2.8v3.0v//M performance. Low //Mpower mystery solved. Prang!

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Thu 12 Aug, 2004 19:40

Jasper posed this question. I think it deserves it's own topic:-
Slight change of topic... sorry. .. obviously in the market for a Z3M, but have never actually test driven one yet. On paper the M// performance is OBVIOUSLY a 'little' quicker/higher... what is the general concensus from those who have driven a 2.2/2.8/3.0 and then a M// !!!!

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Thu 12 Aug, 2004 19:57

I've just taken my 2.8 out for a spin & I think it's actually quicker off the mark than my ///M !!!!
Maybe the ///M pulls a taller 1st gear ratio I don't know. Having said that
One would expect the inherent low torque to be about 14% more on cc alone ie 3.2 v 2.8 so it should be able to pull it.
Although my ///M pulls better at higher rpm than the 2.8 it doesn't seem to have the 60% more horsepower claimed.
I think I need to get it checked out.
Does anyone know if some garages have dynos to check power output ?
It's either that or I get Lee & Lance (H Enfield) at Scothall check it out

Jasper · Post by **Jasper** » Thu 12 Aug, 2004 20:48

Robin, good idea to open new topic.... about a year ago my 2.2 lost power - but because it happened over time I was convinced there was not an issue. Eventually I had a drive in a 2.0 and realised that there was a terrible loss of power - then BMW roadside assist checked it out and agreed there 'might' be a problem. Went to the dealership and within 10mins they found the problem (electronic) fixed back to full power - was amazing the difference. I felt quite stupid having not really picked it up earlier - but as it seemed to happen over time I never noticed it... Although given it was electronic I could never understand why it was not an instant power failure..

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Thu 12 Aug, 2004 21:01

Jasper thanks for that example. I believe if your battery goes flat with some cars you can lose the managment chip settings & it returns to default value which will get you around but not much more. Maybe that's what happened in your case although you say yours was gradual. You can delete the other post.

SunnyP · Post by **SunnyP** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 12:21

my brother in law had a 2.8 Z3 and it DEF doesn't feel as if my MC has 60% more power...no where near, the 2.8 was a quick car, the MC is probably quicker top end but it is supposed to have all this extra torque and horsepower.....can't see it being much quicker to 60(or 100) than the 2.8....no way can it get to 60 in the 4.3secs quoted by EVO magazine.

And I've just had an inspection II done on mine from Munich Legends and the guy there said it's running like a dream so I know it's running on full power (or there abouts)...what gives??

Maybe I'm just getting used to the power....in first and second tho it's not very good at all....from 60-100 in third is nice but probably no quicker than my Nissan 200sx I had previously.

Feel a bit conned!

*_they_* · Post by ***_they_*** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 13:30

I can't comment on the performance of the M/// as i have never had a drive of one. However I can vouch that the Z3 2.8 is a wolf in sheeps clothing. When I first picked mine up a few weeks ago, I was amazed with its mid range torque and just how well the engine 'breathes' top end. The car is an animal compared to my 2003 325. The auto box desn't seem to detract from the performance of the Z either.
*_they_*

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 13:48

Sunny it's not encouraging that you see so little difference between your newly serviced ///M Coupe they say is running OK & a 2.8

I've found the same comparing my 2.8 to my ///M.
It means when I get my ///M back on Fri after they've replaced the exhaust cam position sensor that is playing up, I better not hope for too much.
When you see adverts for ///M's as "911 performance for less than boxster money", mmmm well I'm not so sure.
Hope I'll be more convinced on Friday.
To think of the extra servicing costs & fuel consumption on the ///M.
The only benefit I'm getting at the moment is the improved suspension & handling !

*_they_*, Yes my 2.8 flies & it seems so effortless like the engine is really willing & able. Reminds me of my 1.8 Mondeo v the 2.0 Mondeo I later had. The 1.8 was sweet & refined but the 2.0 less refined & more hoarse sounding for not many more horses

I'd be interested to try a 3.0 Z3

hwassall · Post by **hwassall** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 17:34

I think the power delivery of the M is deceptive. I have recently driven in convoy with a 993 on two occasions and the M matched them for acceleration at motorways speeds in top gear. Obviously only up to 70 officer...

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 18:46

Howard, fings crossed then I'll be smiling on Fri

I wonder how the 2.8 fairs against a 994, 993, 996 etc

mroadster · Post by **mroadster** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 21:05

I've not read such a load of nonsense in a long time

The characterisitcs of the ///M engine require that you rev it (forget all this flexibility nonsense). Driven like this and I'm afraid there is no comparison with a Z3 2.8

I think the issue here is that people are assuming that the ///M is just a more powerful Z3 2.8. It isn't. It has a completely different character and requires you drive it differently to get the best from it

I suggest the following:

From a standing start dump the clutch at 3500-4000rpm and red line each gear (1-3) and then tell me a Z3 2.8 is not much slower

...I once thought I could save some money and buy a Z3 2.8...after having learnt to drive the ///M Roadster to the maximum of its capabilities I now realise this was a futile thought...

Robin - get your ///M fettled and then drive it like you stole it. It won't take you long to start appreciating 321bhp...

As an indication of how best to use the performance, on a spirited drive I rarely use any more than third gear (4th and 5th are motorway only for me I'm afraid) and spend a majority of the time (90%) in 2nd.

For info, 30-70 in 4s is rapid in anyones language and will blitz a Z3 2.8.

Andy

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 21:14

Andy "I've not read such a load of nonsense in a long time "
A bit harsh maybe ?
I do take it near the red. I need to get the faulty exhaust cam sensor replaced before I pass final judgment.
Not to mention the clutch sorted which at the moment makes it a real pain getting from 1st to 2nd at speed.

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 21:17

mroadster wrote: ... and red line each gear (1-3) and then tell me a Z3 2.8 is not much slower ...

This is the only way to get the best from it - I agree - up to 70 in 2nd then 110 in 3rd - it is like having a rocket strapped to your ass

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 21:22

Wow David, a 110mph in 3rd !
I worked out that he theoretical top speed is 170 ish since at 85mph the revs are half the red line figure of 7400rpm.
Has anyone reached 170 mph or does a speed limiter cut in at 155 ?
cheers

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 21:25

Robin wrote:Wow David, a 110mph in 3rd !
I worked out that he theoretical top speed is 175 ish since at 85mph the revs are half the red line figure of 7400rpm.
Has anyone reached 175 mph or does a speed limiter cut in at 155 ?
cheers

The limiter kicks in - I tried it - once - not in this country

On the way to the Swiss meet, Tim, myself and Gary had some fun - Gary could eclipse both of us - Tim's 3.0 had good top speed which appeared to want to match the ///M (or at least as fast as we took it - which was not too far short of the limited speed) - the ///M could get there faster though

With all these speeds bear in mind that your speedo will show a bit more - mine is out by 5 mph (approx) - I measured these speeds and know my change-up points from using a GPS device to measure my speed

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 21:27

Is it sudden David ?
I remember the 1st time the rev limiter kicked in on my 2.8 it was rather startling. I thought I'd blown the thing up or something !

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 21:30

Well put it this way - you know you have done it - try it and see

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Wed 25 Aug, 2004 21:49

Ok

PS David I need to change my tiny url to my ///M.
I've set up a geocities site so as to host my car pics but can't see how to host them ?
I'm surprised it's not possible to download them to this site ie zroadster.net !
Sorry off topic.

SunnyP · Post by **SunnyP** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:17

I've done an indicated 160mph and it was still pulling....rekon there was another 10mph or so in it....it felt VERY solid at that speed, like it was doing 90mph!

M Blur · Post by **M Blur** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:46

Robin wrote:I've just taken my 2.8 out for a spin & I think it's actually quicker off the mark than my ///M !!!!
Maybe the ///M pulls a taller 1st gear ratio I don't know. Having said that
One would expect the inherent low torque to be about 14% more on cc alone ie 3.2 v 2.8 so it should be able to pull it.
Although my ///M pulls better at higher rpm than the 2.8 it doesn't seem to have the 60% more horsepower claimed.
I think I need to get it checked out.
Does anyone know if some garages have dynos to check power output ?
It's either that or I get Lee & Lance (H Enfield) at Scothall check it out

To give you some comparison.. M 8LUR pulls 60 in about 4.7 secs and that's by dropping the clutch at about 2800rpm.. she'll go on to about 13 secs up the quarter mile and 100 is approx 10-11 secs.. a 2.8 by comparison is around the mid-high 15s at best. If the M doesn't feel absolutely manic in first and second gear then there's something wrong.. Although M 8LUR is modded and dynos 345bhp and revs to 8 grand.. a healthy 321bhp/325bhp should still get you close to 5 secs to 60.

M Blur · Post by **M Blur** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 10:59

mroadster wrote:I've not read such a load of nonsense in a long time

The characterisitcs of the ///M engine require that you rev it (forget all this flexibility nonsense).

As an indication of how best to use the performance, on a spirited drive I rarely use any more than third gear (4th and 5th are motorway only for me I'm afraid) and spend a majority of the time (90%) in 2nd.

For info, 30-70 in 4s is rapid in anyones language..

Andy

A little forceful Andy but agree with the sentiment.. the M-spec 3.2 is v.susceptible to off-timing but once on tune it's a Porka worrier.. To save some of your clutch - dropping @ 3000rpm will send the back end up the road wiggly nicer than Jordan's front air bags...( I await moderation..

).. if you're non-DSC of course Andy...

The M is long-legged and certainly acceleration could be sharpened furtehr with a different final ratio but the reality is that there's actually too much power for the chassis in first and secodn gear hence why it's a master of the doughnut..

It does have instant torque but not in the same way a 2.8 as it is hauling itself along a narrower power band but wider torque band and therefore has more instant torque at say 2000rpm.. Thsi has a lot do to do with the Bi-VANOS torque curve that springs to life at 3000rpm where it's making in excess of 200lbft. Peak torque is then reached at approx 3500rpm and stays there up tthe peaky peak bhp @ 7500rpm.. soem 3.2s even displace further gains close to 8000rpm.. The M is designed to only kick into life form 3000rpm but then you have sintant torque and power than really is something to behold.. on track it can annihilate larger turbo and n/a cars because you're always on cam.. the only thing you've got to do is reign the power...

To give you some indication of the potential - the 385bhp Digittec MCoupe with 3.73 Diff will run the 62 in 3.9,, which is supercar territory.. Zoomsports MCOupe on the other hand (which doesn't have VANOS anymore) was outrunning Esptit V8s and worrying Lambos... The power to weight says this cannot be - it's becase the 3.2 is about the flatness of its torque delivery rather than max output... in fact all M cars are built this way.

So don't worry.. once everything is in order you wont question your decision further. Best Rgds m8 and hope it all sorts out soon.

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 11:39

I think as a day to day car in traffic it might feel "similar" as you're not using the revs andthe 2.8 is probably at it's best in this situation, but with 130bhp extra, over 50% more power the M should be, and is in a different league performance wise.

M Blur · Post by **M Blur** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 11:41

c_w wrote:I think as a day to day car in traffic it might feel "similar" as you're not using the revs andthe 2.8 is probably at it's best in this situation, but with 130bhp extra, over 50% more power the M should be, and is in a different league performance wise.

Good pt. I'd agree with that .. with the VANOS closed there will be little diff. In fact the 2.8 will probably feel stronger as the M's ecu is basically in economy mode. At low revs. high gear the 2.8 will have the edge as it follows a more normal map..

'MC' MarkC · Post by **'MC' MarkC** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 11:47

Just like Sunny, I've seen 162mph on the speedo, with some left

. No restrictor, I pressume because it was an import (SA; South African, chassis number)

M Blur · Post by **M Blur** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 11:53

mbmwx wrote:Just like Sunny, I've seen 162mph on the speedo, with some left . No restrictor, I pressume because it was an import (SA; South African, chassis number)

A lot of early EVO engines can push on without any noticeable cut-off.. but bear in mind diff between speedo and GPS speed. Some EVO engines seem happy to rev to 8000rpm and others low to mid 7 gees... The E36 boys have commented on the same thing. The M3GT for example had hand picked 3.0 engines and all were purported to be able to reach 174mph...

I recall Tim could get 165 in his along the autobahns..

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 14:10

M Blur wrote: then you have instant torque and power than really is something to behold.. on track it can annihilate larger turbo and n/a cars because you're always on cam.. the only thing you've got to do is reign the power...

So don't worry.. once everything is in order you wont question your decision further. Best Rgds m8 and hope it all sorts out soon.

Thats good news & thanks for the detailed description of ///M characteristics. I'm now more optimistic that with the new exhaust cam position sensor fitted tomorrow the car will have me smiling

Is yours or David's or anyone else's, heavy going from 1st to 2nd ?
The surface of the clutch pedal that my foot rests on, sits 20cm off the deck & bites at 9cm off the deck & goes to 5cm off the deck fully down so there is only 4cm at bottom of travel when it's disengaged & takes 11cm of depression to reach the bite point. I wonder what your pedal setting are ?
They are going to look & see if I need the braided hose fitted tomorrow.

Does anyone know where the ///M torque curves might be on the net ?

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 14:25

M Blur wrote:... but bear in mind diff between speedo and GPS speed ...

this is well worth bearing in mind - those who are showing 162 or 165 I would bet you are not - the speedoos are notorious for being out a bit - for example - I know that 150 - 151 on my speedo actually translated to 142 on the GPS Unit

SunnyP · Post by **SunnyP** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 14:27

The limiter...if it exisits tho is supposed to cut out at an INDICATED 155MPH...mine went past that...may have been de-limited at some point?

Will be given her a good thrashin tonight, if you get a good start it does fly...

DavidM · Post by **DavidM** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 14:46

SunnyP wrote:The limiter...if it exisits tho is supposed to cut out at an INDICATED 155MPH...mine went past that...may have been de-limited at some point?

Oh in that case I don't know - cos mine cut out at a sped that was higher than indicated 155 - I assumed it was moderated by some system that is more accurate than the speedo - although God Knows What that would be

TonyCal · Post by **TonyCal** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 15:44

I would imagine the limiter is operated by the ECU on a revs/Mph basis.
I agree with David on the speedo though, they are usually out by a certain degree. Tim did say hes was showing 160 at bruntingthorpe but the timed speed was only 150.
Robin, on the subject of the 2.8 being almost as quick off the mark as an M, maybe you should ask Steve Robinson his opinion. I dont think it will be the same as yours

On my M I dont have a problem with any of the gearchanges, 1st to 2nd is as smooth as the rest. I do sometimes think there is a 6th gear though

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 15:55

TonyCal wrote:I do sometimes think there is a 6th gear though

TonyCal wrote:Robin, on the subject of the 2.8 being almost as quick off the mark as an M, maybe you should ask Steve Robinson his opinion. I dont think it will be the same as yours

Tony, Steve Robinson ? What tale does he have to tell ?

Giles · Post by **Giles** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 16:11

SunnyP wrote:The limiter...if it exisits tho is supposed to cut out at an INDICATED 155MPH...mine went past that...may have been de-limited at some point?

Will be given her a good thrashin tonight, if you get a good start it does fly...

Off-topic

but in response to Sunny - I was assured yesterday that the limiter on the CSL only cuts in if you hit 155 in 6th gear...reach it in any other gear you go on to 180+ unhindered apparently

I wonder if this is the case on all limited BMWs?

I haven't had the chance to test this yet, although (completely off-topic

)I did experience the CSLs Launch Control yesterday - total exhilaration; 0-150 with foot flat to the floor, clutch snapping on and off to reduce wheel spin, sort of complete opposite to ABS - wooooooooooooowwwwwwwww

TonyCal · Post by **TonyCal** » Thu 26 Aug, 2004 16:15

Robin lets just say your theory was tested.

Giles I see you had your training day then

Donnington next?

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Fri 27 Aug, 2004 15:29

Just picked up my ///M with new exhaust cam retard solenoid fitted.
I think there is more low end torque particularly. I don't think I noticed it faltering as it did. Roads too busy to really test at this time on a Fri. Even the M27 a crawl !

I would say it is faster than my 2.8 but maybe not 60%.
Maybe becuase they said the knocking on tickover is worn Vanos gears & they will replace them on 6th Sept on warranty.
That means I now will have about £1700 worth of labour & parts from my £510 warranty already

They said they would change the clutch cable for a steel braided one as this is recognised as a fix for a weakness on ///M clutches hopefully also on warranty.
I asked why he had recommended a new clutch in the 1st instance & was he on commision ?
He looked offended & said 'no'.
I must PM 321 as he had new Vanos gears. Wonder if it upped his bhp.
Anyone else had this ?
I guess this could have gone on the 'Vanos fix' or the dealers 'eh thread'.
Oh well it's here now.

rayl · Post by **rayl** » Fri 27 Aug, 2004 23:03

Robin, Looks like the car is sorted at last. These dealers aren't such bad guys after all

Interesting thread though, I take it lots of you chaps have your own private test tracks

Ray

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Fri 27 Aug, 2004 23:11

Ray I've been out on clearer roads & wow

The mechanic said it wasn't a case of just a fault showing on the memory, he could actually see the solenoid valve was knacked when he took it out.
To not have the Vanos operating or only partially operating on the exhaust cam is obviously rather a major thing in terms of performance.
I reckon I'm 97% there now. I can just sense that she's not quite on song. I reckon the Vanos gear replacement on 6th Sept will probably do the trick.
I don't know about dealers. I do know that warrantys aren't bad though

M33 UFO · Post by **M33 UFO** » Sat 28 Aug, 2004 08:43

I've often thought that the power on My M was "a little" down, although it's always been serviced at BMW Agents...I imagined they would have advised me of any problems...they seem quick enough to do so in any other area of the cars maintenance.

This was sort of confirmed recently when I couldn't get away from an E36 M3 EVO (yes, same engine I think!), and I was going for it, just off the limiter in 2nd and 3rd (it was an A Road so no real chance of 4th!). I just couldn't pull out any distance on him, except when I took an over take that he didn't but that had nothing to do with engine power. I get the idea that if he had gotten ahead I wouldn't have kept with him under pure acceleration.

Had a recent inspection 2 where I wasn't advised of any problems relating to VANOS or other performance related issues. So my question, should I take the car in and specifically request they look at a possible fall off in power or just assume that this would have been picked up under a normal inspection 2??? I'd like to know if I am getting the full hit that one of these cars is capable of, as it stands I am getting the GruppeM induction kit and hopefully the Eisenmann system (if I can get someone else interested!!) to give me a little boost in power.

Any feedback appreciated, I suppose the other option is to do a back to back comparison with another car..anyone interested? Preferably local to Cardiff!

Cheers, Mark

Hylts · Post by **Hylts** » Sat 28 Aug, 2004 13:55

Having owned a 2.8 before and had my //M 325bhp for 3 years now - I can say that the //M power is vastly superior if as others say you drive it with high revs.

Most impressive for me is the acceleration from 70/80mph to 120mph - on the autobahn of course.

If you are going to test drive one though - make sure it has a fresh set of tyres as this can make a hell of a difference too.

I just replaced mine after 20k miles and have a new set of P-Zero Neros - before on the "slicks" there was too much power to get good grip off the start (although fun to send the back out on rondabouts

. Now with the P-Zeros it sticks all the way and WOW it is like getting a whole new car again.

Yesterday, at 7000rpm in 3rd gear though, in a straight line, the DSC was kicking in (still so much power) - does anyone else get that? May have to do with the road surface having just slight imperfections?!?
If so - what would happen if my DSC was off?!?

ZZZEMMCO · Post by **ZZZEMMCO** » Sat 28 Aug, 2004 16:09

Mark, Comparing like for like with Driving another owners car , is more convincing, than the dealer saying" The Computer says or They ALL do that".Perhaps try a Dyno test and take result to Dealer.

I am NOT convinced my 321bhp answers to my right foot, the dealers computer says it does, after the Vanos was replaced and then went back again for more computer brainwashing.Everything relates to their computer which is Never wrong.

Sometimes the answer is simple (bit like me) I took mine to visit a BMW Indi service , who showed me the throttle cable linkage (Unlike the s54 engines) which has Never reached the Stop--so 20% of power never acheived!!!!!
Yet this car has had 6-7 services in 4 years, with 5 differant dealers---THE computer didnt SEE the problem, nor did the £100 P/H service depts.

Very few Hands on and Ears "M Tecnicians" exist, if you find one, support them 110 %.

M33 UFO · Post by **M33 UFO** » Sat 28 Aug, 2004 17:01

Thanks Zzzzem!

I find the whole issue of engine performance (or non performing!) very frustrating, as you suggest, we are in a world of £100 per hour service costs, is it asking to much for the dealer to be able to tell me unequivocally that I am getting 100% power.

Hey, maybe I am just expecting to much, I'm rarely disappointed with the performance available from my car.....except on the very rare occasion where i may be comparing it to another (supposedly) similar performing car. I don't recall actually letting anyone pass me that I didn't want to, but sometimes....I WONDER, is this 321bhp! Maybe a dyno is the answer.

What exactly is a BMW Indi service?? Sounds like it may be worth investigating.

Cheers, Mark

M33 UFO · Post by **M33 UFO** » Sat 28 Aug, 2004 17:04

I was actually advised that mine didn't require inspection / adjustment, my inspection 2 bill was over a £100 less expensive accordingly.

M

Robin · Post by **Robin** » Sat 28 Aug, 2004 17:06

SunnyP wrote:my brother in law had a 2.8 Z3 and it DEF doesn't feel as if my MC has 60% more power...no where near, the 2.8 was a quick car, the MC is probably quicker top end but it is supposed to have all this extra torque and horsepower.....can't see it being much quicker to 60(or 100) than the 2.8....no way can it get to 60 in the 4.3secs quoted by EVO magazine.
And I've just had an inspection II done on mine from Munich Legends and the guy there said it's running like a dream so I know it's running on full power (or there abouts)...what gives??
Feel a bit conned!

M33 UFO wrote:I've often thought that the power on My M was "a little" down, although it's always been serviced at BMW Agents...I imagined they would have advised me of any problems...they seem quick enough to do so in any other area of the cars maintenance.
This was sort of confirmed recently when I couldn't get away from an E36 M3 EVO (yes, same engine I think!), and I was going for it, just off the limiter in 2nd and 3rd (it was an A Road so no real chance of 4th!). I just couldn't pull out any distance on him

Then there are also my reservations about my ///M which is better with the Vanos exhaust cam retard solenoid valve replaced but not yet convincingly 60% more than the 2.8 & BTW I have taken it to the red !
Strange thing is, the other half of you guys are convinced your ///M's are up to scratch !

Maybe ///M's can go off tune easily & aren't always being serviced well enough by the dealers ?
For example are the tappets & other critical mechanical adjustments checked on Insp II, or do they just take the easy option of 'Plug in a laptop' type maintenance which really only checks the electronic side of things ?
Actually I've just thought of the answer regarding insp II & tappets -
The tappets have to checked & adjusted cold so they aren't done on insp II becuase they don't require the car to be delivered the day before to let the engine cool.

rayl · Post by **rayl** » Sat 28 Aug, 2004 17:30

How about asking Giles to buy us our very own dyno, I'll chip in with a fiver to get thing moving, there again mine's a 2.8 so I realy don't need the dyno

Ray

'MC' MarkC · Post by **'MC' MarkC** » Sun 29 Aug, 2004 09:05

Hylts wrote:Yesterday, at 7000rpm in 3rd gear though, in a straight line, the DSC was kicking in (still so much power) - does anyone else get that?

The road surface was v.good, but slightly wet, my F1 tyres are only 2 months old. In a straight line, hitting 90mph foot hard down in 3rd gear I managed to spin the back wheels the other day. That may answer your question as to what happens without DSC

M Blur · Post by **M Blur** » Tue 31 Aug, 2004 08:36

Hylts wrote:
Most impressive for me is the acceleration from 70/80mph to 120mph - on the autobahn of course.

If so - what would happen if my DSC was off?!?

In gear acceleration in the right gear is superb... the lower weight of the M really puts to use the flat toruqe curve... it's that sense that the acceleration isn't slowing down into 3 figures.. barmy..

No DSC.. you get wheelspin but also a lot of traction that the DSC reckons isn't there.. result faster acceleration but requires a tad more concentration and some throttle control..

On pure power-to-weight alone the M should pull away from the EVO and mine does.. reguarly...not just E36s but E46 M3s too..

and as I've said here.. with a few simple mods it'll run CSLs hard too. on the straight that is.. you're bo**ocked if you get to a bend..

If anything it's the earlier GT that catch you out if you're in the wrong gear..

Hylts · Post by **Hylts** » Tue 31 Aug, 2004 23:34

After 3 years with my M roadster I have a pretty good idea of its limits with the DSC on - rarely do I switch it off so I wouldn't be too comfortable pushing it as hard with it off and finding the limits without the DSC isn't something I would do on a public road and without a lot of space to my left and right.

RE: bo**ocked if you get to a bend - I agree - i think it is essential (and way more fun) to break in the straight leading up to the bend dropping into 3rd gear and accelerating into and through the bend - flashes of the DSC light and you know you got it nailed

Since day one I've had 19" Hartge Classics on (235/35/19 front, 265/30/19 rears) so not sure if my handling/grip is any different to factory alloys.
I have compared the height with a friends S50 MRoadster and mine looks to be sitting a touch higher (due to the 19"?), Wonder if you know to what extent, if any, this would effect grip in a straight line (weight not being as low maybe?) or handling?

M Blur · Post by **M Blur** » Wed 01 Sep, 2004 08:12

Hylts wrote:
Since day one I've had 19" Hartge Classics on (235/35/19 front, 265/30/19 rears) so not sure if my handling/grip is any different to factory alloys.

I have compared the height with a friends S50 MRoadster and mine looks to be sitting a touch higher (due to the 19"?), Wonder if you know to what extent, if any, this would effect grip in a straight line (weight not being as low maybe?) or handling?

I don't see there being too many issues straight line tho on the twisties or track the raised centre of gravity will be of some issue though if you're running std suspension then that's a bigger issue.. a lot of us are now running uprated suspension and lower ride height to improve handling.

In terms of grip I reckon those lovely fat Hartge rims will do a grand job tho tyre choice can make a massive difference.

BR,

Hylts · Post by **Hylts** » Wed 01 Sep, 2004 11:42

Just had a new set of P-Zero Neros put on - only 2 weeks ago - so I guess I am still running them in - but liking them so far.

I am running standard suspension - what suspension upgrade and lowering do you recommend and will the arches still cater for the 19" rims with it?
Any ideas on cost and effect on insurance?

Mine is a 2001 S54 325bhp,

Cheers,

M Blur · Post by **M Blur** » Wed 01 Sep, 2004 12:29

Hylts wrote:Just had a new set of P-Zero Neros put on - only 2 weeks ago - so I guess I am still running them in - but liking them so far.

I am running standard suspension - what suspension upgrade and lowering do you recommend and will the arches still cater for the 19" rims with it?
Any ideas on cost and effect on insurance?

Mine is a 2001 S54 325bhp,

Cheers,

I'm not a big fan of the std set-up and nor are many MR owners for that matter. However the S54 is a big improvement and at least has MCoupe shockers. Personally I'd go for ACS sportsline springs and dampers that do lower and I don't know if they'll clear.. best ask Kev Bird at birds-auto the score on this as I don't know many guys running 19s on the M..

Alos be being a S54 you'll have DSC which can mask some of the M's handling deficiencies and keep you clean.

After that look at front and rear struts and also GC rear top mounts are well recommended and I've found them awesome so far.. a lot depends on what you're after and how they'll work with the 19s is yet to be decided.. I'm sure one of the mods can point you the direction of a previous thread.

From a very basic handling perspective.. the 19s on good rubber will increase your mechanical grip, which will also push the chassis further.. roll over-steer and flex may become more pronounced which can be fixed with struts and stiffer spring rates.. any increase in the centre of gravity (@ axle) can also have an effect on handling.

Lots of good guys in here to help you and much will come down to how you find her.. if she handles well then gr8.. often better handling can make the M more twitchier at the limit so again it comes down to what you want her for.. stiffer suspension.. stiffer back..

Big Mr P · Post by **Big Mr P** » Wed 01 Sep, 2004 21:38

M Blur wrote:
Hylts wrote: I am running standard suspension - what suspension upgrade and lowering do you recommend and will the arches still cater for the 19" rims with it?

Cheers,
I'm not a big fan of the std set-up and nor are many MR owners for that matter. However the S54 is a big improvement and at least has MCoupe shockers. Personally I'd go for ACS sportsline springs and dampers that do lower and I don't know if they'll clear.. best ask Kev Bird at birds-auto the score on this as I don't know many guys running 19s on the M..

Hylts,

I run on ACS Sportsline suspension and 19 inch rims. I also have the same of size of tyres fitted. Now the rears are no problem fit in the hole like a dream, but the fronts thats a different story. I've had to cut away some of the inner wheel arch and when on a run I raise the bonnet stops to lift the bonnet slightly as the wheels can touch under compression. This problem is also apparent on 18 rims with ACS suspension.

cc · Post by cc » Sat 04 Sep, 2004 17:28

hi all,
i joined this forum as i am about to get a m roadster 98model but some of the comments on performance in this thread are putting me off.I honestly thought this car would be an animal to drive even after owning skylines etc but only slightly faster than the 2.8!?what gives?i have not had a test drive yet,im going to travel down country to get the car i want.The "vanos" failure is also a worry.Can anyone tell me what can happen if this fails?is it simply a matter of losing power or can it cause engine damage and is the performance a dissapointment to new owners?i thought being a roadster this would amplify the performance even more so and all other reports ive read have commented on the excellent acceleration.

thanks
chris

zroadster.net

2.8v3.0v//M performance. Low //Mpower mystery solved. Prang!

2.8v3.0v//M performance. Low //Mpower mystery solved. Prang!

2.2 lost power.

Hoarser but not many more horses !

911 Performance

Car better

All rather worrying.....!

The Computer is Always Right--Right???

frustrated!

tappits

Contradictions