Why does BMW has so little torque?

[Fleet 500]

that is a case of a trampling live rear axle, poor quality tyres and a poor quality driver unable to transfer the power to the road. If you had shown a picture where the caddy accelerates fast without wheel spin, then you had shown torque, now you have shown excessive horsepower

It's a case of an engine having so much power (and torque) that the rear tire(s) can break loose no matter what kind of axle or tires are used. Maybe Cadillac should have detuned their engines to the point where they couldn't burn rubber? On second thought, it wouldn't be much fun to drive that way.

The front-wheel-drive Eldorados, with no axle, could also smoke the tires, incidentally. One of my Cadillac friends did that with his '71 Eldo.

(BTW, those were not poor quality tires on that '74 Cadillac; they were a name-brand radial-type.)

[Viper007]

You can never have enough torque! Vipers=525lb-feet

[Matra et Alpine]

You can never have enough torque! Vipers=525lb-feet

You sure can ......



The problem when you put stronger half-shafts in coz they broke last time

[Godlaus]

Torque is not equivalent to force. Knowing torque one can find the amount of force applied at some distance from a point or axis, however it does not mean the two are equal.

Also, horsepower is not equal to work. Horsepower is an Imperial unit of measure, it is a measure of power. As well, power is not equal to work, power is equal to the rate of work.

The product of force and time is not equal to work either. The product of force and distance is equal to work.

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

[Ferrer]

BMW has so little torque on the ///M models. Why

BMW M engines don't lack torque at all... in fact for a normally aspirated engine it is pretty astonishing to surpass the 100Nm/litre mark... which they usually do easily... another think is if you consider the powerband or compare them to supercharged/turbocharged engines.

[Fleet 500]

You can never have enough torque! Vipers=525lb-feet

I agree! My '69 and '70 Cadillacs have a factory-rated torque of 525 ft/lbs and the '70 Eldorado is rated at 550 ft/lbs. These are gross ratings but even the net ratings are way up there.

The '60s and '70s Cadillacs (and Lincolns and Imperials) have very strong rear axles and can easily handle the large amounts of torque their engines produce. In fact, they are actually more like truck axles which have been smoothed-out and otherwise refined so they could be used in a passenger/luxury car.
I know a lot of Cadillac people and no one's ever had a rear axle break (in fact, no rear axle trouble at all). Same with my Cadillacs- even with 60-foot burnouts, never a whimper from the rear axle (or the engine/transmission for that matter).

[Matra et Alpine]

IThe '60s and '70s Cadillacs (and Lincolns and Imperials) have very strong rear axles and can easily handle the large amounts of torque their engines produce. In fact, they are actually more like truck axles which have been smoothed-out and otherwise refined so they could be used in a passenger/luxury car.
I know a lot of Cadillac people and no one's ever had a rear axle break (in fact, no rear axle trouble at all). Same with my Cadillacs- even with 60-foot burnouts, never a whimper from the rear axle (or the engine/transmission for that matter).

Yep and why they weigh so much

Stuck on that more power/torque needing more weight which needs more torque which then needs beefing up adding more weight and then we know where the handling ends up.

What rubber are you running 60ft burnouts and NO AXLE TRAMP ?????
We get cheap tyres that's good for that, zero grip

[Fleet 500]

Yep and why they weigh so much

Stuck on that more power/torque needing more weight which needs more torque which then needs beefing up adding more weight and then we know where the handling ends up.

What rubber are you running 60ft burnouts and NO AXLE TRAMP ?????
We get cheap tyres that's good for that, zero grip

Yes, that does add weight but it is necessary otherwise the rear axle of Cadillacs would sound like a truck going down the street!

Contrary to popular belief, Cadillacs do handle well, especially for their large size. That's what Car and Driver discovered when they tested a '65 Fleetwood...
"It is agile, effortless, and predictable- always going where it's pointed without any fuss or surprises. We'd like to try a Cadillac with Koni shock absorbers and larger-section tires- these two very simple changes could elevate its already-acceptable road behavior to the first rank."
- Car & Driver, July, 1965

The tires on my Cadillacs are P235x75R15.
There is no axle tramp with the burnouts; it's a well-designed suspension.

[Egg Nog]

always going where it's pointed without any fuss or surprises.

That's the most half-assed handling praise I've ever heard from a publication.


Far cry from "handles as if on rails", although at least it's a hell of a lot less cliche

[Fleet 500]

Well, they couldn't say that it "handled as if on rails" because it didn't.
But it did handle much better than they thought it would.

[Matra et Alpine]

Well, they couldn't say that it "handled as if on rails" because it didn't.
But it did handle much better than they thought it would.

That's like saying Margaret Thatcher was sexy because she wasnt' us ugly as everyone thought she was

[henk4]

That's like saying Margaret Thatcher was sexy because she wasnt' us ugly as everyone thought she was

could you get her into a burnout?

[Matra et Alpine]

could you get her into a burnout?

During the Poll Tax days if she had come to Scotland their woudl have been a "burnout" for sure Edinburgh has a reputation going back 400 years for burning witches

[targa]

i guess it relates to the amount of horsepower......

generally, and this is only from my experiance, if you have alot of torque, more then should be alloted for the given hp, the tires will break traction.....since the M's are built as SPORTS CARS, they want to have sufficent torque without having to implement a traction control device to aide them, im not sure whether the M's have traction control or not, but that would be one explination for it

[Fleet 500]

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.