No its not because the M3 lacks torque that I say that. Its because its simple physics. My circuit car has more than double the torque (on high boost) than some of the normally aspirated cars in my class. And yet some of them lap quicker than me (weight is similar). And its not driver. Its power & that's a fact. F1 cars are fast because of POWER. When you understand that then you will agree with me.

Anything that can be measured over time has to use power. If you want to measure an instantaneous value, then maybe force or torque is important. But if its over a spread of time, then the rate at which the torque is applied (horsepower) is important. SURELY YOU CAN SEE THIS? What I'm talking about is not brand specific. You might have 200lb/ft one second, 300 the next second or 100lb/ft after that. Even if the torque is constant, its still the rat that matters to determine the acceleration. After all if you want to measure against a stop watch, you need time to enter the equation at some stage. Torque on its own does nothing. It needs to be applied over a certain time to do work. Do a google search & see.

 

so your circuit car has more power than other cars, yet they lap quicker than you? Either your circuit car is not really a circuit car handling wise or it's the problem w/ the driver.

I really don't see where you are going w/ it. First you said your circuit car has more power and then you said other ppl lap quicker than you w/ less power, and then you change your mind and said it's not because of the driver, it's because of power?? It's seems you just shot your self in the foot with that contradicting comment.

 

I never said power. I said torque. I have more torque than the NA cars. I have lots more torque than some of them but they have similar power because they rev a lot higher.

Anyway, to prove torque doesn't matter on a circuit. Take an 330d's torque & divide by the weight. Then do the same to an M3. 330d has a higher torque-to-weight ratio than an M3. But of course an M3 is a lot quicker on a track. Why? You can add the M3 suspension & brakes to the 330d or the same gearing or whatever. Point is power is all that matters.

Try the same with an E55 & M3 CSL.

 

theres a big differences between the torque of a high revving I6 and a high revving v12.

even though 400 torque may seem small compared to 700 or so hp, 400 is still ALOT of torque. whereas 262 torque doesnt need to comapre with 333hp because 262 torque is small period...


i didnt read the entire thread, but the F1 arguement always gets brought up so i just thought that i'd bring it to your attention.


c32/c55 has a better torque to weight ratio than the m3 and both have more hp.



im really curious, so when C32/C55 drivers say they beat m3's before, do you think we're lying? or that the m3 owner MUST have been a bad driver?

so lets say im 3-1 against the M3, does that mean 3 out of 4 were bad drivers? wow... then there must be alot of bad drivers out there. if so, then what good is all that power if you cant use it?

c32/c55 better is faster than m3. end of story

 

um i thought we were talking about which car is quicker in terms of daily driving conditions, not around the twisties!!

 

Where is the video the first link is dead.

 

Torque *IS* force, specifically, rotational force. The reason the M3 is faster around a track than a 330d is because it produces its torque over a wide band, making max power at 7,900 rpm (and max power occurs when torque is high), but still produces a pretty fair amount (80% or so) of its max torque at lower rpms.

By contrast, the 330d makes good torque down low, but runs out of breath up high, like all diesels do.

The thing which makes a car fast is *both* its horsepower and torque. The M3 and C55 make their power in different ways: horsepower = torque*rpm/5252. The C55 doesn't redline as high as the M3, but it makes ~150% of the M3's max torque, so it doesn't have to rev as high to make the power, putting out 331 lb-ft at its 5,750 rpm power peak, whereas the M3 makes its power through high revs, still putting out 226 lb-ft at its 7,900 rpm power peak.

And the same is true in your case: it is not "because they rev higher", but rather that they still make good *torque* at the higher rpms. They could rev high all day long, but if they were only putting out 50 lb-ft of torque at 10,000 rpm, they'd be making 95 horsepower.

 

Improviz, now we are getting somewhere. You are 100% right. But that is what I've been saying. The car that holds its torque to redline will make more power than the car that drops off.

Let's say an M3 & C32/55 roll at 3000rpm in the same gear. In my unbiased opinion, I would say that the Merc would pull away at that speed. Why? Because its got more torque there? Well, it does have more torque there but that's not why it pulls away. It pulls away because it has more POWER there as well.

HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252

So at 3000rpm, it the C55 has more torque, then it obviously has more power AS WELL. Most people are giving credit to the victory to the torque but torque doesn't actually do anything without being applied over time (horsepower).

But on the road there are more factors. The gear ratio's are different. IF the C55 is at 3000rpm in 2nd gear, the M3 will be at 3900rpm in the same gear. They will be rolling along at the same speed, but the M3 will be higher up the rev range due to the gearing.

Also, the shorter geared M3 will mutiply the engine torque more getting to the wheels. If I get hold of the data I can work out exactly the figures, but let's use a simple formula that the M3's 2nd gear ratio workd out to a 2/1 mutiplication & the C55 1.5/1.

Let's say the C55 has 340 lb/ft at 3000rpm & the M3 has 250 lb/ft @ 3900rpm. I will ignore the fact that the M3 has less drivetrain loss being manual.

Getting to the wheels the C55 has 340 X 1.5 = 510lb/ft (subtract the drivetrain loss)

M3 has 250 X 2 = 500lb/ft

As you can see, on the road torque is a lot closer. C55 should still have slightly more torque (& therefore power) low down. But as the revs rise the C55's torque starts dropping while M3's power curve starts to get into its own from 5000 upwards.

That is also why the M3 won ALL the rolling runs against the C55 in the Sport Auto test.

 

Damn M&M...

I just don't see why you keep it up in here? GO DRIVE YOUR FASTER CAR! Stop wasting your time trying convince a forum filled with MB owners that your car is superior. Use your time to enjoy your car before your engine blows up! Man, what I would pay to see that on your precious video!

Maybe you can race me! I've got a whole 457 total miles on my car already! Ya think you can take me?

Nick

 

I doubt he can beat your C55, all he can beat ppl at is magazine racing!!!

 

I wrote before:

The thing which makes a car fast is *both* its horsepower and torque. The M3 and C55 make their power in different ways: horsepower = torque*rpm/5252. The C55 doesn't redline as high as the M3, but it makes ~150% of the M3's max torque, so it doesn't have to rev as high to make the power, putting out 331 lb-ft at its 5,750 rpm power peak, whereas the M3 makes its power through high revs, still putting out 226 lb-ft at its 7,900 rpm power peak.

As can be seen above: both engines are putting out very close to their peak torque at their horsepower peak (331/376 = 88% for the C55, 226/262 = 86% for the M3). So, no, the C55's motor is still pulling fine up high, thank you very much. And it peaks lower, 376 lb-ft@4,000 rpm compared to the M3's 262 lb-ft@4,900 rpm, almost 1,000 rpm higher. Advantage: C55.

 

Improviz, for racing its better to have your torque peak higher up.

Benzo, magazine racing is weet, but (as can be seen on the video) I prefer it on the track. And anyway, no-where did I say the M3 is the superior car. I just said it was faster.

 

M3 is a slower car than C32, not to mention C55 or CLK55.

Go back to your M3 forum to show off your slower M3.

 

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Unfortunately, 100% of magazines all over the world (incl US mags) agree that the M3 is quicker. Check it out.

 

Hey Improviz, let's dicsuss Porscche Gt2 vs GT3 for a minute. We can leave BMW & Merc out of this & make it theoretical. Horst van Saurma drove both cars & here's the times:

http://www.track-challenge.com/compa...ar1=71&Car2=39

Not the temperature difference was 1 degree celicius so that isn't a problem.
The Gt2 has 462hp vs Gt3's 381hp. GT2 has close to double the torque of the GT3 which should make up for the weight difference which is only 77kg.

But the GT2 laps the RIng in 7:46 vs 7:47. Bear in mind the Ring has log straights for the Gt2 to make up time.

Around the tighter Hockenheim circuit, the Gt2 does 1:12.6 while GT3 does 1:11.8. What they have the same body, same pro driver & even the same Pirelli P-Zero tyres. But the NA car wins. Why?

 

Yea, magazines say your car is the fastest then your car is the fastest.lol
I can tell you that i don't believe magazine race. I've seen lots of videos that M3 lost to C32. On the other hand, i've seen a few video that C32 lost to M3 too. I don't hate BMW but i hate BMW drivers who act like their car is the fastest.
Keep telling yourself that M3 is a faster car until you think it's turth. Oh wait, you already thought it's the turth!

 

 

Other than the fact that "This Thread Sucks," I raced another S2000 today. Actually, the car really impressed me. We raced twice, with two C32 kills, but not by that much. This driver launched at high RPMs, and gave me a good run. By 60, I had him by two cars.

I also raced an E46 M3 today. I actually had forgotten to replace two of my spark plug wires, so it was close. As you all have learned, neither torque nor actual cylinder ignition "mean jack," so my 4-banger C32 dominated. Actually, the C32 dominates all races against the M3.

Please do not misunderstand me. . . I do not mean to imply that the C32 is a better car than the M3. . . only faster.

Sorry to subject y'all to this info. . . I really wanted to post on the M3 forum, but they seem to have a "******-jack-off" filter which prevents lame-*** trolling. Damn!

 

OK, so this thread has gone full circle & now I have to repeat myself. A C32/55 race is close enough that it will be down to the driver. More specifically it will be down to the M3 driver as its significantly harder to launch a manual than an auto.

The fact that 99% of the world's auto magazines got the M3 quicker (even quicker trap speeds) indicates that with a skilled driver the M3 is quicker. Does that make sense or you guys want to live in a dream world where you say all over the world the C32 has been sabotaged to get worse numbers?

But on the street not all drivers are as skilled as the Magazine test drivers. So the C32 would probably prevail if both drivers are average. But that just means you beat that driver.

 

100% wrong, two very reputable local magazines here in Sydney did quicker runs in the C32 than the M3 over the 1/4 sprint.

Seriously, we don't mind balanced opinions but u know it too well why ur in here to start with

 

beacause 1) The GT2 is significantly more powerful than the GT3

3) The GT3 is specifically built for the track whille the GT2 is a LITTLE bit more of a straight line and road car

 

Yeah, but what you clean forgot to mention is that in Australia you only get the SMG. Even I agree that an SMG should be a tick slower than a C32. I see the US Mags have them almost dead even with the SMG being fractionally quicker. On the streets I would give the advantage to the C32.

 

Nope, you get the SMG and 6spd here in Australia

 

Here is one "fast" M3 on hte track at 14.32sec/100mph



LINK to one fast M3

 

As long as that benz has that 5 speed shiithole they call "GEARBOX", it will never stand a chance against the M3!