Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete_vB
The 1M puts over 100 more lb-ft to the wheels than the E9X on the average a wheels dyno, ie dynojet. ~360 lb-ft for the 1M plays against around 255, which is where my comment came from.
Taking gearing into account, as you suggest, the 1M 1st (4.11) gear and final drive (3.154) give torque multiplication resulting in a peak of nearly 4700 lb-ft to the rear wheels in 1st gear, while the M3's engine and gearing results in 3900 lbs-ft, or 800 lb less.
In second gear the 1M is putting a peak of 2600 lb-ft of torque to the wheels while the M3 has 2300, 300 less. Thus in lower gears where you're traction limited the 1M is trying to put hundreds of lb-ft more torque to the ground than the E9X M3, which is much of where it gets its tail happy character.
Does that address your concern?
|
No.
1. It's not "to the wheels". To the wheels is after gearing. Torque figures are given at the crank. Dyno results give torque figures at the crank. Trust me on this one. Go ask a physics person. There's NO WAY 300ft-lbs of torque "to the wheels" could light up a 265 rear tire.
2. Personally I think we shouldn't use dyno figures but even if we take your numbers as correct, you have to think that the 1M torque figure is at just over 4k rpm, and then steadily declines all the way to readline. By the time you shift into your next gear, you've dropped down to nearly 200ft-lbs! The M3 however, maintains the 260-ish ft-lb all the way through it's 8,300 redline starting at just before 3,000rpm. Once you add back the multiplication factor, the difference builds and is quite largely in favor of the M3 after 5,500rpm...
Easily put, stock for stock, if the M3 is consistently not putting down more torque through the wheels, how is it accelerating quicker (or even similarly) than the 1M?