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

[lemming]

Originally Posted by rwg

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[lemming]

Originally Posted by clyde

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:



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... just making an observation.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by iateyourcheese

There's an interesting figure in this book:



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... just making an observation.

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

[lemming]

Originally Posted by clyde

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]

Originally Posted by lemming

Snyde, don't egg him on.

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

You're not innocent of nerd-dom. http://forums.carmudgeons.com/showpo...7&postcount=23

[ff]

Originally Posted by blee

...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]

Originally Posted by ff

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]

Originally Posted by lemming

hey FFluffernutter: the c3s came damn close.

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