| What's Going On? |
There are
53 guests on-line
|
|
|
|
|
|
E90 M3 vs. E90 330i Turbo
OK, I'm only speculating based on the bits of information I've gathered from the media. The E90 M3 is coming with a V8 engine, probably producing around 400hp. The 330i Turbo, although not acknowledged for production yet, will probably have a 3.0 Liter I-6, producing 300 hp. I am guessing that the M3 will cost a leg and an arm, but the turbo 330i will not be a cheap car either. On the other hand, it could definitely fill the gap between the 258hp and 400hp, which is quite a gap. I don't know if the Valvetronic engine can be successfully turbo charged as it's been supercharged by Alpina (although expensive and complicated, requiring special craftmanship for a small number of engines that's being produced in a 'workshop'). I'm not very familiar with turbo charging, but if reliability is an issue, I'm guessing that it's not just plug-and-play or is it ? On the performance side, I'd say that they will be quite close to each other, in terms of accelaration and overall performance throughout the rpm range. OK, other than just a game of hp numbers, what purpose will a 330i Turbo serve ? What do you think ? And those who would willing to spend the money on an M3, would they consider the Turbo instead ? I know it's too early to be able to say, but what the heck  | | Reply » E90 M3 vs. E90 330i Turbo |
Everyone slings 0-60mph times around like they are the measure of the car. They aren't. 0-60 times tell more about tires and the road surface then they do about the car and the Subaru WRX STi is a perfect example. Subaru puts über-sticky rubber and four wheel drive on the STi to make 7000 rpm clutch drops. Problem is that the tyres wear out quickly, are expensive, and if you replace them with rubber that will last then your 0-60 time increases by a second or two. Plus I hate to think what happens if you are in a freak snow storm in June (it happens). A better test would be a 5-100-0 test. This would give us info on the torque, gearing, brakes, suspension(indirectly), and horsepower.
As for most consumers believing that weight=safety, most consumers are stupid and also follow US crash tests. So as long as the car does well in crash tests the cars should still sell. Too bad our crash tests are insurance driven so an aluminum car would probably do poorly because of the cost to repair.
As a final rant, why does everyone strive for a 50:50 weight distribution then put wider rear tyres on the car. 50:50 isn’t ideal it’s average, look at Porsche, McLaren (the F1, not the McMerc), Ferrari, Pagani, Lotus and any purpose built racecar if you need proof. If the car is too nose heavy use a trans-axle to balance the car rearward, with SMG/SSG and automatics dominating the general market the shift linkage issues wouldn't be a problem. And if a car is nose heavy put larger front tyres on, this way you won’t have to visit understeer city at the slightest provocation.
Paul
| | Reply » E90 M3 vs. E90 330i Turbo |
Quote:
As a final rant, why does everyone strive for a 50:50 weight distribution then put wider rear tyres on the car.
| Someone important has apparently decided that a slight-to-moderate understeering attitude is a safer set up for the average consumer. That same consumer that equates weight with safety.
| | Reply » E90 M3 vs. E90 330i Turbo |
Quote: | Everyone slings 0-60mph times around like they are the measure of the car. They aren't. 0-60 times tell more about tires and the road surface then they do about the car and the Subaru WRX STi is a perfect example. Subaru puts über-sticky rubber and four wheel drive on the STi to make 7000 rpm clutch drops. Problem is that the tyres wear out quickly, are expensive, and if you replace them with rubber that will last then your 0-60 time increases by a second or two. Plus I hate to think what happens if you are in a freak snow storm in June (it happens). A better test would be a 5-100-0 test. This would give us info on the torque, gearing, brakes, suspension(indirectly), and horsepower. | I think I struck a nerve... 
All I was saying was that her car has an absolute rush of power when you hit the gas. All that for $23k. Do I like driving my Bimmer more? Absolutely. The 330i is more of an all around performer. But people compare cars with the 0 - 60 stat all the time. If anything it's something they can feel and appreciate. How many times have I gunned the car on a freeway onramp? It's basically a 10 - 70 mph test. And her Subaru would trash my BMW every time doing it. She doesn't spin the tires and she's got just average all seasons on it.
The discussion here was about BMW adding a turbo to the 3 series. My post dealt with the huge improvement a turbo makes in acceleration (when done right), and that modern turbos don't have the lag they used to have. Is that the whole measure of a car? Nope. But it's one of the absolute best things in a car.  You want that sucker to jump off the line when you hit the gas. Joe six-pack just doesn't get excited about brakes...
| | Reply » E90 M3 vs. E90 330i Turbo |
Here is my take on this:
The M3 will make 400hp
The stock 3.0 will make 255hp
Im gonna bet the 3.0 Turbo (if it makes it to the dealers), will only come in sedans and will make more than 300hp. 45hp more for the cost, complexity, and warrantability is not worth it. It's gonna be closer to 325hp at least. This gives BMW a niche in the higher powered sedan market, while leaving the king M leader in the sport coupes.
As for LSDs, they just don't understand the market there. You can get a Sentra SE-R with an LSD for god's sake. Any performance package or above should at least come with the option of one. Keep it a standard LSD, and leave the M-Power diff in the M3 if need be.
Just my .02
| | Reply » E90 M3 vs. E90 330i Turbo |
Quote: Everyone slings 0-60mph times around like they are the measure of the car. They aren't. 0-60 times tell more about tires and the road surface then they do about the car and the Subaru WRX STi is a perfect example. Subaru puts über-sticky rubber and four wheel drive on the STi to make 7000 rpm clutch drops. Problem is that the tyres wear out quickly, are expensive, and if you replace them with rubber that will last then your 0-60 time increases by a second or two. Plus I hate to think what happens if you are in a freak snow storm in June (it happens). A better test would be a 5-100-0 test. This would give us info on the torque, gearing, brakes, suspension(indirectly), and horsepower.
As for most consumers believing that weight=safety, most consumers are stupid and also follow US crash tests. So as long as the car does well in crash tests the cars should still sell. Too bad our crash tests are insurance driven so an aluminum car would probably do poorly because of the cost to repair.
As a final rant, why does everyone strive for a 50:50 weight distribution then put wider rear tyres on the car. 50:50 isn’t ideal it’s average, look at Porsche, McLaren (the F1, not the McMerc), Ferrari, Pagani, Lotus and any purpose built racecar if you need proof. If the car is too nose heavy use a trans-axle to balance the car rearward, with SMG/SSG and automatics dominating the general market the shift linkage issues wouldn't be a problem. And if a car is nose heavy put larger front tyres on, this way you won’t have to visit understeer city at the slightest provocation.
Paul |  
|
Page 9 of 14 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
|
|
|
Menu
E90 M3 vs. E90 330i Turbo