[-BEASTMW-]

Originally Posted by Mo@BMWofFairfax

Of course it is. It has significantly more torque and horsepower. Is it more fun to drive? I don't think so.

They always come back with the "well it's faster" argument. They don't get it. There's a reason serious track cars like the 911 GT3 stay stubbornly N/A, and that's a huge part of why they're highly sought after by the most serious enthusiasts.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by -BEASTMW-

They always come back with the "well it's faster" argument. They don't get it. There's a reason serious track cars like the 911 GT3 stay stubbornly N/A, and that's a huge part of why they're highly sought after by the most serious enthusiasts.

Yep

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Mo@BMWofFairfax

Of course it is. It has significantly more torque and horsepower. Is it more fun to drive? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by -BEASTMW-

They always come back with the "well it's faster" argument. They don't get it. There's a reason serious track cars like the 911 GT3 stay stubbornly N/A, and that's a huge part of why they're highly sought after by the most serious enthusiasts.

Originally Posted by Obioban

Yep

Do you guys play golf? Some people find it very enjoyable. I don't.

I guess that means different people enjoy different things. Go figure.

Enjoy what you enjoy, who am I to say you "don't get it". That would be incredibly condescending and self-centered.

[-BEASTMW-]

Originally Posted by jmg

Do you guys play golf? Some people find it very enjoyable. I don't.

I guess that means different people enjoy different things. Go figure.

Enjoy what you enjoy, who am I to say you "don't get it". That would be incredibly condescending and self-centered.

Yeah, because people keep responding with "it's faster." That's like me telling you that basketball is a better workout than golf. Doesn't matter.

The thread is about simpler, older N/A M cars appreciating. Well, that is what's happening with stuff like GT3s. Because you're right - some ppl like FI and others like N/A. The difference is there are no more new N/A M cars.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by -BEASTMW-

Yeah, because people keep responding with "it's faster." That's like me telling you that basketball is a better workout than golf. Doesn't matter.

If you read the progression of the discussion, you can see how it led to that for equally moot points about the debate between Fi and NA. "People" bring it up because someone already brought the conversation there.

Originally Posted by -BEASTMW-

The thread is about simpler, older N/A M cars appreciating. Well, that is what's happening with stuff like GT3s. Because you're right - some ppl like FI and others like N/A. The difference is there are no more new N/A M cars.

I'm not arguing any of that. I'm arguing that there are people who think what they want is what everyone should want ie the "I don't get it" part. I've got 20+ years driving experience from everything from NA 4-Bangers, V6s, I6 Turbos, to NA V8s, Porsche Turbo 4s. I get it. I'm just looking at this objectively instead of hanging on to some archaic notion of the evils of FI for the sake of nostalgia or self-justification of my own preferences. If you prefer a NA that's fine, but belittling someone (I "don't get it") because they prefer something else is unnecessary. You don't need to tear other people down to prop your opinion up. You don't need to state your opinion and act as if it's fact to justify your opinion, that's just masturbation.

[gds52]

Originally Posted by Mo@BMWofFairfax

Of course it is. It has significantly more torque and horsepower. Is it more fun to drive? I don't think so.

Never driven M4 but I took a test drive of M2....great car, of course fast...low end torque...but when I drove
07 Z4M coupe, there was no second thoughts...picked up the Z and it's a blast on the Track.
I think it all comes to personal choice....ppl who love the connection n steering feel of older cars will always love them.
I would pick a $30k old car, spend $10k on it to fix or upgrade things, it will still be way cheaper than an $70-80k new M.

Good thing is most ppl love new cars...thanks to them that these old cars are still affordable

[kjoseph270]

The E28 M5 is a good example, although maybe not a direct comparison since it was considerably more rare to begin with...it's almost tripled in value from what I got mine for just 4 years ago.

[The Automotive Enthusiast]

E39 M5 in Le Mans Blue....

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Mo@BMWofFairfax

E39 M5 in Le Mans Blue....

As a Le Mans Blue e39 M5 owner...

... I really like the lighter colors (silver, white), as it really highlights the contrasting trim (which is the main differentiator vs the non Ms).

That said, I wouldn't throw my LMB out of bed.

[ORIGIN M.]

I cannot stand Doug's style of reviewing cars.

His sense of humor is the worst.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by kjoseph270

The E28 M5 is a good example, although maybe not a direct comparison since it was considerably more rare to begin with...it's almost tripled in value from what I got mine for just 4 years ago.

...and don't forget that like many opinions expressed now, many "experts" would proudly argue just a few short years ago how the E28 M5 would never truly explode in value and become a collector car like the E30 M3 since it was a "sedan". Of course this type of widely held belief is exactly what allows a car like the E28 to explode in value as the masses are caught once again looking at the past and projecting it into the future with all sorts of biases and justifications.

Speaking of throttle response, I too love the S62 and S65 V8s with their individual throttle bodies and the small mass (volume) between the throttle plate and intake valve. These two engines are fantastic experiences, and I drive them all the time.

However, nothing beats my throttle response standard bearer which was the built up M30 engine in my '72 E3 Bavaria -- with triple sidedraft 45DCOE Webers, which had isolated intakes for each of the six throttle bodies, with each throttle plate very close to its intake valve. Couple that with a pure mechanical linkage to your throttle foot *plus* a huge blast from individual accelerator pumps with an aggressive throttle opening -- damn it was sweet. Waste of fuel? No doubt compared to a modern engine. Emissions? Don't even go there, who knows how bad it was. Powerfu, fun and sounds awesome? Damn right.

[Lucky1]

Originally Posted by CSBM5

...and don't forget that like many opinions expressed now, many "experts" would proudly argue just a few short years ago how the E28 M5 would never truly explode in value and become a collector car like the E30 M3 since it was a "sedan". Of course this type of widely held belief is exactly what allows a car like the E28 to explode in value as the masses are caught once again looking at the past and projecting it into the future with all sorts of biases and justifications.

Speaking of throttle response, I too love the S62 and S65 V8s with their individual throttle bodies and the small mass (volume) between the throttle plate and intake valve. These two engines are fantastic experiences, and I drive them all the time.

However, nothing beats my throttle response standard bearer which was the built up M30 engine in my '72 E3 Bavaria -- with triple sidedraft 45DCOE Webers, which had isolated intakes for each of the six throttle bodies, with each throttle plate very close to its intake valve. Couple that with a pure mechanical linkage to your throttle foot *plus* a huge blast from individual accelerator pumps with an aggressive throttle opening -- damn it was sweet. Waste of fuel? No doubt compared to a modern engine. Emissions? Don't even go there, who knows how bad it was. Powerfu, fun and sounds awesome? Damn right.

I often hear people cite that the S65 is really lacking in low end torque and doesn't hit its stride until high up in the rev range. The question I have is how does that compare to the S54? Better or worse in that regard? I find there is lots of usable low end torque in the S54 motor. Of course I have it in a Z4 M Roadster so whatever torque it has doesn't have to move as much weight around as say an E92 Coupe.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by Lucky1

I often hear people cite that the S65 is really lacking in low end torque and doesn't hit its stride until high up in the rev range. The question I have is how does that compare to the S54? Better or worse in that regard? I find there is lots of usable low end torque in the S54 motor. Of course I have it in a Z4 M Roadster so whatever torque it has doesn't have to move as much weight around as say an E92 Coupe.

It has plenty of usable torque imo...more so than the S54, but it has a powerband similar to the S54 just that it hits so much harder up top. It hits so hard in the 6000-8400 range, that it overshadows the lower ranges to some extent. Additionally, when comparing to the S62, most don't compare at equivalent road speeds but use engine speed instead (i.e. 2nd gear at 2500rpms) which isn't apples to apples. The E9x M3, in this 2nd gear scenario, is geared such that it's turning about 1400rpms higher, so a valid comparison would be 2500rpms in the E39 M5 versus 3900rpms in the E9x M3 (i.e. equivalent road speeds) since all cars have their gearing matched to their engine's torque curve.

[Obioban]

Originally Posted by Lucky1

I often hear people cite that the S65 is really lacking in low end torque and doesn't hit its stride until high up in the rev range. The question I have is how does that compare to the S54? Better or worse in that regard? I find there is lots of usable low end torque in the S54 motor. Of course I have it in a Z4 M Roadster so whatever torque it has doesn't have to move as much weight around as say an E92 Coupe.

The S54 has less torque, but feels torquier because it has less mass to move around. If you take an e9X M3 for a test drive, it'll feel slower than your Z4M at low RPM and faster at high RPM.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by Obioban

The S54 has less torque, but feels torquier because it has less mass to move around. If you take an e9X M3 for a test drive, it'll feel slower than your Z4M at low RPM and faster at high RPM.

Well, not exactly. What would count here is essentially torque/weight curve, and the E92 has the E46 beat all across the curve on that one...as back-to-back driving the two cars reveals. In other words, the percentage difference in the two engines torque output is about double the percentage difference in the two cars weight.

Comparing to the E39 M5, although many people's butt dynos are fooled, the E90 M3 is actually faster under most all of those conditions. BMW Car magazine set out to test what they thought was a mystifying "feel", so they compared in-gear acceleration time increments for 2nd - 6th gears, and the E90 M3 won across the board even in segments people would swear it would be slower (i.e. higher gear, mid-rpm segments).