a lap around the track in my "sissy' car"

I'd pack some Depends in case Chavis forgets his...;)

roadburner and his junior high associates are full of wisecracks and juvenile commentary but no one has offered anything resembling a logical explanation of why we need small V8s. Someone quoted a 4.1 sec 0-60 time and that is by far the best time ever listed for this M3. Most times are in the 4.5-4.7 sec range which is slightly faster than the 4000lb Camaro. Small displacement would be nice if it offered any efficiency benefit but it doesn't because the M3's mileage is the same as the 4000lb G8 GXP and worse than that of the Camaro.

The point of this engine is BMW having bragging rights, nothing more. The sound is nice as long as you compare it to V6s or the 335i. Its quite underwhelming when compared to any American V8s or the AMG V8. The AMG V8 is superior in every way and the C63 has consistently put up low 4 second range 0-60 sprints. The Mustang GT500 sounds much more masculine and has one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard.

"Sure these engine may get worse gas mileage due to tighter gearing, however, Id take revs over brute torque anyway."

Why? You act like torque is a dirty thing. If it was dirty BMW wouldnt be serving up loads of it in the twin turbo I6 and V8. BMW is abandoning the philosophy that so many here are defending. If the small displacement, high revving engine thing is as great as you all say why is BMW going in a different direction?

"the c63 has a slushbox only. if that doesn't define "sissy" I don't know what does"

Bet the C63 driver would beat a manual shifting M4 driver 9 times out of 10. The thing about "sissy" slushboxes in powerful cars is that they virtually guarantee top performance every time you drive the car. Even car magazine editors cannot launch manual equipped cars correctly all the time and they drive sticks for a living.

1487- in response to your torque comments

The reason why most every car mags love the m3 is not about just the engine.

it is the package. The car has great neutral handling, is luxurious, and is whatever you and wherever you want it to be.

Stick that camaro to the track with the m3 and i'm sure you'll have to baby that torque so much it negates its worth.

same with the AMG- that car has no control.

what's the point with torque if the car cannot control it?

the m3 is the best package- pratically any option you want, you can get
Carbon fiber roof (2 door), great stereo, nav, pdc, rtt, double clutch tranny, manual tranny, etc.

Your comments and personal attacks seem to be as narrow minded as a straight line track or a nascar oval- that's why the camaro is the best car for you.

btw, I don't drive the e90 m3.

"Why? You act like torque is a dirty thing. If it was dirty BMW wouldnt be serving up loads of it in the twin turbo I6 and V8. BMW is abandoning the philosophy that so many here are defending. If the small displacement, high revving engine thing is as great as you all say why is BMW going in a different direction?"

1487, I never said I didnt like torque or that its was a bad thing, I just prefer revs over large amounts of displacement. The M3s 295ftlbs is plenty for me as it provides sufficient torque FOR ITS DISPLACEMENT while delivering a flat torque curve validated by the graph above. No one here said that small displacement engines offer any benefits or are superior to the larger engines as they just stated their preference of the smaller engines. Did you even bother to read WHY I prefer the smaller displacement, high revving engines?

As for BMW going a different direction, maybe with the more mainstream offerings (due to the larger 3.5-3.7L V6 competition) but I dont see BMW going with the torque rich turbocharged engines with the M3/5/6 as high revs have always been part of those packages. Yes, the X5/6 M use an upgraded version of the V8TT found in the 750 however they are VERY heavy vehicles which require large amounts of torque for motivation. In those applications the V8TT makes sense vs a small displacement high revver.

"Bet the C63 driver would beat a manual shifting M4 driver 9 times out of 10. The thing about "sissy" slushboxes in powerful cars is that they virtually guarantee top performance every time you drive the car. Even car magazine editors cannot launch manual equipped cars correctly all the time and they drive sticks for a living."

1487, concentrating on one area of performance is stupid as all around performance should be the base on which a vehicle is judged by. That said, the M3 was designed to be a fast drivers car and would have little issue in outperforming a C63 when one takes the time and considers all around performance. Yes, the C63 is faster vs the M3 however the M3 easily gains that ground back (and then some) with its superior driving dynamics and handling capabilities.

I get so irritated with "people" who always compare large V8's with much smaller displacement engines and claim "they have no torque". Common sense should tell anyone that a substantially larger displacement V8 will have substantially more torque than one with much less displacement. Its not rocket science, some engineering breakthrough nor is it exclusive to GM V8's.

Mercedes 6.2 V8 - 518hp @ 6800/465ftlbs @ 5200
Corvette 7.0 V8 - 505hp @ 6300/470ftlbs @ 4800

The Corvette Z06 has 8/10ths of an advantage in displacement yet only produces 5ftlbs more peak torque.

Before the physical size and weight subject surfaces, Im fully aware the GM pushrod engine is lighter and more compact than most DOHC/SOHC V8's of similar and smaller displacement however its actual output isnt all that impressive given its size. In terms of fuel efficiency, large pushrod V8s and super long gears will have an advantage, however 6th gear is nearly useless. Again, its not rocket science.

As said before, I have no issues with the larger V8s as they provide blistering performance, however I...ME....Lawrence Patrick Redden... prefer the wild, dual character of a well executed small displacement high revver.

Best sounding V8 at full song = Ferrari F355!

achenator, I already have a vacation planned for the summer but thanks for the invite.

Okay since you fine gentleman have a problem staying on task let's revist my comments. I made a simple statement than none other than HondAcura has addressed. Instead I got fluff such as this intelligent statement:

"Let me put it this way:
///M (i.e. high-revving) is for tracking
Turbo is for impressing
AMG is for enhancing... what is lacking."

and this:

"@chavis

Small v8's are for people that are smarter than you..."

Let's try full sentances next time if we are going to question one's intelligence. Just a little food for thought there pal.

saving the best for last:

"I'd pack some Depends in case Chavis forgets his...;)"

Thanks Mr Roadburner but I'm incomplete control of my sphincter muscle. I really appreciate your invaluable input on the subject. I think I'm finally seeing the light.

Back on topic.

The M3's engine is in essence what Honda would've built if they ever attempted to mass produce a V8 engine. That fact in itself lacks any sort of appeal to me. Audi's high output 4.2L sounds infinitely better and has similar output so if I absolutely had to have this kind of engine, the Audi wins.

When someone can give me a tangible advantage to a low torque motor that revs to 8400rpm versus an engine that provides no compromise, I will acquiesce and shut up. I have feeling no one can because here's the newsflash fellas, there isn't one. Basically, I hear people making a bunch of excuses. The AMG V8 has it all: power, torque, sound and a relatively high redline. That is what I call a V8 with balls. Heck, even the 3.8L flat six in the 911 sounds manlier than the M V8. Coincidentally, it produces almost as much horsepower and get this, MORE torque than the larger displacement V8 M3.

"...but both those engines are at the apex of human engineering and technology."

Think you might want to retract that statement. The M3 lacks direct injection and variable valve lift which allows the 6 cylinder porchse to approach its power and exceed its torque. hmm...

I see it's difficult for certain emotional individuals to have a simple conversation about cars without getting their feelings hurt so, I apologive. I assumed we were all adults. I forgot that any criticism of BMW products is taken as a personal strike against their fans and owners.

PS- since when did Edmunds allow people to drop F bombs in these treads?

Those are pretty amazing numbers, the strongest by far that I've seen for a stock car on a Dynojet. Are they SAE corrected???

chavis: For one, M3 engine does come with double-VANOS, which is stepless variable valve lift so you are pulling stuff out of your behind left and right. You seem clueless about the philosophy of "high-speed" engine concepts. You seem to be spreading completely misinformation here. Ever wonder why a Porsche 911 GT3 with 435 HP and 317 ft-lbs of torque with only 3.8 Liter engine royally whoops a C6 Corvette (non-Z06) in a straight line (around a race track destroys) having a whopping 100 ft-lbs of torque more??? Secret is, extreme gearing, high-revs, light weight. All of these are tied with small displacement high-revving engines. Nothing sounds better than a GT3 screaming down the road at 8500 rpm. Lazy slow revving, farty, low-revving, torquey AMG and muscle car engines cannot even dream of sounding this good.

Maybe, if you had studied physics and engineering, you would be a little better versed about why high-revving engines are used in just about all the leading racing applications (F1 racing cars, Le Mans Porsche 911 GT3, Exotic Supercars, even ancient Engineering NASCARS rev up to 9000 rpm and the list goes on).

M3 is considered (and always has been) the benchmark in the class. It whoops just about every car in its class around a race-track. A high-revving engine is primarily designed to make a car fast through using lots of high-revs. High-revs allow for short gearing, which means a lot more torque to the wheels. Remember gears are "torque multipliers". That is why high-revving cars are a lot more aggressively geared for acceleration because having a huge rev range allows them to have shortest possible gearing. Crank torque means absolutely nothing without taking into account final drive/axle ratio/gear ratios.

Regarding why small displacement high-revving high horsepower engines make it much better for big fat, torquey because they are much lighter. Their internals must be lightened to make them rev freely, which means much lower engine weight. That is why E90 M3 weighs only 3600 lbs and C63 AMG is a fat pig at 4100 lbs. Light weight high-revving engine also allow 50/50 weight distribution. Having a big fat lump of an engine with big displacement over the front axle ruins balance and handling. No wonder C63 handles like sh*t compared to M3. A lot of torque means the internals must be heavy to sustain the torque, which means a lot heavier engines. High-revving engines also have much better throttle response and throttle control at high-revs that fat, torquey engines cannot even dream of.

This is just a short summary, I could go on forever about why high-revving engines are much superior to large displacement engines when everything is concerned such as, lightweight, handling, control, throttle response and straight line speed.

Chavis: You lost all your credibility the moment you said the M3 engine does not have variable valve lift. What the F is high-pressure double-VANO then to you?? Do you know what the F that means??? I am sure you don't!

SGet it in your thick dumb skull, the M3 V8 and M5 V10 have won countless "engine of the year" awards in their respective classes. That is because they are engineering marvels. They are lighter than just about every other engine in their respective classes, yet they incorporate all the latest technologies such as, double-VANOS, individual throttle butterflies, heck even the spark plugs lead a double life of having sensors as well as sparks.

"The M3's engine is in essence what Honda would've built if they ever attempted to mass produce a V8 engine. That fact in itself lacks any sort of appeal to me."

Chavis, just because small high revving engines dont appeal to you doesnt mean their useless or unecessary to everyone else. If everyone liked the same things the world would be a very.. very boring place.

"Audi's high output 4.2L sounds infinitely better and has similar output so if I absolutely had to have this kind of engine, the Audi wins."

I will admit the Audi does have a somewhat better soundtrack and they make similar power but I believe the BMW has a flatter torque curve although it produces less peak torque.

1487, I could better see and possbibly agree with your point if the AMG V8 had similar displacment vs the M3 however it has a whopping 2.2L displacement advantage which explains WHY it makes significantly more torque. If you or Chavis require a valid reason why BMW chose the high revving route for this application..its actually pretty simple.

AMG cars have.. for the most part, always taken the more "classic domestic approach" when it came to performance cars. Large displacement torque rich engines with blistering straightline acceleration is what draws people to AMG cars. BMW however uses a different approach to achieve their performance goals as ///M's overall perpective and philosophy in regards to performance cars obviously is different vs AMG. ///M focuses much more on the balance of power and handling while adding several degrees of finesse, poise and chassis balance AMG just cant match.

The 4.0L was used as its much lighter than the larger 6.2 AMG V8 which aids in overall (lower) weight and provides much better weight distribution. Of course its smaller displacement means it has to rev to make enough power to be competitive although the C63 is still faster. Yes, BMW could have stuck a (DOHC) 6.2L V8 lump in its nose while at the same time diminishing its handling advantage and ruining its weight distribution, but why in the hell do that?

This M3 vs C63 comparison further validates my claim from above as both drivers said just about the same things I have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80Wi7gdRx2Y

Furthermore, Direct Injection is really not all that. It's great for turbo engine, but clearly for normally aspirated applications normal injection works just fine.

Wow, some heated disagreements here :)

Couple of things. First, VANOS has historically been cam phasing only. Valvetronic was BMWs continuously variable lift and duration setup. In looking at the pictures of the disassembled E92 M3 engine, I see no evidence that it uses variable lift/duration. Not saying I'm right, but take a good look.

Second, while I'm a lover of high revving engines (owning, among other things, a couple of S2000s), more displacement, within reason, is usually a better thing. Before anyone gets too upset, let me explain. Generally, increasing displacement by a modest amount doesn't net much, if any weight penalty. For example, Honda's transition from the F20 to the F22 on the S2000 did not increase weight at all, but netted more torque and power (despite ratings) and made for a generally better car. We were among the first to convert our S2000 race car from F20 to F22 years ago and even with a modest weight penalty from the sanctioning body, we cleaned up against the smaller displacement S2000 competition (and everyone else).

Third, the appeal to the wisdom of racecars which use high revving engines is a bit misleading. I'm not aware of too many racing series that do not regulate displacement. If displacement is regulated, and you increase compression to the limits of your fuel, the only way to get more power is to increase rpms. Thus, it is the regulations of the series and the need to beat the competition that drives the increase in rpms in those series. In the few series that allow varying displacement (usually with restrictors - say, LeMans) the large displacement engines are usually far easier to drive thanks to a more favorable torque curve (more on this assertion in a second).

In conclusion, I'm a fan of high revving engines that require some driver involvement to extract the most from - I've put my money where my mouth is there. But in general, all things being equal in the application of modern technology and design principles (and they never are of course), the small to negligible weight penalty incurred by modest displacement increases (in my opinion less than 25-30%) is more than offset by the increased power, torque and overall power band. This is doubly so in cars that must see use in daily driving, stop and go traffic, etc. And even in race venues, the extra torque allows the bigger displacement car to better handle traffic, passing situations, and the like.

i've driven a broken in s54 and s65 along with owning a n54. in terms of butt dyno, the turbo car FEELS the fastest, in terms of how hard you were pushed into the seat. howveer i know that the s54 will keep up and the s65 will walk away, but the push from torque in the n54 is more noticeable

as far as overall impressions, the n54 makes speed seem casual. the high revving engines are tons of fun to walk through, but you KNOW when you're moving. that being said, i like them overall more than the turbo. you need to exploit the proper gear to speed ratios to have a fun time.

FINALLY...bmw themselves have said that this will be the only m3 with a v-8...switching a to high output/low weight turbo in the future...

"Couple of things. First, VANOS has historically been cam phasing only. Valvetronic was BMWs continuously variable lift and duration setup. In looking at the pictures of the disassembled E92 M3 engine, I see no evidence that it uses variable lift/duration. Not saying I'm right, but take a good look."

Correct, Valvetronic (continuously variable throttle-less lift) is NOT on the S65 V8 or S85 V10. It is also not fitted to the N54 twin-turbo I6 in the 335i.

The reasons are pretty simple. Valvetronic requires heavier, "slower" valve springs that ultimately limit the max RPM of an engine. The primary purpose of the system is efficiency, not power. Losing the throttle plate reduces pumping losses (which is completely redundant on a force-fed engine like the N54, which is why it's not fitted), but it also adds weight and height. Currently the N52/N53 2nd gen Valvetronic I6 engines are optimized about at the limit of throttle-less efficiency vs. RPM limits.

Limiting redline to less than 7,000 would not do on an ///M engine. Throttle response is paramount to efficiency, which is also one of the reasons why there are 8 individual throttles on the S65.

Thanks for confirming that bimmerjay. To expand upon what you said, the problem with Valvetronic is that the mass being controlled by the valve springs is huge relative to more traditional implementations. That whole secondary rocker/follower between the cam and the "normal" valve actuator has to at least double the weight controlled by each spring. Valvetrain mass is a killer in high rpm engines. I think that might be why Honda shelved or at least delayed their A-VTEC setup. Honda has made a living on high revving engines and if the new technology wouldn't allow that, what's the point (for them)?

"The reason why most every car mags love the m3 is not about just the engine.

it is the package. The car has great neutral handling, is luxurious, and is whatever you and wherever you want it to be."

we were only talking about the engine, I am aware of what the car offers from a handling perspective. And the M3 is hardly luxurious, the interior is barely a step up from a $30k 128i. Its amazing that the Corvette is dogged for its interior while the M3 offers little more than an expanse of black plastic and vinyl and is called "luxurious".

Futhermore, everything I've read suggests that the X5M is previewing future M powertrains. I think its time to get used to change we can believe in. BMW is the same company that used to downplay AMG engines for using forced induction. Now BMW is using turbos on two of its engines. I'm not sure there is a law that says M vehicle have to feature high revving naturally aspirated engines. A turbo V8 would be more tractable, cheaper and far more torque rich. Expect the next gen M5 to have one and a lower redline.

"chavis: For one, M3 engine does come with double-VANOS, which is stepless variable valve lift so you are pulling stuff out of your behind left and right. You seem clueless about the philosophy of "high-speed" engine concepts"

Double VANOS is for CAM PHASING aka variable valve timing you moron. I am talking about VALVE LIFT ie Honda VTEC and Porsche VarioCam PLUS. Do some research you idiot. BMW's valvetronic features variable valve lift but the hardware is so cumbersome that it cannot handle the extreme redlines of M engines. BMW acknowledges this and that's why Valvetronic is not fitted to any engine that redlines over 7000rpm.

"Chavis: You lost all your credibility the moment you said the M3 engine does not have variable valve lift. What the F is high-pressure double-VANO then to you?? Do you know what the F that means??? I am sure you don't!"

I lost all credibility yet you don't even know what features the M3 engines has. The M3 has stepless variable valve timing NOT LIFT. Honda's VTEC (some versions), Infiniti's VVEL, BMW's Valvetronic and Porsche VarioCam Plus have variable valve LIFT which varies the height the intake valve actually opens as well as the timing/duration of the valve event. Some of these engines have seperate cam profiles for high and low rpm while others are continuously variable. The M3 does NOT have this feature. Research next time and save yourself from looking like a moron.

Sheesh- some people seem to have money than brains around here.

"Your comments and personal attacks seem to be as narrow minded as a straight line track or a nascar oval- that's why the camaro is the best car for you."

First of all we are talking about ENGINES, not the cars in general. YOu are out of touch with reality if you believe that I am arguing that the Camaro handles better than the M3 or that its a better overall car. I merely suggested that the LS3 and the AMG 6.2L V8 are superior to the M3's V8. The only thing they dont' do is redline at 8300rpm which is meaningless to me. The C63 lacks the overall chassis balance of the M3 but its no slouch and its engine packs a superior punch down low. Both German engines are relatively inefficient when you consider the weight of the cars they propel. The Camaro is heavier than both and yet gets better mileage in spite of being down one gear to the C63 and having more power than the M3.

"FINALLY...bmw themselves have said that this will be the only m3 with a v-8...switching a to high output/low weight turbo in the future..."

Thank you for confirming this.

HondaAcura:

You need to update your perceptions of AMG cars. While the large AMG models like the S63 and SL63 are too heavy and clumsy to be truly sporting the C63 is very close to the M3 in terms of handling and performance. The fact that it lacks a manual tranny and redlines at "only" 7200rpm is a major reason why car magazines are going to give the nod to the M3. Everyone seems to agree the C63 is the best handling AMG car ever. Its also faster than the M3 in most tests. I think we all understand that the 6.2L V8 is larger than the 4L V8 in the M3 but that doesnt mean you give up anything with the larger engine. The point is there are NO compromises with the larger V8. I wouldn't call the 6.2L V8 boring simply because it has displacement and abundant torque output.

"Chavis, just because small high revving engines dont appeal to you doesnt mean their useless or unecessary to everyone else. If everyone liked the same things the world would be a very.. very boring place. "

Honda- I always respect your opinions because despite the fact that we never agree, you don't have a complex like some idiots on this thread. We never seem to agree but we always tend to acknowledge either other's posts. That said, I said I simply to get the appeal but I never said the engine didn't deliver. I just prefer high torque as opposed to high rpm. I inferred that the AMG V8 is the best of both worlds and has no compromises so that is why I favor that type of engine. Unfortunately, the fanatics (who coincidentally don't even know the features of the engine they are supporting) can't have a civil conversation. One in fact questioned my handle of engineering and physics. Too bad has hasn't been around long enough to learn and missed all those discussions from years past.

Bimmerjay, thanks for clearing that up for these fanboys. I didn't see your post when I wrote my last few.

People, first of all relax. The example of the GT3 will be omitted because that is a dedicated race machine meant for the track. ANyone driving that everyday over pot hole laden streets is simply showing off. I gave an example of an engine meant for regular street driving that has a smaller displacement, lower weight, less cylinders, more torque and almost equal horsepower than no one has addressed. The current 3.8L flat six installed in the 911. It has a high redline as well. How is the M3's engine being out torqued by a naturally aspirated 6 cylinder? The answer is that the 911's engine has two very effective features that the M3 lacks; variable valve lift and direct injection. Notice BMW employs these technologies in other engines but the M3's specific purpose built design means it can't accommodate these modern features. To me, that is a compromise.

Ultra high revving engines are great if your into the sort of thing. But give me roughly 7000rpm and a boat of torque anyday. I don't drive around racetracks, never will, and my dream car only has a 6200 rpm redline (CTS-V) but 551 lbs-ft. I have a good feeling I'll appreciate that figure a lot more than a 8400 rpm redline.

If I HAD to have any BMW, it would be the 335i coupe, not the M3.

"Sheesh- some people seem to have money than brains around here. "

Its always funny when people think that bank account size (or perceived wealth) is equivalent to intelligence. Lebron James can afford to buy a fleet of M3s and yet it doesn't mean he has a clue how the car works or what technology it offers.

"The 4.0L was used as its much lighter than the larger 6.2 AMG V8 which aids in overall (lower) weight and provides much better weight distribution. Yes, BMW could have stuck a (DOHC) 6.2L V8 lump in its nose while at the same time diminishing its handling advantage and ruining its weight distribution, but why in the hell do that?"

What is the weight distribution of the C63 vs M3? The G8 is around 52/48 which is very close to the 51/49 of most BMWs and the G8 has a 6.2L lump in the engine bay. Most performance oriented RWD cars have no more than 52% of their weight resting on the front tires. There are numerous ways to achieve weight balance and its not all dependent on the weight of the engine. On top of that the engine is the heaviest component in a car and yet the M3 isn't much lighter than the C63. The Vette has a LS3 "lump" under the hood and weighs about 3200lbs. How many European sports cars with smaller DOCH V8s weigh less? Few, if any.

The M3's V8 claim to fame are it's individual throttles per cylinder. This maximizes airflow and throttle response because the air is entering the combustion chamber locally as opposed to being routing through a central throttle body and the associated tube work. Therefore, the engine also has the most airflow it can handle at any given time. Conversly, 7.0L V8 in the Z06 gets starved for air because of its two valve per cylinder design. For those claiming that small engines are necessary for high RPM limits behold, I am going to expose that myth. Many people don't know this but when GM developed the LS7, it was sucessfully tested with an 8000 rpm redline. Some of mules were evaluated with this fuel cut-off rpm and they had no problems. The titanium rods, intake valves and hypereutectic pistons had such little mass that this was not at all an issue. The reason is was dailed back to 7000rpm was because the engine could not make any more power above 7k due to airflow starvation. Since the engine has fixed timing, the only away around this would've been to swap in a super high lift long duration (ie lumpy) cam that was deemed to crude for a street production vehicle. Basically, it would've been making a lot of noise but no more power.

The M3's V8 claim to fame are it's individual throttles per cylinder. This maximizes airflow and throttle response because the air is entering the combustion chamber locally as opposed to being routing through a central throttle body and the associated tube work. Therefore, the engine also has the most airflow it can handle at any given time. Conversly, 7.0L V8 in the Z06 gets starved for air because of its two valve per cylinder design. For those claiming that small engines are necessary for high RPM limits behold, I am going to expose that myth. Many people don't know this but when GM developed the LS7, it was sucessfully tested with an 8000 rpm redline. Some of mules were evaluated with this fuel cut-off rpm and they had no problems. The titanium rods, intake valves and hypereutectic pistons had such little mass that this was not at all an issue. The reason is was dailed back to 7000rpm was because the engine could not make any more power above 7k due to airflow starvation. Since the engine has fixed timing, the only away around this would've been to swap in a super high lift long duration (ie lumpy) cam that was deemed to crude for a street production vehicle. Basically, it would've been making a lot of noise but no more power.

fa1:

You are wrong about a lot of things but I will correct you about the 911 being faster than the C6. The 911 is always faster to 60 because the engine sits on the rear and gives the car better traction. If you really want to see how the 911 stacks up to the C6 in terms of engine performace check out quarter mile times. The Corvette cannot effectively compete with rear or mid engined cars in 0-60 times. MAny cars can match the ZR1 in 0-60 but the stoy changes when the Zr1 is flying through the quarter mile at 128mpg leaving higher priced Euro exotics in its wake. The 911's acceleration advantage at speeds under 80-100mph has nothing to do with superior engine technology.

"M3 is considered (and always has been) the benchmark in the class. It whoops just about every car in its class around a race-track. "

Can it beat a CTS-V around a track in spite of having 600lbs less weight to drag around? Just curious.

1487- people will say the Vette is light because it's a two door sports car. However if you look at the mass of Ferarris and Astons, you will see they are porkers by comparison. The 6.2 and 7L Vette V8s likely weigh less than any DOHC V8 of considerably less displacement yet similar power. Displacement has absolutely nothing to do with the overall dimensions (and hence mass) of the engine as many engines use the same sized block for different displacements in the same engine family.

Chavis:

An addition, we have to remember the LS7 is 7L which means that its redline is remarkable considering the size of of its valves and pistons. Imagine if the same technology and materials were applied to a smaller OHV V8 and VVT was used. Redline could probably hit 7500 or so easily. Most DOHC V8s redline at 6400-6800 rpm. There are only a handful of exceptions including the M3 and AMG V8s.

"You need to update your perceptions of AMG cars. While the large AMG models like the S63 and SL63 are too heavy and clumsy to be truly sporting the C63 is very close to the M3 in terms of handling and performance."

Chavis, I'm fully aware of AMG's new efforts to match the BMW Motorsport divisions overall chassis performance as the AMG C63's suspension was completely dialed in by AMG to (finally!) challenge the M3. The C63 is the first AMG car to be built from the ground up as a true high performer unlike the older merely "bolt on" performance AMG applications. Those efforts have paid off but going by the many comparisons I've read and viewed many still feel the BMW is more nimble, responsive, tactile, and focused.

"What is the weight distribution of the C63 vs M3?"

1487,

M3 4DR total vehicle weight: 3721
AMG C63 total vehicle weight: 3814

M3 4DR weight distribution: 52.2%/47.8%
AMG C63 weight distribution: 54%/46%

"The G8 is around 52/48 which is very close to the 51/49 of most BMWs and the G8 has a 6.2L lump in the engine bay. Most performance oriented RWD cars have no more than 52% of their weight resting on the front tires."

1487, the G8 indeed has a 6.2L V8 but its engine is lighter (and more compact) vs the AMG DOHC 6.2L as its a pushrod engine.

"There are numerous ways to achieve weight balance and its not all dependent on the weight of the engine. On top of that the engine is the heaviest component in a car and yet the M3 isn't much lighter than the C63. The Vette has a LS3 "lump" under the hood and weighs about 3200lbs. How many European sports cars with smaller DOCH V8s weigh less? Few, if any."

1487, yes... there are several ways to achieve optimal weight distribution however the engine itself and engine placement would be the best places to start as the engine is the heaviest component (as you stated). Engine placement is just as important and executing both would provide much better and much faster results vs other methods.

As far as the Vette is concerned, I'm well aware the larger displacement LS series pushrod engines are both lighter and more compact vs an equal or smaller displacement DOHC V8. However, you keep referring to total vehicle weight when I'm talking about engine weight.

Doo Doo Doodoo...Doo Doo Doodoo.....this just in....

Patrick was apparently incorrect (I'm not the only one) about engine weight as after some extensive research he found these specs that are actually surprising and quite impressive.

MB 6.2L DOHC V8 (M156): 439lbs
M3 4.0L DOHC V8 (S65): 445lbs
GM 6.2L OHV V8 (LS3): 415lbs
GM 5.7L OHV V8 (LS6): 464lbs
GM 7.0L OHV V8 (LS7): 440lbs

I'm quite surprised with the AMG 6.2 V8 as its lighter than the M3's V10 (S85) derived 4.0 V8 and also lighter than the much talked about "weight advantage" of the 7L and 6.2L OHV GM V8's.

The most powerful version of the AMG 6.2 will reside in the upcoming Mercedes SLS AMG and will produce 560hp and 480tq. AMG claims its the most powerful normally aspirated V8 in the world.

That said, I have no problem admitting I'm wrong unlike a lot of people here.

According to the New York Times, the Corvette's interior looks like it is made from "recycled duct tape", so that might explain why it only weighs 3200 lbs.

"That said, I have no problem admitting I'm wrong unlike a lot of people here."

You're only wrong if you admit it.

"You're only wrong if you admit it"

BimmerJay, the wife tells me admitting I'm wrong makes me a better man but she works for the devil.

"According to the New York Times, the Corvette's interior looks like it is made from "recycled duct tape", so that might explain why it only weighs 3200 lbs."

Actually it's because of the spaceframe construction versus a typical unit body (monocoque). If you look at a Vette frame in white, you will see why it's so light.

I have a tuned 335i and an e9X M3. No doubt the 335i pulls much harder on the low end, but the M3 is more civilized and refined in every way, and after the revs are up it flat screams.

The M3 has an awesome limited slip diff, missing in the 335i (it could really use one), that will let it run away and hide from the 335i in the twisties. There's no turbo lag in the M3, and the engine note is the stuff of teenage dreams. The M3 is a much more satisfying driving experience overall.

As a daily driver for your typical "sporty" driver, the 335i is excellent. For the hard-core driver, there is no substitute for the M3 sedan at its price point.

dhoggm3- that sounds fair and accurate. As I said, I wouldn't be driving on the track and if I were to have this kind of car, it'd be my daily driver therefore a 335 seems to make much more sense to me (and the vast majority of others). Interestingly enough, Jason just posted the dyno results from the reflashed 135 and below 6000k, the output flat out murders the M3's V8.