The BMW is very peaky and only bangs out a measily 269lb/ft at 5000 rpm. R34 makes 289lb/ft at 4400 rpm. Says it all. The skyline is 10kg lighter than the current E46 Double glazing salesmans favourite.
Both pretty poor really when you consider either an evo or high spec scoob will make this sort of torque in standard trim around 1,000 rpm lower than the skyline.

well, this thread has cetainly been an eye opener to me.

ive always wanted an e46 M3 and according to this thread it seems that my best bet of obtaining one is being either an estate agent or a double glazing salesman when i 'grow up' :D

seriously though, in response to the original question its all up to you. drive both and see what you prefer.

if you're bothered about reputation then park it up on a busy street and see what more people gawp at. im guessing it will be the skyline because to the avergae guy in the street an M3 is just an 18k 3 series with bigger wheels.

i know a guy that has a skyline and i also know someone who owns an M3. if i could OWN either car then i would choose the M3 but if i could DRIVE either of the cars i would choose the Skyline. im not sure if that makes sense though to be honest!

The BMW is very peaky and only bangs out a measily 269lb/ft at 5000 rpm

Sigh ... torque at the flywheel means nothing? Hasn't this already been done to death umpteen times over the years on this forum?

Torque at the driven wheels is the ONLY thing that makes a car accelerate. This is related to engine torque AND overall gearing. High power and a peaky engine is the perfect accompaniement to torque-increasing shorter gearing. My Caterham Blackbird has significantly less torque-to-weight ratio than a McLaren F1 but, amazingly, its in-gear acceleration is similar to and, in some cases, more than a McLaren F1. How can that be?

Low-down peak torque is wasted if you're talking about outright cross-gear acceleration. Try a 0-100mph run in your own car. Once you've achieved the best time (i.e. by keeping the revs high and maximising your power) tell me how much time is spent with the rpms anywhere near peak torque :rolleyes:

I already did the subject to death in another thread where, out of two cars with only 10-20% peak torque difference, it was easy to show that the one with 40% more power-to-weight ratio, not coincidentally, had around 40% more in-gear acceleration at any rpm range and at any speed.

Ian.

Both pretty poor really when you consider either an evo or high spec scoob will make this sort of torque in standard trim around 1,000 rpm lower than the skyline.

.... and a BMW 330d makes this kind of torque at around 2000rpm. It must therefore rip the tarmac compared to a Skyline/Evo/M3 etc. ?

Ian.

Lol I think you may well find that there is a relationship between flywheel and the amount of torque available at the wheels. Obviously the
drive system will sap this. Either way the M3 is not the worlds most flexible engine

Yes the Diesel will be far more flexible at lower rpm than the M3

Lol I think you may well find that there is a relationship between flywheel and the amount of torque available at the wheels.

Yes, that's why I said it and that's why I said that quoting the torque at the flywheel is a meaningless exercise because, on its own, it says nothing about the car's actual in-gear performance as you implied (it's ok, it's a common mistake so don't worry about it).

Quoting peak torque is also fairly meaningless because it says nothing about the shape of the torque curve above and below. Who cares whether torque peaks at 5500rpm if 85% of it is still available at around 2000rpm. I would say that's a flexible engine. Anyone who says it's not is a little ignorant (sorry).

Obviously the
drive system will sap this. Either way the M3 is not the worlds most flexible engine

It's extremely flexible, see above.

The point I was making that 269lb/ft of torque is not "measly" once transmitted through the gears/final drive/wheels.

Yes the Diesel will be far more flexible at lower rpm than the M3

Intrigued as to your definition of flexible? Do you classify an engine that peaks early and runs out of puff by 4500rpm as "flexible" ??? Or do you confuse the term "flexible" with "having its most torque"? Lmao ...

Ian.

http://www.geocities.com/mrjumjum/Br...Thorpe006a.JPG

http://www.geocities.com/mrjumjum/Br...Thorpe002a.JPG

Lots of attention from young boys in the Skyline, Lots of attention from young ladies in the M3 :D

M3 Cab, 95% of the dynamics of the coupe, actually is almost as quick on the track, but has even more "pulling" power and I am not talking torque :D

does the r34 not hold a lap record for fastest unmodified production car, round a certain british race track?

I doubt it, unless they haven't tried any other quick production cars.

M3 CSL 60 - 80mph in sixth gear 7.8 seconds (Lol)
Subaru Spec C 4.6 Secs


Do you stand by your comments about the flexiblity and torque delivery of the M3. What test can prove this any further in terms of real world use ?
These are the Official figures for the cars by the way.

The M3 is hilariously slow

That is with a long rolling start. They simply stamped on the throttle around 30 MPH and started to time the car as it passes 60 MPH. Plenty of time to get the turbo to spool.

Try timing that spec-c from the instant you use the throttle at 60 MPH and it will take alot longer than that. The M3 would respond as soon as you want it to and would cover more distance over time. This IS the point of acceleration after all.

of course it is :rolleyes:

This has been in a previous thread as well! its down to gearing and final drive.. the imprezas top gear is more or less equivelent to the csl's 5th gear so if you compare figures they are a lot more closer.

The M3 is hilariously slow

That just sows plain ignorance and stupidity.. how can you have a place discussing cars with a comment like that.

Ok so now its all down to gearing is it please make your minds up.

Yes craig in comparison to the scoob the M cars flexibilty is not all that is it. Would you disagree. Its nearly 50 percent slower I would call it slow in comparison

I would think carefully before spieling more drivel. If what you state was true Imagine how much faster the Spec C would be in third gear when compared to the M car in third gear in the same test. As the Spec is not then you are obviously spouting cack. The fact of the matter is that in general a turbocharged engine will be more flexible than N/A as the max torque is produced far lower down the rev range

Sorry Phil an M3 is quick it is not truly fast. Big difference between the two.

Thats the point. If you want a daily driver which can speed up very fast from low revs...take a diesel. No M3 or something else can do the things a (example) Merc C30AMG CDI does. Thats the point.
Before buying a car I think about what I want. Driving in 5th gear 30mph uphills...Diesel. Nothing else!
If I want a car which I can drive ACTIVE, that means that I want to rev,change gears etc. I´ll take a car which won´t need diesel....

Interesting to me: Cossie said that Blow isn´t open minded...LOL

I like NAs for daily driving. But if you want to have fun they are not differnt to the daily driving where a Turbo´d engine shows his real face (hope you know what I mean)

I think you've missed the point a bit. The figues for the spec C are WHEN BOOST HAS ALREADY BUILT.

It's not been figured by giving it full throttle at 50mph and timing until 70mph or whatever.

If you do that in the M3 and Spec c at the same time, the M3 will pull ahead as it doesn't need to wait for the turbo to spool up, it's power is there straightaway. Shortly after the Spec C will be producing boost and eventually catching and overtaking the M3. The Spec C will be faster but the distance it would've covered for the same increment will be the same or slightly further. In other words, during an overtake, it'd need the same (or more) distance as an M3 IN THAT SITUATION.

That's the point of flexibility - power is there when you need it INSTANTLY.

But they still have lag, no matter what. Even the best installs have lag.

Ha ha.

Still spouting utter drivel I see Coswurf.

I love pottling along at 30 in my turbo and then slotting it into top and flooring it. Thats why I bought it!

I'd quite like to see a thread with you and mycroft 'debating' with each other (well the first page or two anyway - after that watching you both not actually listen to each other, ignoring each others questions, and continually posting the same guff would get a tad tedious)

Titter - I seem to recall another thread where you were making love to the S2000 which is a decent motor but its not one that you can get much out of without giving it plenty in each gear now is it.

You have missed the point and the reality is the opposite way round.
The M3 engine will not get into its stride until 4.5k rpm the scoobs at around 3k rpm. Sorry but this M3 engine doesnt have a lot of get up and go and til its singing.

Think about the below

BMW M3 30 - 70 mph 4.1 secs quarter mile rev the nuts of it style very quick

50 - 70 in top gear 7.7 secs. Oh dear no low down torque and the engine needing to be revving is why it is so slow


330d 50 - 70 7.6 says it all

The M3 is hilariously slow

You are hilariously ignorant.

As Phil quite rightly points out, if you're going to compare "engine flexibility" (whatever that means) between two cars, you have to make sure you're comparing them in two gears that lead to similar overall gearing (i.e. mph/1000rpm). I could spend a while explaining that to you but, to be honest, I can't be arsed explaining something like that from first principles ... :rolleyes:

Ian.

na, i'm sure it holds a record. dunno what it was but, i remember seeing a program where they tested a bunch of cars to find the best handling car in the world and they mentioned the skyline in respect of some record it set. might be wrong but i was convinced of that:confused:


also, cosworth. for a man who defending the m3 to such high standards! why don't you own one? for what i've read of this thread so far, ity sounds like you own a turbo'd car? why if you love the n/a engine so much?

"also, cosworth. for a man who defending the m3 to such high standards! why don't you own one? for what i've read of this thread so far, ity sounds like you own a turbo'd car? why if you love the n/a engine so much?"

He owns a Supra turbo.. and i've got at this point before he realises the weaknesses of his own cars, exactly what other people should do on here..

Just face it mate the M3 CSL makes a poxy 269lb/ft (hahahahahaha) of torque at 5000 rpm on an engine dyno at the flywheel. If you like driving around using your gearbox in a frenzied manner thats your problem. If you want to look at engine flexibilty look at two engines with similar torque outputs on an engine dyno not a rolling road. The engine that produces its peak torque earliest will invariaby be more flexible and responsive.

Evo39,

What do you drive? Are you a Scoob/EVO owner with the stereotypical "I've got the fastest car in the world" attitude, or are you just trolling?

You and Phil M must be the only members in here who actually gets the point. The rest seem to just look at the on-paper numbers and sum up their conclusions from there.

You won't always want to shift down 1 or 2 gears just to move at an acceptable pace. In fact, if you spend 90% of all overtaking and acceleration in lower gears with heavy throttle, you'll shorten your engine's life. Bye bye Con-rods.

Now if you can increase speed in any gear - INSTANTLY from the throttle, without too many revs and without having to shift down, that would make it an advantage as a driver's car does it not?

Why not? I love cars, period! :) I enjoy the kick from the turbo reaching full boost, and breaking traction from that surge of power, I like the potential for tuning from Japanese performance cars. I can gain an extra 100 HP over stock quite easily and for little cash outlay.

Natural aspirated engines are great too, and better for road use in my experience. The response, the flatter torque curve and the reduced complexity of working on and maintaining them.

Ah, but when they have such little lag that the turbo is spooled *before your foot reaches the floor* surely it's at least the equal of an NA engine for responsiveness...

The difference is quite small when going all out (a full on race). But, normal overtaking or acceleration - the difference is HUGE when stomping on the throttle in a cruising gear.

That's the flexibility. If you have the attitude of "who the hell?!! just use a lower gear!" ... then you keep that to yourself and the turbo elite, some people actually want to have the luxury of this flexibility.

It wont take 3.2 seconds for the turbo to spool up. This test is in favour of the BMW as the cars are allready moving at a fair speed. A disadvantage to the scoob due to 4wd. 60 - 80 mph in top gear is a good indication of a cars flexibilty in the real world as this is what you will repeatedly be doing on the motorway of the UK. And if your honest the M car falls flat on its face.

I agree with your sentiments but think they are more applicable to huge displacement N/A engines with massive torque outputs. The M engine is a rev box with not alot of torque even on full chat. Good on track yes but not the greatest for road use.Unless of course you like changing gear alot.