[shortseller]

Why is it BMW makes their V8 in current M3s with such little Tq relatively speaking? Is this why they are going to a straight 6 turbo? I just embarrassed a fellow bimmer head on the highway, as he tried to school me in the art of mid range WOT. It was pretty funny to say the least, and if you are reading this mr silver M3 on 495w today about 330pm, I wasn't even going to play till you became such a dick about it.

[Blubaron79]

[135Pats]

Lol this thread has bad news written all over it. I'm not sure what modifications you've made to your car, but it is true stock for stock N54s have more torque on offer down low. Get up to higher speeds and youll be seeing his tail lights though…I don't mean to sound negative, but the N54 vs. S65 threads always end like crap.

[E90Company]

Ok, now get on a road course and do 10 laps. First one at the finish line wins. Useless to compare a modded car to a stock car.

[shortseller]

^No doubt, even 1/4 mile might not be pretty, I submit to that.

So this is why I asked the question, why make the M3 suffer in mid range punch? Is there a reason it's set up like this? Track perhaps?

I would guess the new 6T will take care of that though. Am I wrong?

[shortseller]

Originally Posted by 135Pats

Lol this thread has bad news written all over it. I'm not sure what modifications you've made to your car, but it is true stock for stock N54s have more torque on offer down low. Get up to higher speeds and youll be seeing his tail lights though…I don't mean to sound negative, but the N54 vs. S65 threads always end like crap.

Nothing against M3s, I'd love to have one. I was just a bit taken back by it all. Well, technically he was...but I digress.

[turb0mik3]

Low end torque and mid-range are not as desirable as top end around a road coarse, which is what the M3 was built for. If you compare stock to stock, the S65 is the better engine for racing (not even a question) and the N54 is a better all around engine for daily driving and having some fun. I am sure even the BMW engineers had no idea what potential lied within the N54, as a modified one can easily out-perform a stock and even slightly modified S65.

Both were designed for different purposes. I love both, but prefer the N54 with some modifications. Now I just need to add some forged internals to rev higher! haha.

[Rotorocious]

Displacement

[parky1215]

I wouldn't miss low end torque on my FBO car that much if driving V8 M3 at track.
I drove M3 few times and it feels extremely nice having that flat torque and hp that doesn't die even at 8k+ rpm. Just have the car always be at right rpm and M3 will never disappoint... but that would be considered reckless driving on city street :P

[Ænema]

IMO the S65 is a far overrated engine and doesn't respond as well to mods as most like to believe. I honestly do not car about road racing(if you do, good for you but it's just not my thing) how fun the car is to drive on the street is all i care about.

I will tell you this, i ran a FBO m3 vs my FBO+ meth setup and I was easily 3-4 cars ahead at 140mph and he was not magically closing the distance.

[shortseller]

I love the tq in these N54s, it would be hard for me to give this up for an S65 alternative.

[djgandy]

Most people don't buy a car to then go and spend 10k modding it so it can go fast in a straight line? You know people were modding Supra's which will still thrash the N54 15 years ago right?

Also you get a great sound, 420hp and a BMW warranty + goodwill if your engine goes bang, which it is unlikely to and as it is a technically a track car it will much better in corners.

The main reason BMW are using turbos in their M cars is due to emissions regulations. There are big penalties to pay for putting out 300g/km of CO2 in Europe. I am not sure it is such a big deal in the US. In layman terms turbo means you can have the same power from a smaller displacement. M5 V10 went to V8, M3 V8 goes to V6 (not sure why they went up to V8 in the first place?) and this in turn lowers the emissions on the urban cycle along with other tricks such as stop/start.

I also don't see a good ending to this thread given the first post.

[n54gte]

It's a small 4.0l v8 that trades torq for high ass revs

[eyim1988]

heck my n55 was 2 cars ahead from a 30-140 roll vs a friends 2012 m3

[blisstik]

Cuz turbo vs NA. Anyways, the M3 has better suspension, differential and higher revs which means faster time around the track.

It's alright tho, the 3 can get fitted with M parts and an aftermarket LSD as well.

[BEAR-AvHistory]

Supercharged M3 VS N54 JB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=qJ_sMbPFsxQ

[shortseller]

^ http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7...20-horsepower/

[BMWM.D.]

I had an E90 M3 for a while, and really wasn't blown away by the S65. Yes, it sounded great and made good top-end power -- but that's about it. I had a 335i before that, and always missed the torque of the N54. The S65 does have a very flat torque curve, but doesn't reach peak torque until almost 4000 rpm.

If the M3 had a 6-speed, the driver would need to really be on top of things to keep the engine in the sweet spot. They do make decent torque; it's just at a higher rpm. The Vanos works wonders, but an N/A 4.0 liter engine that revs to 8400 rpm isn't going to have a ton of low-end power.

[BMWWW]

Why low torque? Because horsepower is calculated as a function of torque and horsepower.
http://www.wisc-online.com/Objects/V...px?ID=ENG17504

Two engines with the same amount of HP, one high reving, one lower reving.
High reving engine will have lower torque at the same HP, but have a higher redline.
Low reving engine will have more tq, at the same HP, but will have a lower redine.

/school's out

[BEAR-AvHistory]

Originally Posted by shortseller

^ http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7...20-horsepower/

Really? - supercharger kit for $47,445 at current exchange rates, but you will have to get your car to Germany first - Really?

Makes Shiv's ST thing look like a bargain. What I thought was interesting was the $47K supercharger kit M3's 0-62 time of 3.7 seconds while the low 11 second 335/135 are doing 0-60 in 3.0. Seems like a big waste of $40K.

[junitos]

after reading everybody's post I have nothing negative to say about the m3 for years I thought about the m3 s65 like the car I always wanted

the m3 s65 for the price compared to the n54 and all the n54 can do, I couldn't be happier with my n54

[Beemw335]

Originally Posted by turb0mike

I am sure even the BMW engineers had no idea what potential lied within the N54.

Thats ridiculous, they designed the engine, they obviously know what its potential was.
OP, its not all about straight line power...
S65 is better for the track
N54 is better for the street.