My C55 vs new M3
03-22-2010, 01:57 AM
#52
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
03 g35 coupe...........02 c32 Sold
Rlx02....just let it go man. E1000 just likes to argue for the sake of arguing. If you keep arguing with him, he'll eventually post gay internet pictures mocking you. Its a waste of time and brain power.
03-22-2010, 02:02 AM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Keep dreaming buddy. Horsepower can be caluclated the way you're doing, but you're completely leaving out gearing with respect to torque. Until you understand the concept of gearing, torque multiplication and resultant force, you'll never get why some cars have higher horsepower with low torque ratings and some cars have low horsepower and high torque ratings and how they compare to each other on the track.
Ok then thats out of the way, lets play with the simple calculator you provided. 425 ft/pounds at the crank vs 295 ft/pounds with first gear and final gear ratios added in.
c55 3968.47575
m3 3860.8479
even with your calculator your provided my c55 still puts more power to the ground and weighs several hundred pounds less than the m3. Then again, the m3 is stock and mine is modded.
And as I said many posts ago, stock for stock, yes the m3 will easily walk a c32 or c55 but a modded one should keep up if not beat an m3 for 1/3rd of the price.
03-22-2010, 02:03 AM
#56
03-22-2010, 02:07 AM
#57
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: OC
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
9 Posts
a quarter mile at a time
Its a pretty simple formula as to why cars can have high hp and low torque and vis versa. hp = torque/time. an engine redlining at 8k with 200 ft/pounds of torque is going to make the same hp as an engine redlining at 4k with 400 ft/pounds of torque. How they compare in acceleration is determined by how low or high their gearing is or as you would say, their torque multiplication.
Ok then thats out of the way, lets play with the simple calculator you provided. 425 ft/pounds at the crank vs 295 ft/pounds with first gear and final gear ratios added in.
c55 3968.47575
m3 3860.8479
even with your calculator your provided my c55 still puts more power to the ground and weighs several hundred pounds less than the m3. Then again, the m3 is stock and mine is modded.
And as I said many posts ago, stock for stock, yes the m3 will easily walk a c32 or c55 but a modded one should keep up if not beat an m3 for 1/3rd of the price.
Ok then thats out of the way, lets play with the simple calculator you provided. 425 ft/pounds at the crank vs 295 ft/pounds with first gear and final gear ratios added in.
c55 3968.47575
m3 3860.8479
even with your calculator your provided my c55 still puts more power to the ground and weighs several hundred pounds less than the m3. Then again, the m3 is stock and mine is modded.
And as I said many posts ago, stock for stock, yes the m3 will easily walk a c32 or c55 but a modded one should keep up if not beat an m3 for 1/3rd of the price.
Well, we weren't talking about YOUR C55. I had always said, my numbers were a stock C55 vs a stock M3.
03-22-2010, 02:07 AM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
03 g35 coupe...........02 c32 Sold
LIES...there are never any hot chicks in physics classes! Either that, or i want to know what school quicktwinturbo is going too..lol.
03-22-2010, 02:12 AM
#59
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: OC
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
9 Posts
a quarter mile at a time
Its a pretty simple formula as to why cars can have high hp and low torque and vis versa. hp = torque/time. an engine redlining at 8k with 200 ft/pounds of torque is going to make the same hp as an engine redlining at 4k with 400 ft/pounds of torque. How they compare in acceleration is determined by how low or high their gearing is or as you would say, their torque multiplication.
Ok then thats out of the way, lets play with the simple calculator you provided. 425 ft/pounds at the crank vs 295 ft/pounds with first gear and final gear ratios added in.
c55 3968.47575
m3 3860.8479
even with your calculator your provided my c55 still puts more power to the ground and weighs several hundred pounds less than the m3. Then again, the m3 is stock and mine is modded.
And as I said many posts ago, stock for stock, yes the m3 will easily walk a c32 or c55 but a modded one should keep up if not beat an m3 for 1/3rd of the price.
Ok then thats out of the way, lets play with the simple calculator you provided. 425 ft/pounds at the crank vs 295 ft/pounds with first gear and final gear ratios added in.
c55 3968.47575
m3 3860.8479
even with your calculator your provided my c55 still puts more power to the ground and weighs several hundred pounds less than the m3. Then again, the m3 is stock and mine is modded.
And as I said many posts ago, stock for stock, yes the m3 will easily walk a c32 or c55 but a modded one should keep up if not beat an m3 for 1/3rd of the price.
03-22-2010, 02:13 AM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
For arguments sake when you tell someone "torque at the wheels" the general consensus is how much torque did the car put down at the dyno.
I still stand by my previous statements.
03-22-2010, 02:27 AM
#61
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: OC
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
9 Posts
a quarter mile at a time
so then what exactly does the dyno measure when measuring torque at the wheels if that is not a correct way of measuring torque?
For arguments sake when you tell someone "torque at the wheels" the general consensus is how much torque did the car put down at the dyno.
I still stand by my previous statements.
For arguments sake when you tell someone "torque at the wheels" the general consensus is how much torque did the car put down at the dyno.
I still stand by my previous statements.
Torque at the wheels is torque at the wheels. What you see on a dyno graph is not it. It's HP at the wheels, but ABSOLUTELY not torque at the wheels.
You can stand by them all day, but the truth is the truth. A stock C55 makes less torque to the wheel than a stock E92 M3. The only way a C55 can win a race against a stock E92 M3 is to have a better power/weight ratio. Stock for stock, a C55 will lose a drag race to a E92 M3, from a dig and from a roll.
Last edited by e1000; 03-22-2010 at 02:30 AM.
03-22-2010, 03:05 AM
#63
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: OC
Posts: 18,677
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
9 Posts
a quarter mile at a time
I highlighted THE WHEEL TORQUE FIGURE, NOT THE TORQUE AT THE CRANK. Now I don't want to insult your intelligence because I believe, that you believe you know what you're talking about except that you MISREAD my posts. However, I'm talking about WHEEL HORSEPOWER, NOT CRANK. I put down 345 ft/pounds of torque TO THE GROUND. A very healthy e92 m3 puts down 250 ft/pounds of torque TO THE GROUND. I wasn't comparing my crank torque figures to the m3's crank torque figures. Please take that into consideration before you go off into thinking that I don't know the slightest about how to calculate horsepower from torque.
03-22-2010, 03:28 AM
#64
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AL,IL, GA, CA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS, SLK, ETC
Univ. Of South Carolina.. LOL.. Seriously, ya never had any hot chicks in ur phyics class?? We had bunch!!!!! Had great time during Lab.. lol
03-22-2010, 03:39 AM
#65
lol oops
03-22-2010, 03:44 AM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AL,IL, GA, CA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS, SLK, ETC
03-22-2010, 03:51 AM
#67
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
03 g35 coupe...........02 c32 Sold
Your a lucky guy. Any hot chicks that were in my CE or cal classes all dropped out after the first 2wks.
03-22-2010, 03:57 AM
#68
Nope...went to UC Santa Cruz..I took engineering physics and everyone in there were guys. They all either looked like bill gates or were indians straight from india or chinese straight from china. Half the people in my class barely spoke english.
Your a lucky guy. Any hot chicks that were in my CE or cal classes all dropped out after the first 2wks.
Your a lucky guy. Any hot chicks that were in my CE or cal classes all dropped out after the first 2wks.
the hot chicks were all business or communication majors (mostly the latter).
03-22-2010, 04:31 AM
#71
definitely cute. so is the theme here then.....girls that we would expect to be in nerdy science/math classes? or just hot chicks in general?
03-22-2010, 04:34 AM
#72
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AL,IL, GA, CA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS, SLK, ETC
Hot girls in general...would be better.. lol...
BTW, when do you guys goto bed?? It's 5:35pm here in KOrea!! lol
03-22-2010, 04:35 AM
#73
i dont sleep, but its 1:35 AM here in AZ. so just hot chicks huh?? this thread may explode lol.
03-22-2010, 04:45 AM
#75
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: AL,IL, GA, CA
Posts: 1,912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS, SLK, ETC
