[ALEX325i]

Some of the purists here say the E46 is heavy, the feel is gone, etc. Well, get this: the M5 is 255 pounds heavier than an E55 (4023lbs vs 3768lbs). Do I need to say which one handles better? I guess not, but I'll quote MT anyways:

"Our slalom test course tends to bring out the best, or worst, in any car's handling portfolio, and here the differences are marked. The M5 clears the conefield at 66.96Mph, with the E55 well back at 62.84. And 4Mph is a big difference in this game. while overall grip levels between the two feel quite similar, the Mercedes doesn't handle high-speed left/right/left transitions nearly as well.

Tell me about throwing weight around in the twisties...

I guess the bottom line (and the point I've been trying to make)here is: give a "pig" a great suspension, tires, etc, and it'll do wonders, wherever... :thumb:

Since they compared all M cars to their AMG counterparts, I noticed something very interesting in the M3C vs CLK55 Cabrio comparo...

While the CLK has a V8 engine pumping out 376lb-ft of torque, it's still slower than the M3C, which is down 114lb-ft of torque. What have we learned: mate a high torque engine to poor gearing and traction, and you will get smoked by "heavier" cars with smaller engines any day of the week... :lmao:

 

[Guest]

Some of the purists here say the E46 is heavy, the feel is gone, etc. Well, get this: the M5 is 255 pounds heavier than an E55 (4023lbs vs 3768lbs). Do I need to say which one handles better? I guess not, but I'll quote MT anyways:

"Our slalom test course tends to bring out the best, or worst, in any car's handling portfolio, and here the differences are marked. The M5 clears the conefield at 66.96Mph, with the E55 well back at 62.84. And 4Mph is a big difference in this game. while overall grip levels between the two feel quite similar, the Mercedes doesn't handle high-speed left/right/left transitions nearly as well.

Tell me about throwing weight around in the twisties...

I guess the bottom line (and the point I've been trying to make)here is: give a "pig" a great suspension, tires, etc, and it'll do wonders, wherever... :thumb:

Since they compared all M cars to their AMG counterparts, I noticed something very interesting in the M3C vs CLK55 Cabrio comparo...

While the CLK has a V8 engine pumping out 376lb-ft of torque, it's still slower than the M3C, which is down 114lb-ft of torque. What have we learned: mate a high torque engine to poor gearing and traction, and you will get smoked by "heavier" cars with smaller engines any day of the week... :lmao:

No matter how much you may like what it says, it's still MOTOR TREND. Something written in Motor Trend carries about as much weight with me as things I find written on napkins in bars. If I wrote BMW is #1 on a piece of toilet paper, would that make it so. MT is a big, glossy piece of TP.

 

[ALEX325i]

Re: Re: Ok, finally had a chance to read my MT (AMG x M) last night...

No matter how much you may like what it says, it's still MOTOR TREND. Something written in Motor Trend carries about as much weight with me as things I find written on napkins in bars. If I wrote BMW is #1 on a piece of toilet paper, would that make it so. MT is a big, glossy piece of TP.

While it's not my favorite car mag either... Yes. Sure. Numbers are numbers. Besides, now you'll tell me you disagree with what they wrote... Point out what's not true in the part I quoted. Tell me you really don't believe an M3C outperforms a CLK55 Cabrio...

The point here is: it doesn't matter if it's MT, Automobile Mag, etc. Facts are facts. Even MT couldn't bring itself to state otherwise...

 

[nate]

Re: Re: Ok, finally had a chance to read my MT (AMG x M) last night...

No matter how much you may like what it says, it's still MOTOR TREND. Something written in Motor Trend carries about as much weight with me as things I find written on napkins in bars. If I wrote BMW is #1 on a piece of toilet paper, would that make it so. MT is a big, glossy piece of TP.

I agree MT writing sucks, but hard numbers are objective. Despite the weight disadvantage, the results are comprable to any other magazine test.

Alex, clear your PM box

 

[blackdawg]

food for thought.

of course i read that comparison as well. i try to read almost anything i can get my hands on automotive related.

a quick tangential: european car really hates the M3convertible and complain about lack of structural rigidity and the weight.

back to the comparison: a priori one would guess the m cars would fare well here because they have SMG and/or manual transmissions. and in fact, i think when the votes were close, "driver involvement" tipped the scales.

this weight issue: for the purist, this issue will not go away. once the z5 coupe/roadster comes out, it will only tend to make us scream louder. bigger engines in heavier cars is not always the answer.

i'm not sure how much you track/do track/will track your M3, alex, but weight seems to loom quite largely here. simple physics says that cars weighing 400 pounds more than their peers have a disadvantage in changing inertia; they need more braking power lap after lap, and they need wider tires to keep that rolling mass gripped to the tarmac. that's my biggest complaint, other than subjective car "feel".

for example: how does an old fashioned 993 aircooled 282hp carrera compare with the M5 on the nurburgring? guess what: same laptimes (8:28). a 1000pound weight differential and about 120hp differential. great. so an M5 can keep up with the LAST generation carrera on a track (the euro e36m3 ran an 8:35; the new E46m3 is supposed to run 8:18-8:20).:dunno:

 

[ALEX325i]

Re: food for thought.

of course i read that comparison as well. i try to read almost anything i can get my hands on automotive related.

a quick tangential: european car really hates the M3convertible and complain about lack of structural rigidity and the weight.

back to the comparison: a priori one would guess the m cars would fare well here because they have SMG and/or manual transmissions. and in fact, i think when the votes were close, "driver involvement" tipped the scales.

this weight issue: for the purist, this issue will not go away. once the z5 coupe/roadster comes out, it will only tend to make us scream louder. bigger engines in heavier cars is not always the answer.

i'm not sure how much you track/do track/will track your M3, alex, but weight seems to loom quite largely here. simple physics says that cars weighing 400 pounds more than their peers have a disadvantage in changing inertia; they need more braking power lap after lap, and they need wider tires to keep that rolling mass gripped to the tarmac. that's my biggest complaint, other than subjective car "feel".

for example: how does an old fashioned 993 aircooled 282hp carrera compare with the M5 on the nurburgring? guess what: same laptimes (8:28). a 1000pound weight differential and about 120hp differential. great. so an M5 can keep up with the LAST generation carrera on a track (the euro e36m3 ran an 8:35; the new E46m3 is supposed to run 8:18-8:20).:dunno:

I read your post real quick. Not 100% sure what you meant, but I think your last paragraph says it all about the "weight" issue. It's a NON-issue. Especially when you compare the (321HP) E36 M3 to the E46 M3 (15-17 seconds faster on the Nuerburgring)...

 

[blackdawg]

implicit in those times.....

....are that the lighter 996 (3000pounds) with 43 less hp and ~15-20 less ft#'s are still faster around the 'ring.

with the stupid archaic placement of the engine behind the driving wheels.

and they're still faster track cars.

better brakes plus less weight.

 

[nate]

Re: implicit in those times.....

....are that the lighter 996 (3000pounds) with 43 less hp and ~15-20 less ft#'s are still faster around the 'ring.

with the stupid archaic placement of the engine behind the driving wheels.

and they're still faster track cars.

better brakes plus less weight.

And being $23K more, they can design a car using ligher weight martials and better parts. Power to weight is key, not just power alone. Don't forget how much larger the interior of the 3 is, back seat particularly. That would add soe weight too, right? Having a usable trunk too, damn.

 

[JST]

Re: Re: food for thought.

I read your post real quick. Not 100% sure what you meant, but I think your last paragraph says it all about the "weight" issue. It's a NON-issue. Especially when you compare the (321HP) E36 M3 to the E46 M3 (15-17 seconds faster on the Nuerburgring)...

Really, I'm very nearly done with these discussions, but I can't not comment on this. Weight is an issue. It's always an issue. Carmakers spend countless hours trimming fat everywhere they can. Removing weight improves acceleration, improves braking, improves handling, improves fuel efficiency, and reduces wear on nearly every component.

There are simply no direct negatives to reducing weight. Indirect costs, such as engineering hours and potential reduction in features (or increase in feature cost) are real, however, which is why expensive cars can have the same features and be lighter than inexpensive cars.

We can quibble about whether 250 lbs is a big deal (I think it is, you disagree), or whether the safety, comfort and luxury features added to the E46 are worth the corresponding weight gain (I think they aren't, you disagree). We can agree that, faced with the specter of increasing weight, carmakers can fight back with bigger tires, more capable suspensions, bigger brakes, and bigger, more powerful engines (though to some extent this is a feedback loop, as all of these things make the car heavier).

But there really can be no disagreement over the basic point that weight is an issue. How much a car weighs matters. Setting cost compromises aside for a moment, all else being equal it is *always* better to have a lighter car than a heavier one.

 

[nate]

Re: Re: Re: food for thought.

But there really can be no disagreement over the basic point that weight is an issue. How much a car weighs matters. Setting cost compromises aside for a moment, all else being equal it is *always* better to have a lighter car than a heavier one.

Of course reducing weight is always desirable, so long as there are no adverse consequences to doing so. Why would anyone disagree :dunno:

 

[blackdawg]

i know JST is wearying of this....

....but i feel like it's something i can beat with a stick, over and over again.

 

[ed325i]

Re: Re: Re: Re: food for thought.

Of course reducing weight is always desirable, so long as there are no adverse consequences to doing so. Why would anyone disagree :dunno:

Is there not a direct relationship between passenager survival in an accident and the vehicle's weight?

Ed

 

[ALEX325i]

Re: i know JST is wearying of this....

....but i feel like it's something i can beat with a stick, over and over again.

Me too... And in your previous post you said the M5 laps the Nuerburgring in the SAME time... You didn't say the 996 was faster at first...

Ok, and how you explain the E46 M3 lapping faster than an feather light E36 M3 (321HP)???

Why can't you guys keep your posts consistent???

 

[blackdawg]

i dunno if the correlation is great.

F1 cars crash a lot and drivers survive.....ah! one extreme.

are you trying to tell me that the boxster S doesn't crash well? it does. of course, one mitigating factor: no engine up front for frontal collisions...same for 911 cars.

all kidding aside, there is no reason a car cannot weigh 3000 pounds and be a safe car.

latest rounds at www.carsafety.org with the subcompacts (focus, civic, etc) demonstrate that small doesn't mean unsafe. those cars weigh in about 2500-2800 pounds.

just being a devil's advocate. safety and back seats just aren't the first things i worry about in an M car. obviously, the demographic has shifted for the cars. a bigger, richer, demographic.

 

[JST]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: food for thought.

Is there not a direct relationship between passenager survival in and accident and the vehicle's weight?

Ed

The short answer is no. The long answer is sort of. Simple physics tells you that in a multi-car collision, the heavier car is going to do better than the lighter one. However, in a single car collision (say, with a wall), the more mass you have, the more force has to be dissipated. Heavier thus may not be better in these cases.

Moreover, there are heavy cars that are very bad in accidents, and light ones that are very good. It's *much* better to have engineered force dissipation (i.e., crumple zones) than it is to have a big, strong, heavy car, since the big, strong, heavy car tends to impart the force of impact directly to the passengers (see this month's C&D for an article on how this makes NASCAR cars dangerous).

Finally, heavier cars may be more likely to be in accidents (or in more severe accidents) than light ones. Can you imagine Lotus Sevens having the same rollover problems as SUVs?

 

[JST]

Re: Re: i know JST is wearying of this....

Me too... And in your previous post you said the M5 laps the Nuerburgring in the SAME time... You didn't say the 996 was faster at first...

Ok, and how you explain the E46 M3 lapping faster than???

Why can't you guys keep your posts consistent???

Let's postulate that an E39 M5 and a 993 lap the 'Ring at the exact same time. To do it, the M5 requires two more cylinders, 100+ more horsepower, bigger brakes, etc. It also is much harder on tires, suspension components, and probably uses a lot more gas to do it.

IOW, as I said, weight is not a "non-issue." You can compensate for weight with more power, but there's no free lunch: you also need more brakes, more tires, more body structure to keep the car stiff, more fuel, which all leads to...more weight.

 

[blackdawg]

oopS!!! let's clear up the 'ring time confusion:

the last generation (circa 1995-1998) aircooled 993 chassis 911s lap about the same times as the e39M5's.

the current, watercooled, 996 chassis 911 laps faster. and faster again because of the displacement upgrade.

there are many different times quoted for the cars, but i just rely on the times which came from the same driver on dry conditions from auto und sport (maybe?) and also online here: http://home.swipnet.se/~w-32546/nbring/laptimes for different cars.htm

point being: a lighter car with far less HP and far less sophisticated engine can lap with the same alacrity as a 4000 pound, 400HP beast. the optimist would say: wow, bmw really knows their stuff if they can make a car that heavy lap that quickly (sort of); the pessimist would argue: how about that same HP in a 5 series chassis weighing about 3500lbs....oh wait! that's the z8 and you can see how that car spanks the nurburgring.

sorry for the confusion.

 

[ALEX325i]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: food for thought.

The short answer is no. The long answer is sort of. Simple physics tells you that in a multi-car collision, the heavier car is going to do better than the lighter one. However, in a single car collision (say, with a wall), the more mass you have, the more force has to be dissipated. Heavier thus may not be better in these cases.

Moreover, there are heavy cars that are very bad in accidents, and light ones that are very good. It's *much* better to have engineered force dissipation (i.e., crumple zones) than it is to have a big, strong, heavy car, since the big, strong, heavy car tends to impart the force of impact directly to the passengers (see this month's C&D for an article on how this makes NASCAR cars dangerous).

Finally, heavier cars may be more likely to be in accidents (or in more severe accidents) than light ones. Can you imagine Lotus Sevens having the same rollover problems as SUVs?

Heck, it's funny how you guys "cook" things...

What you said IS true. However, let's not forget that how force is dissipated is what REALLY matters here. Otherwise, the X5 would never be able to pull off the awards it has pulled off...

Again, funny how you guys "cook" shit... What about the "heavy" (like an E46 is REALLY f*ckin' heavy) ones that crash well? Why not include in your little list the "heavy pigs" that crash well???

Anyway, just a thought. I'm really done yelling at you walls too. Are you guys happy with your feather light cars? Cool, because I couldn't be happier with my "fat" pigs... And one of them will simply smoke and outhandle 90% of the cars out there (feather light E36 M3's included).

Plus, I agree with Nate and as I've said many times, BMW is about to change all that with the Z5, CSL, etc.

 

[ALEX325i]

Re: Re: Re: i know JST is wearying of this....

Let's postulate that an E39 M5 and a 993 lap the 'Ring at the exact same time. To do it, the M5 requires two more cylinders, 100+ more horsepower, bigger brakes, etc. It also is much harder on tires, suspension components, and probably uses a lot more gas to do it.

First of all... Comparisons like Porsche vs M5, Lotus Elise vs whatever simply don't make ANY sense. Sure, the M5 needs all that. However, have you seen what I was comparing it to when I made my first remarks??? E55!!! Now, THAT makes sense...

Anyway, let's carry on with the nonsense... Which one is more pratical? Which one would you take on a long trip? Those are arguments you practical "sports sedan" lovers just CAN'T overlook. So, yeah, it needs more, but it gives more. Likewise, you want the Porsche. Hey, it's an amazing car. But there really is NO free lunch: two seater, etc.

IOW, as I said, weight is not a "non-issue." You can compensate for weight with more power, but there's no free lunch: you also need more brakes, more tires, more body structure to keep the car stiff, more fuel, which all leads to...more weight.

Sure, and the bottom line is... The M5 is just another "fat" POS that nobody should even consider???

 

[in_d_haus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: food for thought.

...BMW is about to change all that with the Z5, CSL, etc.

We can only hope! The previous 6 and 8 series brings me to doubt but this remains to be seen...

E46s ROCK!,
Haus