Why does BMW has so little torque?

[Rockefella]

I asked a friend to take a photo of my Cadillac cornering to see how much it leans. I assumed he would take it from a front angle... for some reason he made the shot from the side.
Anyway, compare the top photo, when I was taking the corner hard to the bottom photo of the car standing still. Look at the front wheelwell, you can tell the car is cornering on the top photo. As can be seen, it does show very little body lean.

I intend to have another pic taken from the front while cornering.

You could be going 3 mph in that picture.

[Fleet 500]

You could be going 3 mph in that picture.

I could have, but wasn't. Again, you can tell by comparing the front wheelwells and the tire when comparing the bottom (standing still) photo and the cornering one that the car was not turning slowly.

I was turning onto a sidestreet and going downhill at the same time, so a lot of speed wasn't necessary compared to a flat street with a gradual turn. I was going 15-20 mph in the top photo.

As stated, I will get some better shots (especially cornering with a front view).

[Rockefella]

I could have, but wasn't. Again, you can tell by comparing the front wheelwells and the tire when comparing the bottom (standing still) photo and the cornering one that the car was not turning slowly.

I was turning onto a sidestreet and going downhill at the same time, so a lot of speed wasn't necessary compared to a flat street with a gradual turn. I was going 15-20 mph in the top photo.

As stated, I will get some better shots (especially cornering with a front view).

Turn at 35-40 mph and show me those pics. 15 isn't much, hell, thats like 1/2 of the speed limit on most residential roads in NJ.

[Fleet 500]

Turn at 35-40 mph and show me those pics. 15 isn't much, hell, thats like 1/2 of the speed limit on most residential roads in NJ.

It was too tight of a corner to turn at that speed and there is also a dip in it. It was on a residential street where the speed limit is 25 mph.

Stay tuned... I will take some better pics.

Besides, I already have posted pics of Cadillacs cornering:
(Like this '61.)

[Matra et Alpine]

It was too tight of a corner to turn at that speed

Point proven, thanks Fleet

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

Was trying to keep it simple.

Now on to the larger argument! What's more important in car figures? Horsepower, or torque?

I'm a ferrari loyalist, so you know my answer

torque is, but it also depends on hwere it is in the rev band and the shape of the curve

horsepower gives a useful measurement only in the strictly theoretical sense and thats only if you have all the data for drag on hte car, the instantaneous torque figure gives you a good idea of how fast you're going to be accelerating but again only if you have info on the drag of the car

if you're looking at the engine itself however horsepower really means nothing cuz while 200 horsepower might mean 120mph in a honda civic you stick the same thing in a dodge ram and it might struggle to pass 80, torque on hte other hand assuming same ratios will be the same, acceleration will differ depending on the mass, but since most cars built for the raod differ only by a few hundred kilograms at most (excluding suvs trucks and stripped down versions) it seems that torque will be the more "useful" figure since many cars will have different drag coefficients and frontal areas which differe by much more (percentage wise)

this is a pretty pointless argument because you're comparing the effects of 2 variables on a car which has hundreds of variables and that's just talking about strait line performance, then you get subjective ratings like how much of that gut turning feeling u get, or how much wheelspin, or power delivery or how smooth the transitions are ect.

so in conclusion the best way to figure out which car is the "best" for you is to just drive them all and decide

[Fleet 500]

Point proven, thanks Fleet

No, you misunderstand. I certainly could have went faster.
If I went faster, it wouldn't have leaned much more than it was, but the tires would have been scrubing more and maybe squealing. There was no point of going faster since I got the picture I was after. (But I am still going to get a photo taken from the front to better see the handling.)

The street I was on was going downhill and "crowned"- meaning it actually tips a little toward the downslope. I saw no reason to accelerate a lot when I was already going downhill... I mean, would you?

If you were a passenger in my '69, you would be surprised at how easy it corners, and how little lean. I found that out when I first drove my parent's '69 Coupe de Ville. I could take corners much faster than I would have guessed and quite flat, too.

[Cadillac Imaj]

whts the big deal with torque?

Yeah, whats the big deal?

People nowadays want brake horsepower to accelerate.

[Matra et Alpine]

No, you misunderstand. I certainly could have went faster.

This is where my respect for you is born Fleet.

See you give us FACTS - it's a shame they just prove the opposite of what you are trygin to say.

You SAID "It was too tight of a corner to turn at that speed".

So BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT you coudlnt' have cornered faster because it was too tight

SO by what magic are you abel to go faster NOW ??????

[Fleet 500]

This is where my respect for you is born Fleet.

See you give us FACTS - it's a shame they just prove the opposite of what you are trygin to say.

You SAID "It was too tight of a corner to turn at that speed".

So BY YOUR OWN STATEMENT you coudlnt' have cornered faster because it was too tight

SO by what magic are you abel to go faster NOW ??????

To explain further... it was too tight a corner to go through without really grinding and squealing the tires. I saw no need to do that because it was unnecessary. It is possible to show a car's handling/leaning without high speeds unless it's out on an open road with gradual curves- then a speed of 50 or 60 mph would be appropriate, but not on a relatively skinny residential street!

Again, stay tuned- I thought of some streets I can drive on next time where the car's handling ability can be better demonstrated. I'll post it on a separate thread.
BTW, the handling pics taken were pretty much a last-minute thought. I originally sought out to take burning rubber photos:

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

No, you misunderstand. I certainly could have went faster.
If I went faster, it wouldn't have leaned much more than it was, but the tires would have been scrubing more and maybe squealing. There was no point of going faster since I got the picture I was after. (But I am still going to get a photo taken from the front to better see the handling.)

The street I was on was going downhill and "crowned"- meaning it actually tips a little toward the downslope. I saw no reason to accelerate a lot when I was already going downhill... I mean, would you?

If you were a passenger in my '69, you would be surprised at how easy it corners, and how little lean. I found that out when I first drove my parent's '69 Coupe de Ville. I could take corners much faster than I would have guessed and quite flat, too.

leaning isnt really a good measurement for cornering ability, most people think you should run a really really hard suspension to corner well, while this is true ... if you're on level ground thats completely flat and well maintained its not neccesarily true for the road, and not even close to true for rallyin or anything off road, you want the wheel to go over the bump quickly and smoothly with as little "after shock" (i dont know a better term) as possible, and this means running the softest suspension allowed under those conditions

even if a car leans alot if the camber angles are right then the tyres will be level and maximize grip (obviously not as good as a completely level car with level tyres but thats never gonna happen)

[KnifeEdge_2K1]

Yeah, whats the big deal?

People nowadays want brake horsepower to accelerate.

i hope ur jokin since horsepower doesnt have anything to do with accelration
and brake horsepower has even less to do with acceleration cuz it aint even horsepower at the wheels, u have no data for drivetrain loss

[Fleet 500]

leaning isnt really a good measurement for cornering ability, most people think you should run a really really hard suspension to corner well, while this is true ... if you're on level ground thats completely flat and well maintained its not neccesarily true for the road, and not even close to true for rallyin or anything off road, you want the wheel to go over the bump quickly and smoothly with as little "after shock" (i dont know a better term) as possible, and this means running the softest suspension allowed under those conditions

even if a car leans alot if the camber angles are right then the tyres will be level and maximize grip (obviously not as good as a completely level car with level tyres but thats never gonna happen)

As you said, too hard a susupension will make the car jump and bounce over bumps.
True also about leaning. I've seen pics of good handling cars leaning moderately and poor handling cars with the same amount of lean.

[Alastor]

i hope ur jokin since horsepower doesnt have anything to do with accelration

I believe the equation for instantaneous acceleration from power for any given velocity is:



Where:

v = velocity
t = time
P = power
k = drag coefficent

Although I have seen this equation in the past I was too lazy to derive it myself so instead I found it here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...0&page=2&pp=15


When looking at a vehicle’s performance torque by itself it not useful. Torque is only useful if one knows not only engine speed but also the vehicle’s gear ratios. As well, torque at the engine means little as it can be multiplied nearly indefinitely by gearing.

That is not to say that torque does not have it’s uses, but it is not the single greatest measure of vehicle performance.

and brake horsepower has even less to do with acceleration cuz it aint even horsepower at the wheels, u have no data for drivetrain loss

Nor is there any data on torque losses through the drivetrain.

[P4g4nite]

My 535i makes 300Nm from about 2000rpm, plenty enough to move <1400Kg.

The M3 inline 6 makes 80% of it's 365Nm within a 6000rpm band, exceptional for a 3.2L motor (100Nm/L is pretty good for a NA engine), and a good reason why it was voted performance engine of the year more than once.

I'm a bit confused as to why BMW is singled out as torque lacking...