|
|
|
03-03-2013, 01:24 PM | #23 | |
Lieutenant
54
Rep 509
Posts |
Quote:
Yes I know 'everyone' was saying that before any one had driven one but once people had no one said it was the 'weak link'. Maybe you haven't driven one and your being an arm chair reviewer? I have heard everyone say the power in the 1M is much more usable then the M3. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-03-2013, 01:29 PM | #24 | |
Resident Kerbalnaut
477
Rep 10,703
Posts |
Quote:
I find it more useable on a daily basis than my friends E46, which I have some seat time in. And the N54 in my car is a hell of a lot more useable than my S2000. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-03-2013, 01:47 PM | #25 |
Lieutenant
70
Rep 527
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-03-2013, 09:35 PM | #26 | ||
Resident Tamed Racing Driver
298
Rep 4,697
Posts |
Quote:
Yes I've driven one and it was fantastic. My take away thought was that if it had a proper engine like a S54 or S65 it would have been the best M car ever period. Quote:
__________________
2005 E46 M3 Interlagos/Cinnamon with Sunroof Delete
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
03-03-2013, 09:40 PM | #27 | |
Resident Kerbalnaut
477
Rep 10,703
Posts |
Quote:
Do you seriously think a 2.3L NA engine makes 265 lb/ft? This is a Honda were talking about man! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-03-2013, 09:43 PM | #28 | |
Resident Tamed Racing Driver
298
Rep 4,697
Posts |
Quote:
Or 160ft/lbs less than a S54 with basic bolt ons. I see why you picked that for a comparison car.
__________________
2005 E46 M3 Interlagos/Cinnamon with Sunroof Delete
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-03-2013, 09:45 PM | #29 | |
Resident Kerbalnaut
477
Rep 10,703
Posts |
Quote:
Lets keep this apples to apples and talk stock cars. Things always get murky when we start talking about FBO this and Pilot Super Sports that. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-03-2013, 10:21 PM | #30 | |
Resident Tamed Racing Driver
298
Rep 4,697
Posts |
Quote:
Still a terrible aspect to knock it on.
__________________
2005 E46 M3 Interlagos/Cinnamon with Sunroof Delete
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 04:11 AM | #31 |
Captain
60
Rep 654
Posts |
Did you say 458?
Well since you brought it up....
__________________
2008 E88--Fuel-It! Stage 4 LPFP & PI--PS2 turbos--JB4/MHD--FBO--662whp/604wtq
2011 E90--Fuel-It! S2BL LPFP and PI--PS2 Turbo--JB4/MHD--FBO--546whp/589wtq 2013 Mini JCW--Tune--DP--FMIC--a couple Fuel-It! goodies--265whp/320wtq 2013 F10--JB4/BM3 2015 F82--Fuel-It! Stage 3 LPFP & PI--PS2 Turbos-- JB4/BM3-FBO |
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 09:09 AM | #32 | |
Resident Kerbalnaut
477
Rep 10,703
Posts |
Quote:
What is? That a stock E46 has far less usable torque than my 135? And especially my old S2000? My car was bought as a DD and I dont get to flog it as much as I want to. High Revving NA engines are fantastic, but if I never get to use it whats the point? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 09:48 AM | #33 |
Major
60
Rep 1,073
Posts |
Back in my old honda days i always felt like a jackass highschool kid revving the piss out of my engine to 8k+ rpms from stop light to stop light to get power out of the thing
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 10:40 AM | #34 |
Resident Tamed Racing Driver
298
Rep 4,697
Posts |
If you care this much about making driving easy and unengaging, it would appear you bought the right car.
__________________
2005 E46 M3 Interlagos/Cinnamon with Sunroof Delete
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 10:46 AM | #35 |
Resident Kerbalnaut
477
Rep 10,703
Posts |
I did make the right purchase for myself. The 135 is a wonderful DD.
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 10:50 AM | #36 |
Colonel
644
Rep 2,294
Posts |
Ditto
__________________
2018 340i xDrive M Perf Edtn Sunset Orange
Previous BMWs - 19 others since 1971. |
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 11:09 AM | #37 | ||
Resident Tamed Racing Driver
298
Rep 4,697
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
2005 E46 M3 Interlagos/Cinnamon with Sunroof Delete
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 12:00 PM | #38 | |
Emperor
1614
Rep 2,753
Posts |
Quote:
S54 makes more torque per liter than any other NA engine other the Ferrari 458 (and has 1.2 L more than the S2000), as well as making >80% of it's torque from 2200rpm to redline (stock). Significantly more than the S2000 (including torque per lb) and at much lower RPM. If your S2000 feels torquier... his S54 is broken in some way.
__________________
2005 M3 Coupe, 2004 M3 Wagon, 2001 M5 Sedan, 2008 M5 6MT Sedan, 2012 128i M sport |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 01:43 PM | #39 | |
Resident Kerbalnaut
477
Rep 10,703
Posts |
Quote:
I never said my S2000 felt like it had more torque than my 135. I said that my 135 has more useble torque than my friends E46 and my old S2000 <- both are high strung NA engines. The S2000 was my only car before I bought my 135. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 02:39 PM | #40 |
Moderator
559
Rep 4,240
Posts |
As a former s2k owner I would have to agree its far more usable. You're always in the right gear.
__________________
- 04 Honda S2000(gone)
|
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 04:39 PM | #42 | ||
Lieutenant
54
Rep 509
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Your creditably is dwindling fast... |
||
Appreciate
0
|
03-04-2013, 05:37 PM | #43 | ||
Resident Tamed Racing Driver
298
Rep 4,697
Posts |
Quote:
Not sure what "name" you want me to name. The common consensus in every review I've read and from driving it is "wonderful car where you don't care about the engine because it is so much fun from a handling perspective". That doesn't mean it wouldn't be better with something like a S65 in it, which clearly didn't happen to keep it from crushing the M3. Quote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm
__________________
2005 E46 M3 Interlagos/Cinnamon with Sunroof Delete
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
03-05-2013, 11:51 AM | #44 | |
First Lieutenant
99
Rep 370
Posts |
Quote:
From what I've read in reviews, those who were concerned that the motor wasn't the correct selection for an M car ended up loving the usable power. I suppose you're going to hate on the new M5 bc it's a V8tt? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
|
|