Renboy Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Please list which, and why (justify your answer). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 One without a balance of the other is pointless. But since I am considering a big ass 4X4 F250 Powerstroke for a next vehicle, I want LOTS of torque to do some offroad hill crawling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Well HP is related more to tq then tq is to HP, so I'll take tq, I mean thats what gets you moving. Naturally I demand flawless paint, but I can take care of that myself. and MTS, I certainly hope this would be an edition and not a millenia replacement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted April 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Horsepower for me. Torque can get a lot moving, but shatters transmissions in the process. Cars with higher hp generally have higher redlines. And since *most* of my driving is at low rpm's, this saves fuel, but at the same time, if/when I go to the track I always have the upper rpm range to rely on. F1 cars have to be pushed to get going, sportbikes need to idle at 3k, so I don't think one is pointless without the other. I never tow anything so I don't need torque. Also, since lower torque means lower probablility of breaking shit, things can be made lighter and still be reliable (so more go). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 If it is built right.... No replacement... only ADDITIONS... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazdaMomma Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 HP cause I wanna zooooooooom zooooooooom............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 I'm going to disagree on the F1 car part, its true they don't come into there true power band until the 10-13k rev range, but thats because at low speed without the aerodynamic force its simply impossible to put the power down. Assuming the car is built to hold up the tq and not aftermarket whatever, I stand by my choice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted April 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 You sir, have a lot to learn about engines. F1 engines don't produce enough torque to tighten my lugnuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excluesiveonez Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 You sir, have a lot to learn about engines. F1 engines don't produce enough torque to tighten my lugnuts. bahahahahahahahah! i chose the paint one... i guess it is since my haircuts cost more that my oil changes... i mean i did pay 180 bucks for unlimited oil changes for 2 years at infiniti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 You've got to have torque to produce hp. Hp is torque multiplyed by rpm remember. Engines with a wide revband will always be faster than an engine with a narrow revband, because it is possible to go faster in a lower gear, which produces more torque on the drive wheels. A typical high rpm engine like say a Kawazaki ZX6 produces maybe 60 Nm of torque, less than the laziest Harley, but the rpm range (16k or something) makes those torque figures produce something like 125 hp. Pretty screamin' neat, and enough to leave the average Harley in the dust like nothing. Therefore; torque, but on high revs. Preferably in a nice sounding engine like th KL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted April 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Oh, don't get me wrong, I know you have to have some amount of torque, but high revving engines don't and can't have a lot of torque. Torque comes from stroke, a long stroke, and high rpm's do not work well together. Even the new M3's have learned this and lowered torque. I believe their new v8 is 60lbs lighter than the old i6, maintains an 8500 redline, and piston speeds I bleieve 1fps less than F1. That's a pretty impressive engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 I'm mixed on the new m3, it looks weak, almost like a chink family car, the engine is impressive, but going to a v8 they have lost some respect, especially among online enthusists, before it was a med size i-6 producing such great power. No its just a v8 engine where you expect it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Considering it used to be an I4 in the early models... 2.3L The e30 M3 was the best in my books... with the flared fenders and evil look Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazdaMomma Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 I don't care for the looks of it. But that is just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted April 27, 2007 Report Share Posted April 27, 2007 Oh, I wouldn't know, the M3 six has a medium 87 mm stroke and can rev quite a lot thanks to modern metallurgy, 8k-ish I guess. And that engine produces maybe 350 Nm of torque in a torque curve flat as a dance floor. Pretty damn impressive. The new shortstroke V8 (give or take same stroke as our KL) kan rev a bit more I suppose, here is a link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted April 27, 2007 Report Share Posted April 27, 2007 Based on the 1986 E30 3-Series, the first M3 was introduced with a 2.3 L S14 engine, derived from the M10 inline-4 block and the valve train and head architecture from BMWs M1 and later M6 inline-6 cylinder. One of the main reasons for production of the road car was to homologate the M3 for Group A Touring Car racing, as an answer to the "2.3-16V"-model of the Mercedes-Benz W201 which was introduced in 1983. A notable characteristic of the E30 M3 is its racing pedigree, campaigned by BMW as well as other racing teams including Prodrive and Schnitzer Motorsport. The first version produced 195 hp (143 kW) (catalyzed model). Evolution models (not sold in North America) continued with 2.3 liters but adopted revised cam timing, increased compression along with the lack of a catalyst producing approximately 215 hp. Later the Sport Evolution model increased engine displacement to 2.5 L and produced 238 hp (175 kW). 786 cabriolets were also produced, all by hand in BMWs Garching plant, at the time the 215 hp example was the world's fastest four seater convertible. The E30 M3 differed from the rest of the E30 line-up in many ways. The M3 was equipped with a revised stiffer and more aerodynamic body shell as well as "box flared" fenders to accommodate a wider track with wider and taller wheels and tires. The only body panels the standard model and the M3 shared were the hood and roof. It also had three times the caster angle of any other E30. The M3 shared larger wheel bearings and front brake calipers with the E28 5-Series. To keep the car competitive in racing following homologation rules, homologation specials were produced. Homologation rules roughly stated that the race version must reflect the street car aerodynamically and in engine displacement; therefore, improved models were periodically released for the public. Special editions and homologation specials include: the Evo 1, Evo 2 and Sport Evolution some of which featured less weight, improved aerodynamics, taller front fender arches (Sport Evolution; to further facilitate 18 inch wheels in DTM), brake ducting, and more power. Production of the original E30 M3 (E30 coupe) ended in 1991. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazdaMomma Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 and there you have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohamedeladawy@hotmail.com Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 basically...i would like shitloads of hp but also some torque as well. expalination? well read above. everything that can be said is said. but..there is nothing better than hearing a turbo spool up. o god...such a sound gets me goosebumps and thirsting for more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted April 30, 2007 Report Share Posted April 30, 2007 I think the e36 was the best body style after the e46, but since it has such deep roots in the previous its a tie. I really never liked the e30 though at all, even when it was the "new" m3. Now an M1, that is a different story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted May 1, 2007 Report Share Posted May 1, 2007 Difference is... you are young... I grew up wanting a car in the e30 era... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazdaMomma Posted May 5, 2007 Report Share Posted May 5, 2007 still don't care about it's looks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted May 7, 2007 Report Share Posted May 7, 2007 Opinions are like.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MazdaMomma Posted May 12, 2007 Report Share Posted May 12, 2007 MEH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted May 13, 2007 Report Share Posted May 13, 2007 Back on topic here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.