New M3 Vs Scooby
17 July 2003, 04:40 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have longer gearing you merely put it in a lower gear for the same effect, so the torque to weight is relevant.
Not necessarily. In the examples of M3 vs. M5, both cars have identical in-gear top speeds (because the M3 has a higher redline). In this case, if you could drop a gear in the M5 at a particular speed, you could do the same in the M3.
If you are at 4000 RPM in both cars at say 70 mph the car with the highest torque to weight ratio at 4000 RPM will be more accelerative (assuming lots of other minor variables are similar which they are in this case).
If you're doing 70mph @ 4000rpm in both cars then they obviously have identical gearing so, not relevant in this case. See above.
The M3 needs shorter gearing because it does not have much torque because the engine is too small and normally aspirated and therefore relies on revs (IMHO).
I wouldn't call 269lb/ft "not much torque" but that's beside the point. The M3 can get away with shorter gearing because it has a higher redline. This means it can translate its high power output into useable in-gear acceleration.
Shorter gearing does not always make a quicker car, you spend time changing gears and this is time off the power (quick sequential shifts excepted which is a trick some M3s have although most don't like it).
As above, not in the case of the M3 and M5. They both pull exactly the same maximum speed in each gear (overall top speed aside) so the change-up points are identical and no less frequent in the M5 than in the M3. That's why these two cars are excellent examples for the torque-to-weight debate.
25% shorter gearing does not give you 25% faster acceleration going through the gears.
Correct, but it gives you, without exception, 25% higher in-gear acceleration all other things being equal. Power-to-weight ratio is what's important for through-the-gears acceleration, averaged out over a suitable range of speeds.
I'd still take the M5, but they are both good cars, even if the M3 is torqueless.
It most certainly isn't. As I said, torque at the driven wheels is what accelerates a car, not torque at the flywheel.
M5 engine still has more torque at its power peak of 6600 RPM than the M3 engine ever has, so I don't know how this is considered to be lacking at high RPM
Relatively lacking at high RPM is what I meant (position, not quantity) ... the M3's torque curve is much flatter and longer sustained than the M5's all the way up close to 8000rpm.
My Caterham Blackbird has a very low "torque-to-weight ratio" (by your definition) compared to either an M3 or M5 but positively trounces either of them in in-gear acceleration and still manages 75mph in 2nd gear. How can that be? Because you're measuring torque at the wrong place.
Ian.
Not necessarily. In the examples of M3 vs. M5, both cars have identical in-gear top speeds (because the M3 has a higher redline). In this case, if you could drop a gear in the M5 at a particular speed, you could do the same in the M3.
If you are at 4000 RPM in both cars at say 70 mph the car with the highest torque to weight ratio at 4000 RPM will be more accelerative (assuming lots of other minor variables are similar which they are in this case).
If you're doing 70mph @ 4000rpm in both cars then they obviously have identical gearing so, not relevant in this case. See above.
The M3 needs shorter gearing because it does not have much torque because the engine is too small and normally aspirated and therefore relies on revs (IMHO).
I wouldn't call 269lb/ft "not much torque" but that's beside the point. The M3 can get away with shorter gearing because it has a higher redline. This means it can translate its high power output into useable in-gear acceleration.
Shorter gearing does not always make a quicker car, you spend time changing gears and this is time off the power (quick sequential shifts excepted which is a trick some M3s have although most don't like it).
As above, not in the case of the M3 and M5. They both pull exactly the same maximum speed in each gear (overall top speed aside) so the change-up points are identical and no less frequent in the M5 than in the M3. That's why these two cars are excellent examples for the torque-to-weight debate.
25% shorter gearing does not give you 25% faster acceleration going through the gears.
Correct, but it gives you, without exception, 25% higher in-gear acceleration all other things being equal. Power-to-weight ratio is what's important for through-the-gears acceleration, averaged out over a suitable range of speeds.
I'd still take the M5, but they are both good cars, even if the M3 is torqueless.
It most certainly isn't. As I said, torque at the driven wheels is what accelerates a car, not torque at the flywheel.
M5 engine still has more torque at its power peak of 6600 RPM than the M3 engine ever has, so I don't know how this is considered to be lacking at high RPM
Relatively lacking at high RPM is what I meant (position, not quantity) ... the M3's torque curve is much flatter and longer sustained than the M5's all the way up close to 8000rpm.
My Caterham Blackbird has a very low "torque-to-weight ratio" (by your definition) compared to either an M3 or M5 but positively trounces either of them in in-gear acceleration and still manages 75mph in 2nd gear. How can that be? Because you're measuring torque at the wrong place.
Ian.
17 July 2003, 04:54 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
You are constantly revving the nuts off the small normally aspirated engines to get anywhere. That is my objection. ISWYM re the gearing in that the M3 would be revving higher, but it doesn't make up the 25% difference in torque to weight as the gearing is not 25% higher is it?
You obviously love high revving motors. I like something with monster thrust from 3000-7000 RPM and long(ish). That is why I like big or forced motors
You obviously love high revving motors. I like something with monster thrust from 3000-7000 RPM and long(ish). That is why I like big or forced motors
17 July 2003, 05:02 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are constantly revving the nuts off the small normally aspirated engines to get anywhere. That is my objection. ISWYM re the gearing in that the M3 would be revving higher, but it doesn't make up the 25% difference in torque to weight as the gearing is not 25% higher is it?
No, thet's why I originally said the difference was 8-9% and not 25%.
The only point I was making was that the M5 does not accelerate 25% better in-gear than the M3, which is what many, including car magazines who should know better (Autocar), often infer from "torque-to-weight ratio"
Yes, I do like high-revving cars for the track and prefer lower-down torque for the road. That's why my track car is bike-engined and my road car is a turbo-diesel.
Ian.
No, thet's why I originally said the difference was 8-9% and not 25%.
The only point I was making was that the M5 does not accelerate 25% better in-gear than the M3, which is what many, including car magazines who should know better (Autocar), often infer from "torque-to-weight ratio"
Yes, I do like high-revving cars for the track and prefer lower-down torque for the road. That's why my track car is bike-engined and my road car is a turbo-diesel.
Ian.
17 July 2003, 05:04 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I suppose you do get rid of 2/3 of the advantage, and have less weight in the nose.
I would want the M5 on the road, and something like your Blackbird on the track.
I would want the M5 on the road, and something like your Blackbird on the track.
17 July 2003, 05:10 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yeah, but you are a minor pop star so you have all that money 
The car press attitude to turbo diesels also irritates me, they compare torque figures as though you can compare them to a petrol and forget that you only have 2/3 of the rev range to play with.
A 269lbft diesel does not feel as impressive as a 269lbft M3
The car press attitude to turbo diesels also irritates me, they compare torque figures as though you can compare them to a petrol and forget that you only have 2/3 of the rev range to play with.
A 269lbft diesel does not feel as impressive as a 269lbft M3
17 July 2003, 06:25 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For 50 grand i'd get a special edition 3.8 m5 with nurburghring suspension pack..... a mercedes c43 amg for everyday....and a lotus carlton....
3 cars for the price of an m3...and jc is right..ppl will think your a **** if you drive an m3 ..however good a car it might be ....
other alternatives...
new audi s4
audi rs2
e55 amg merc
understated speed...if i want somet in your face and lairy i'd buy a scoob..lol
3 cars for the price of an m3...and jc is right..ppl will think your a **** if you drive an m3 ..however good a car it might be ....
other alternatives...
new audi s4
audi rs2
e55 amg merc
understated speed...if i want somet in your face and lairy i'd buy a scoob..lol
17 July 2003, 07:22 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only 2 problems with clio v6's
firstly they are french....
secondly renaults are built by 1 armed pygmy ant eaters with about as much mechanical knowledge ans an amoeba , with the build quality of a house stuck together with pritt stick, and customer services of **** off if you can't talk french...
i only say this because one of my best m8s whos a mechanic only ever has major hassles when he has a renault in...awful things :/
firstly they are french....
secondly renaults are built by 1 armed pygmy ant eaters with about as much mechanical knowledge ans an amoeba , with the build quality of a house stuck together with pritt stick, and customer services of **** off if you can't talk french...
i only say this because one of my best m8s whos a mechanic only ever has major hassles when he has a renault in...awful things :/
17 July 2003, 08:53 PM
#101
Like the m3 but its not a very imaginative choice is it, the three series seems to be the tossers car of choice and the M3 is for the Uber Tosser, they do look nice but even if I had the momey I couldnt bring myself to buy one just because of the people I see round here with them, I am sure they are wonderful but they do make me cringe a bit, I would have a Scoob anyday before an M3.
18 July 2003, 06:53 PM
#106
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Harrogate, North Yorkshire
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure they are wonderful but they do make me cringe a bit, I would have a Scoob anyday before an M3.
18 July 2003, 07:13 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Price comes into it sure but I didnt feel special when I got in an M3. The scoob gives me a huge grin everytime I get in and fire up the engine. Its down to personal preference but I think people have problems with accepting that. The scoob is worse in a lot of areas but it snarls, growls and hisses and has a character of its own.
As a lad I use to be able to tell what car was coming along the road purely by engine/exhaust sound. I tried it walking home from the pub one night with a mate of mine. I got 1 out of 15 cars and I got that from half a mile away. Yes an MY99 turbo with an aftermarket pipe, was it you.
[Edited by chrisp - 18/07/2003 19:14:48]
As a lad I use to be able to tell what car was coming along the road purely by engine/exhaust sound. I tried it walking home from the pub one night with a mate of mine. I got 1 out of 15 cars and I got that from half a mile away. Yes an MY99 turbo with an aftermarket pipe, was it you
.[Edited by chrisp - 18/07/2003 19:14:48]
18 July 2003, 10:16 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sti ra suspension and the TSL fast road geometry settings with negative rear camber, plus 18s. I guess it will understeer eventually but I aint brave enough to find out .
It does steer on the throttle though.
[Edited by chrisp - 18/07/2003 22:18:11]
. It does steer on the throttle though.
[Edited by chrisp - 18/07/2003 22:18:11]
19 July 2003, 11:10 AM
#112
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
advevo
you put [ url ]http://www.vkdesign.nl/promo1/movies/04%20jvk_Niederrhein_22feb2003.wmv [ /url ]
Miss out the spaces between the [] though
http://www.vkdesign.nl/promo1/movies/04%20jvk_Niederrhein_22feb2003.wmv
you put [ url ]http://www.vkdesign.nl/promo1/movies/04%20jvk_Niederrhein_22feb2003.wmv [ /url ]
Miss out the spaces between the [] though
http://www.vkdesign.nl/promo1/movies/04%20jvk_Niederrhein_22feb2003.wmv
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM