let's have a poll: how much torque in the v8 M3?

[lemming]

i think we should also have a poll, since we have one for the curb weight, to guess how much torque the new car will have.

these things will be fun just to see how close we get to the actual production official figures.

i understand that if you did the math on the 5.0v10, you'd arrive at something like 305#ft --but recall that the F430 is also a benchmark at 343#ft displacing only 4.3 litres....

[Plaz]

322

[iateyourcheese]

This puzzles me... simple math says 305 lb-ft but that's so close to what the 335i can do. Oh well, 305 for me.

[FC]

This puzzles me... simple math says 305 lb-ft but that's so close to what the 335i can do. Oh well, 305 for me.

I'll be nice, 310#'s.

[Rob]

Not enough. I expect the 320 area. Nowhere near enough.

[blee]

I expect a bit above 300, but that's about it. it's not going to be a torque monster.

...then again, since when did having 300 ft-lbs of torque become "not enough?" Corvettes were making about that much not ten years ago. My, how things have changed.

[iateyourcheese]

I expect a bit above 300, but that's about it. it's not going to be a torque monster.

...then again, since when did having 300 ft-lbs of torque become "not enough?" Corvettes were making about that much not ten years ago. My, how things have changed.

I'm going to guess that peak torque for the Corvette didn't occur at 6100 rpm.

[lemming]

I'm going to guess that peak torque for the Corvette didn't occur at 6100 rpm.


:lol:

be generous. it's going to be more like 5200rpms with "80%" available over a wide rpm range.

[iateyourcheese]

:lol:

be generous. it's going to be more like 5200rpms with "80%" available over a wide rpm range.

Torque curve doesn't look that flat to me http://www.rototestinstitute.org/spec/view/png/graph/STR-05050203-kW-Nm-C.png (M5 obviously tested here).

Or, you can buy a car with the opposite torque curve (335i) http://www.automobilemag.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0609_z+2007_bmw_335i+dyno_chart.jpg

[Rob]

...then again, since when did having 300 ft-lbs of torque become "not enough?"

I could always lend you my car for a month. Then you would agree that 300 ft-lbs is not enough for what this car is supposed to be, especially compared to what the competition is offering.

I think it will be interesting to see what the car is when it's all said and done. It has to beat the 335 in every performance aspect, after all.

[lemming]

I could always lend you my car for a month. Then you would agree that 300 ft-lbs is not enough for what this car is supposed to be, especially compared to what the competition is offering.

I think it will be interesting to see what the car is when it's all said and done. It has to beat the 335 in every performance aspect, after all.

but that's why i'm really fascinated with the curb weight and the torque. HP you can do trickeration to get a nice number, but as the S2000, rx8 or even the 5.0 V10 demonstrate --there is a finite physically constrained torque value that you can massage out of any engine.

given the high predicted curb weight, torque is a key value.

[clyde]

I expect a bit above 300, but that's about it. it's not going to be a torque monster.

...then again, since when did having 300 ft-lbs of torque become "not enough?" Corvettes were making about that much not ten years ago. My, how things have changed.
The lowly Mustang GT had 300# in 1987. :yawn:

[lemming]

The lowly Mustang GT had 300# in 1987. :yawn:

HP/litre people like to paint people who wouldn't mind a little torque with their HP as people who might as well drive diesels.

relying on gearing to multiply torque only works when the car is lightweight. that's all i'll say and the e60 M5 has proven my point for me. by itself, in absolute terms, 383#ft is a lot of torque and not bad for a 5litre motor. but even with 7 tightly spaced gears, it's really difficult to rip off great acceleration because the chassis is 4000lbs.

...and the telling measurement is 1/4 mile times. longer time spent per gear helps the M5 put down a decent 1/4 mile time, but its trap speed is pretty unremarkable.

(Mercedes wasn't dumb when they chose to go with displacement in their new V8......)

[iateyourcheese]

There's an interesting figure in this book:

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0521644895.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

which plots HP/L versus year. It is interesting to see the cars creep steadily up as fuels and technology improve. Well, they all do that except for the 1980's Mustang which is back with cars from the 1950's and 1960's. I'm not inferring anything... :eeps: just making an observation.

[clyde]

There's an interesting figure in this book:

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0521644895.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

which plots HP/L versus year. It is interesting to see the cars creep steadily up as fuels and technology improve. Well, they all do that except for the 1980's Mustang which is back with cars from the 1950's and 1960's. I'm not inferring anything... :eeps: just making an observation.
Any chance that it plotted HP (or torque) per unit of mass or exterior dimension as well?

[lemming]

Any chance that it plotted HP (or torque) per unit of mass or exterior dimension as well?

Snyde, don't egg him on.

he'll actually do it and he might do a Fourier transform on the data, too.

[iateyourcheese]

Snyde, don't egg him on.

he'll actually do it and he might do a Fourier transform on the data, too.

http://img.meetup.com/img/smileys/nerd.gif

You're not innocent of nerd-dom. http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showpost.php?p=115097&postcount=23

[ff]

...then again, since when did having 300 ft-lbs of torque become "not enough?" Corvettes were making about that much not ten years ago. My, how things have changed.

Corvettes of 10 years ago didn't weigh 3700 pounds either.

[lemming]

Corvettes of 10 years ago didn't weigh 3700 pounds either.

hey FFluffernutter: the c3s came damn close.

;)

all torque and no HP (most of the c3 range) is suboptimal, but this trend of high curb weight with peaky, cammy torqueless motors is really not my idea of "sports car".

[ff]

hey FFluffernutter: the c3s came damn close.

;)


~3200 pounds. Must've been that leaf spring suspension that weighed it down

:D ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Leafs1.jpg/230px-Leafs1.jpg

[ff]

Oh, and lemming, I bet that I know what you had for dinner tonight:

:coolspit:

http://www.marshmallowfluff.com/media/stills/sandwich_375.jpg