• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

BMW E92 M3

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: andylawcc
why are ppl b1tching about the relative lack of torque? I mean, the Mustang 4.6 V8 makes 300hp/320tq too. that's 25 more tq in exchange for 120 less hp and 10% less displacement.

the RS4 has a 4.2L V8, that makes 420hp/317tq, and ppl don't seems to pay attention since it is in the 300tq range. 295tq just seems a lot weaker.


and just in case anyone b1tches about the technicality, when I say tq it mean ft-lb.

Because a Mustang GT is 25k - this car is not. For the money the BMW should have LOADS more power.

The GT engine also runs on 87 gas, is lower compression, milder cams, etc, etc, etc.
 
bmw m cars have historically been high revving, high horsepower, lower torque engines. and even though the s54 was engine of the year for multiple years running, what made the e46 m3 really shine was the entire package of power, superb handling, and the luxury of a high class german vehicle, which put all together made it ridiculously fun to drive and own.
 
Originally posted by: dethman
bmw m cars have historically been high revving, high horsepower, lower torque engines. and even though the s54 was engine of the year for multiple years running, what made the e46 m3 really shine was the entire package of power, superb handling, and the luxury of a high class german vehicle, which put all together made it ridiculously fun to drive and own.

:thumbsup: Freude am Fahren
 
Back
Top