Autozeitung comparison : S5 vs. 335i

[3x5PSI]

Well please let me in on the secret. I would like to do the same to my car. I can pay you money for this info. You think if I mail BMW they can give me these tips? Wow, I am so excited, maybe my M3 can finally beat my 335 now.

[Leadfoot]

Every racing engine will get this at the time of it's assembly. Come on, think.

And trust me this will make a world of a difference to the way a car performs.

[3x5PSI]

M3 engines have always been hand-built. I'm not sure about the E46 tho.

Blusprinting doesn't make a major difference these days.. The manufacturing plants don't have the tolerances they used to. Like gas-flowing a modern head, also has very little effect. Especially on an M motor.

Our local Group N racing scene had 330's running in Class A last year. The engines were blue-printed by BMW. On an engine dyno it gained between 2-3kw. That's at the crank.

You know how it works huh? Have you seen a video of the factory? Have you seen the QA process for the components? I think you clutching at straws but hey that's just me.

[Z07]

We had an Audi club dyno day recently. There were 2 RS4's on the dyno:

Dyno results mean next to nothing. Autocar figured the M3 and RS4. The RS4 is nearly a second faster between 60 and 100mph.

[Leadfoot]

Sad to say I reckon I know about more on the subject than your good self. Blueprinting involves a lot more than just balancing each matching component and setting all their respective tolerances to the optimum. But then that would be telling the whole story know.

Stop looking it up on the internet for answers because the ins and outs of it won't be found there.

Trust me you would win this battle, regards of what you say.

[3x5PSI]

I dont need to search the net to know about blueprinting. I do have a racecar. So tell me was the C32 also blueprinted? Really pathetic. I think all Audis ever tested were also blueprinted.

[Leadfoot]

There is a big difference between owning a racecar and have a father who use to build the bloody things. OK it was a long time ago and yes things have moved on, especially with the intro of computer mapping etc. but the lightening of the internals give a performance boost. What did my dad always say 'a pound off the engine was like thirty pound off the car'. I don't know if that was him just bumming it's importance, but when again.

As for the Merc, I have no problems with it's time, look at the power and torque, above that of the S4 and well above the M3 so why complain about something that seem right.

[3x5PSI]

Autocar figured the M3 and RS4. The RS4 is nearly a second faster between 60 and 100mph.

Yes but Audi sent an RS4 with a blueprinted engine to that test. If you don't believe me ask my father.

Leadie, maybe in your father's days these things made a difference. Not in the modern era, & not on an M engine.

BTW a C32 has 8kw more than an M3 at the crank. That is negated by the slushbox with torque convertor which robs more power. Hence it makes less power on the wheels & its heavier than the M3. 90% of comparative tests have the M3 faster than the C32. I don't know if you noticed but this C32 was the fastest one ever tested by some margin.

[Leadfoot]

Leadie, maybe in your father's days these things made a difference. Not in the modern era, & not on an M engine.

I don't know if you noticed but this C32 was the fastest one ever tested by some margin.

Wrong about the Merc, Autocar tested it and it's time to 100mph was 11.3s which isn't what I would call 'by some margin', torque as every one know is the key to acceleration not power, power is for top speed.

M engines are mass produced not hand made in the true sense of the word, you can't knock the numbers out that BMW do and expect everything to be done by hand. I would agree that it will be made to higher tolerances than a normal BMW engine, but the CSL was made to a higher tolerance again, much like the GT3 so there is gains to be had how every small you may feel they are and they are done for a reason.

But to end this argument once and for all, lets say that the M3 did on a couple occasions post great times to 200km/h, 16.8s and 17.2s. The average is mid 18s which shows that the majority of them posted mid to high 18s and the odd 19 as well. When compared to the average of a RS4 which is in the mid 16s that shows the majority are in the low to mid 16s, the two cars are a world apart in performance terms.

It like saying I got a hole in one at golf today, sure it was done but the chances of it happening again are slim at best.

[3x5PSI]

torque as every one know is the key to acceleration not power, power is for top speed.

No. Torque is static unit. It does nothing without being applied. That, by definition, is horsepower. The rate at which the torque is applied. Note rate implies there is a unit of time associated. Which power does being a "rate" unit. Torque is not related to time in any way whatsoever.

So yeah instantaneously F=MA and hence the torque is what deems the acceleration. But of course acceleration at a point in time (even if it were possible to determine that) means nothing. We need to continuously provide the force to keep the object moving & accelerating. That is horsepower.

Also when you out on the road wheel torque is all that matters. A 6 speed with 3.64 final drive & aggresive gearing may well get more torque to the wheels than a long 5-speed auto with very long final drive. And the M3 will make more power to the wheels in the racing powerband. Here's the formula for wheel torqueL

WTn = FD x GRn X Te x Lt

Where
WTn = wheel torque in gear n
GRn = gear ratio of gear #n
Te = engine torque
Lt = total drive train and parasitic losses

[3x5PSI]

the two cars are a world apart in performance terms.

Actually they are a lot closer than you think.

[Leadfoot]

Actually they are a lot closer than you think.

Only in your reality mate, only in your reality.

[3x5PSI]

Only in your reality mate, only in your reality.

PLease. I have seen it at the track & on the road as well. Some mags have got the RS4 faster. Some have got the M3 faster. All the times when the RS4 was faster was when Audi sent Rs4's with blueprinted engines to the test. My uncle has the proof to back me up.




Car & Driver, M3 1/4 mile 13.1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

Car & Driver RS4 1/4 mile 13.2

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ecs-page4.html

Now I know the RS4 won a few tests, like the M3 has, but all those were "tweaked" RS4's.

[Leadfoot]

No. Torque is static unit. It does nothing without being applied. That, by definition, is horsepower.

OK, so torque has no relevance so why quote it at all when horsepower in the only important thing worth quoting. Oh but hold on a minute, if this is indeed the case then why can a 330d destroy a 330i on in-gear acceleration and the same goes for the A4 3.0TDi over the A4 3.2FSi and every diesel which have similar hp (actually less) but much greater, oh what's the word I'm looking for, oh yes TORQUES. And all of the above diesel cars have a much longer final drive because of their low rev limit.

In fact, if you check the acceleration times where both can have be test (by a UK mag I might add) quoted that between the 60~100mph mark the 335d was actually 0.5s quicker than the 335i, again another example of less power but more torque proving to be quicker in acceleration, in fact from dyno tests carried out in the US the 335i may be kicking out as much as 360hp and not the quoted 306hp. And in the case of the A5 3.0TDi over the A5 3.2Quattro, it's the diesel which is the quickest in all acceleration disciplines and this also has less hp than the petrol equivalent.

At what point is the penny going to drop that actually the torque figures quoted are important and DO effect the acceleration process.

You see, it OK to quote equations when you really understand what they mean, but please don't try this again, it doesn't suit you.

[3x5PSI]

I happen to have a physics degree & it's plain you don't. You assume that Car A is beating Car B from speed X to Y because it has more torque. It may well have more torque at that point. But that's not the reason it is faster at that point. It's faster because it ALSO HAS MORE POWER at that point. If it har more torque at 3000rpm than car B, it will also HAVE MORE POWER at 3000rpm than car B. SImple formula relate torque & power.

If you knew anything about physics you would know this. To go from 160-200 you need to maintain torque over the period of time it takes you to go from 160-200. That torque applied over that period is horsepower. Trust me on this. FOrumula 1 cars have 220NM torque but they go plenty fast.

[Leadfoot]

FOrumula 1 cars have 220NM torque but they go plenty fast.

Re-check again, it closer to 500Nm of torque.

[3x5PSI]

Re-check again, it closer to 500Nm of torque.

You just made a fool of yourself. Go & check again. You saying a 2.4l normally aspirated engine makes 500NM?

I will give you a chance to go find the answer & then come back & apologise.

[3x5PSI]

Dude, I'm gonna put you out of your misery as you are obviously out of your depth. Everyone knows that F1 cars make power because they reto almost 20 000rpm, but they make very little torque.

SO here's a Wiki link for you, I know you must be googling like crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines

the 2006 2.4 litre Toyota RVX-06 V8 engine produces 552 kW (740 bhp, 751 PS) at 19,000 RPM and outputs 274 Nm of torque