EVO vs. E46 M3
Evolved Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 616
Likes: 1
From: Westchester NY
Whatever you do, don't do any rolling second or third gear runs. He'll be faster. Not only will you barely stay with him, once the mph's build up the M3 only gets faster and will leave you in the dust. Autocross is a different story. Only a very experienced driver can beat an Evo at an autocross. They would have to know how to drive the car without traction control to beat the Evo which is very difficult.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
From: Tokyo
This is somebody else's post, because I'm tired of typing the same responses out to the same arguments:
AWD probably does have some advantage over RWD in racing. There are lot of reasons it is not used in certain series, like F1, CART, etc. When you look at most series where AWD's have gone up against RWD, the AWD's usually dominate, often despite a substantial weight penalty. Look at any touring car type series Audi has been involved in over the last 20 years. Granted, the comparison is limited to sedan type vehicles, but Audi usually killed everyone else so bad that they often got banned entirely. In mid-engine, high downforce formula cars, that often have more grip than power, it doesn't make as much of a difference (and would often complicate the situation negatively by interfering with the all-important aerodynamics - where would you put an AWD system on a modern F1 or CART car? It would have to go THROUGH the driver, or around him, and would play havoc with aero and polar moment of inertia to the point that it would more than offset any traction gains).
I think your friction circle argument goes a little too far, or maybe not far enough down the road. You seem to be forgetting that there are four tires involved. In the RWD, the REAR tires would be at that upper quadrant, balanced between acceleration and lateral g, at 100% of the tire's limit. The situation with the fronts would look quite different. Depending on whether you had oversteer, understeer, or pure neutrality, they could be anywhere from 100% lateral grip, to quite a bit less. One thing is for sure - they would not be pointing toward acceleration at all. In a RWD car, the front tires don't use the acceleration side of the circle.
In an AWD drive car "at the limit," cornering while accelerating, you could have BOTH the front AND rear tires' friction circles pointing to an upper quadrant. Picture the circles: one for the front of the car, and one for the rear, all with the same overall limits available. The RWD has one circle somewhere between 100% lateral grip and 100% relaxation. The other circle is balanced 50/50 between acceleration and lateral grip. From the total of 200% available, only 50% can be used to accelerate you off the corner.
In an AWD car, properly set up, both friction circles would look the same, i.e., both balanced between acceleration and lateral g. The overall amount of grip available for acceleration is doubled, to 100%. You can put more power down, and accelerate quicker off the corner.
If an F1 or CART guy did say he was quicker without AWD than with it, I would bet he was, whether you picked up on it or not, limiting his comments to the types of cars he drives in that series. The reasons are those I discussed above. In those cars, it is much more important to have all the mass centralized, so they can change direction ultra-quickly. An AWD system would obviously defeat that, by putting a heavy barbell weight out to the front of the car. It also would interfere with aerodynamics. The high nose designs currently in vogue in single seaters would not work well with AWD. The engineers get a lot more speed over a lap with downforce than they ever could with AWD. The AWD advantage is strictly in corner exit speed, and it is usually slight. Downforce works everywhere (except on the straights, and even then when you get to the end of them, and have to stop).
Take those limitations out, have cars with equal weight, power, drag, and maximum lateral grip, and both set up for neutral handling (which will require a variable torque split system on the AWD, of course) and the AWD should have a slight but noticeable advantage. Audi has been proving it for 20 years.
BTW, I am not a "fan" of AWD. I prefer RWD handling characteristics to any AWD I've yet tried, but I will admit that on corner exits, all else being equal, the AWD is superior. The problem is, the situation rarely exists where "all else is equal." RWD cars typically have the advantage of lower weight, and without a sophisticated variable torque split, AWD cars will tend to understeer badly when smoothly driven to their tires' ultimate limits. These problems usually tilt the balance back toward the RWD.
I think your friction circle argument goes a little too far, or maybe not far enough down the road. You seem to be forgetting that there are four tires involved. In the RWD, the REAR tires would be at that upper quadrant, balanced between acceleration and lateral g, at 100% of the tire's limit. The situation with the fronts would look quite different. Depending on whether you had oversteer, understeer, or pure neutrality, they could be anywhere from 100% lateral grip, to quite a bit less. One thing is for sure - they would not be pointing toward acceleration at all. In a RWD car, the front tires don't use the acceleration side of the circle.
In an AWD drive car "at the limit," cornering while accelerating, you could have BOTH the front AND rear tires' friction circles pointing to an upper quadrant. Picture the circles: one for the front of the car, and one for the rear, all with the same overall limits available. The RWD has one circle somewhere between 100% lateral grip and 100% relaxation. The other circle is balanced 50/50 between acceleration and lateral grip. From the total of 200% available, only 50% can be used to accelerate you off the corner.
In an AWD car, properly set up, both friction circles would look the same, i.e., both balanced between acceleration and lateral g. The overall amount of grip available for acceleration is doubled, to 100%. You can put more power down, and accelerate quicker off the corner.
If an F1 or CART guy did say he was quicker without AWD than with it, I would bet he was, whether you picked up on it or not, limiting his comments to the types of cars he drives in that series. The reasons are those I discussed above. In those cars, it is much more important to have all the mass centralized, so they can change direction ultra-quickly. An AWD system would obviously defeat that, by putting a heavy barbell weight out to the front of the car. It also would interfere with aerodynamics. The high nose designs currently in vogue in single seaters would not work well with AWD. The engineers get a lot more speed over a lap with downforce than they ever could with AWD. The AWD advantage is strictly in corner exit speed, and it is usually slight. Downforce works everywhere (except on the straights, and even then when you get to the end of them, and have to stop).
Take those limitations out, have cars with equal weight, power, drag, and maximum lateral grip, and both set up for neutral handling (which will require a variable torque split system on the AWD, of course) and the AWD should have a slight but noticeable advantage. Audi has been proving it for 20 years.
BTW, I am not a "fan" of AWD. I prefer RWD handling characteristics to any AWD I've yet tried, but I will admit that on corner exits, all else being equal, the AWD is superior. The problem is, the situation rarely exists where "all else is equal." RWD cars typically have the advantage of lower weight, and without a sophisticated variable torque split, AWD cars will tend to understeer badly when smoothly driven to their tires' ultimate limits. These problems usually tilt the balance back toward the RWD.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
From: Tokyo
And in case that's too complex for some people.
The basic problem here is that while RWD may be more "ideal" towards handling, accelerative grip is part of racing. All arguments aside, with AWD you can get on the gas sooner, and use more of it, than in an "equal" RWD setup when you are exiting a corner. That time gained exiting every single corner adds up to won races.
And if you think RWD can get the job done, than I'll pose the usual question that nobody has yet been able to answer to this day.
If RWD can get enough power to the ground when exiting corners, then why was there (and still is) a controversy in F1 over traction control?
Cheers,
Paul Hansen
The basic problem here is that while RWD may be more "ideal" towards handling, accelerative grip is part of racing. All arguments aside, with AWD you can get on the gas sooner, and use more of it, than in an "equal" RWD setup when you are exiting a corner. That time gained exiting every single corner adds up to won races.
And if you think RWD can get the job done, than I'll pose the usual question that nobody has yet been able to answer to this day.
If RWD can get enough power to the ground when exiting corners, then why was there (and still is) a controversy in F1 over traction control?
Cheers,
Paul Hansen
E46 M3s are fast as hell. I have owned a 94 Rx-7 with over 340rwhp. When I raced the M3 before on my Rx-7, the M3 never fell back more than 4 car lengths on the highway. Of course the M3 seemed qutie a bit modded but I have always wanted to own one due to their beautiful style, luxury, performance and everyday drivability. However, in my opinion, all wheel drive cars are so much more fun to drive and gives me so much more confidence on almost every road surface conditions. I have owned both the FWD and the quattro Audi TTs but the all wheel drive quattro system is almost hard to break the car loose, unless i try real hard to make it happen. Its something that I never could have imagined when I was driving the Rx-7. Thats why I fell so much in love with my EVO. Going through a 90 degree curve at high speeds, w/o much fear that the car is going to spin. Its a good compromise between a high perforformance RWD sports car and a AWD Luxury Coupe with having all the extra space. I guess it all comes to what you really want. 
Newbie
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Even though I own one (and do not regret it, mind you), I still think that with the M3, you are paying a premium for the BMW badge. I really don't wanna go into build quality and interior quality because the EVO is not all that bad and the M3 is not all that great. BUt I'd have to admit there is a slight difference in those areas.
However, for $60K, Mitsu would probably be able make something that will significantly outperform the M3 (with luxury as well). Not too sure how much it cost, but there was a limited edition of the EVO called the Extreme that was quite comparable to the performance of Porsche 911TT.
But then again, don't forget the NSX. IMO, that car is way under-powered for its price (handles awesome though). I may get flamed for that, but please, it's just my opinion.
However, for $60K, Mitsu would probably be able make something that will significantly outperform the M3 (with luxury as well). Not too sure how much it cost, but there was a limited edition of the EVO called the Extreme that was quite comparable to the performance of Porsche 911TT.
But then again, don't forget the NSX. IMO, that car is way under-powered for its price (handles awesome though). I may get flamed for that, but please, it's just my opinion.
Evolving Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: Porter Ranch, CA
Originally posted by brads
The engines that are blowing are not going from being driven hard, and even if they were, thats what REV limiters are for.. BMW's are only perceived as benchmarks, they are not actually.. It's the Matrix.. It's not real.. The M3 blows(get it) and it's just that simple..
The engines that are blowing are not going from being driven hard, and even if they were, thats what REV limiters are for.. BMW's are only perceived as benchmarks, they are not actually.. It's the Matrix.. It's not real.. The M3 blows(get it) and it's just that simple..
brads: Just because X number of M3 engines blow does not mean that the car as a whole sucks. Nothing you have said warrants that statement.
Look at it this way: Take two engines. One that is stock or even lightly modded and one that is completely done (read: heavily worked over/modded) almost to it's limits.
The heavily modded engine is bound to go before the lightly modded one because that's just the way things go. The M3 engine is not exactly a "lightly modded" or even "slightly worked on" unit is it? For this reason, when taken to limits it's not supposed to be, it will most likely give up the ghost. Read into how many engines a track team--requiring a heavily modded/worked over engine--will go through in one season.
Perfect example would be the article in the most recent issue of Car and Driver with the Evo and Sti on the cover. Go to were they write about the Realtime RSX, Turner Motorsport BMW, Protege, Civic R, etc. If you read it, will clearly say that compared to the RSX's engine, the Protege is a lot weaker in stock form therefore requiring work to have the same power (to be competitive) as it's competitors. The Protege engine has been heavily modded compared to that of the RSX and in-turn, the Mazda team goes through 3 (three) seperate engines through the season as opposed to the the RSX's 1 (one) engine a season.
There you have it folks, it's all a matter of how the car is driven. This statement also refers to the launching of the M3. Yes it is theoretically ideal (according to physics) to have a rear wheel drive car for drag racing but reality paints a different picture. The M3 is a powerful car and it can easily break traction with a pedal stomp. That being said, even if the M3 had 1,000 HP, if the driver simply stomped the gas pedal at the launch and the car just barely moved because it was burning out, the extra horsepower would be useless wouldn't it?
Assuming the kid in the M3 will turn off his traction control and stomp the gas pedal because he doesn't know what he's doing and the Evo owner will get a decent launch, my money remains on the Evo.
Again, I'll be waiting for the video.
Last edited by ESCALVANTE; May 29, 2003 at 04:00 AM.
i have this video (cant remember where i got it tho) of two stock m3's (SMG and standard) and 2 stock evo's (evo7 RS and GSR) and 2 stock ferrari 360 modenas going around a track (tsukuba circuit) in japan..
and this is on a DRY tarmac..
who wins by far? take a guess!! yup!.. the EVO beat them all!
lol!! RWD is better than AWD... you're killing me!!
(talking about handling now.. not straight line drag racing.. where RWD obviously is superior)!!!!
Last edited by RENN-ART; May 29, 2003 at 04:03 AM.
Evolving Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
From: Porter Ranch, CA
spooldswede: I have seen that video but the real deal is their time attack times.
Can you post the exact Time-Attack numbers?
I saw the video on streetracing.com or was it taner.net? I forgot but it is on one of those street-racing-video-websites that just recently began to charge it's members money to download with quicker servers.
Can you post the exact Time-Attack numbers?
I saw the video on streetracing.com or was it taner.net? I forgot but it is on one of those street-racing-video-websites that just recently began to charge it's members money to download with quicker servers.
Last edited by ESCALVANTE; May 29, 2003 at 04:26 AM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
From: Singapore
Originally posted by spooldswede
i have this video (cant remember where i got it tho) of two stock m3's (SMG and standard) and 2 stock evo's (evo7 RS and GSR) and 2 stock ferrari 360 modenas going around a track (tsukuba circuit) in japan..
and this is on a DRY tarmac..
who wins by far? take a guess!! yup!.. the EVO beat them all!
lol!! RWD is better than AWD... you're killing me!!
(talking about handling now.. not straight line drag racing.. where RWD obviously is superior)!!!!
i have this video (cant remember where i got it tho) of two stock m3's (SMG and standard) and 2 stock evo's (evo7 RS and GSR) and 2 stock ferrari 360 modenas going around a track (tsukuba circuit) in japan..
and this is on a DRY tarmac..
who wins by far? take a guess!! yup!.. the EVO beat them all!
lol!! RWD is better than AWD... you're killing me!!
(talking about handling now.. not straight line drag racing.. where RWD obviously is superior)!!!!
For lap times the fastest was the 360 manual followed by Evo and then M3.
Newbie
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
From: CT
Originally posted by spooldswede
i have this video (cant remember where i got it tho) of two stock m3's (SMG and standard) and 2 stock evo's (evo7 RS and GSR) and 2 stock ferrari 360 modenas going around a track (tsukuba circuit) in japan..
and this is on a DRY tarmac..
who wins by far? take a guess!! yup!.. the EVO beat them all!
lol!! RWD is better than AWD... you're killing me!!
(talking about handling now.. not straight line drag racing.. where RWD obviously is superior)!!!!
i have this video (cant remember where i got it tho) of two stock m3's (SMG and standard) and 2 stock evo's (evo7 RS and GSR) and 2 stock ferrari 360 modenas going around a track (tsukuba circuit) in japan..
and this is on a DRY tarmac..
who wins by far? take a guess!! yup!.. the EVO beat them all!
lol!! RWD is better than AWD... you're killing me!!
(talking about handling now.. not straight line drag racing.. where RWD obviously is superior)!!!!
But, I will say it once again: you are comparing different cars. I'm not saying that the 2003 AWD Evo can't beat a 1988 RWD Chevy Malibu, I'm saying that a RWD Evo (if such a thing existed) would be better suited to do EVERYTHING on dry tarmac than a AWD Evo. I'm certainly not arguing that the Evo is a poor example of a performance car, I'm saying it could be better as RWD (since not many of us will go "off roading" in our Evos.)
And to somebody's point about traction control on F1 cars...OK, I guess I can conceive that at a certain power point, AWD is helpful to keep the wheels from losing traction when you take a corner. I don't really follow this type of racing. But I'll tell you, 300hp is no where near that power point.
Hell, once I get my Evo (or STi), I'll definitely take it up to Limerock and see what it can do on the track. Who knows, maybe I'll be convinced that AWD is the way to go. I'm open to chaning my mind. I just won't be swayed by apples to oranges comparisons.
Originally posted by crap_shoot
...OK, I guess I can conceive that at a certain power point, AWD is helpful to keep the wheels from losing traction when you take a corner. I don't really follow this type of racing.
...OK, I guess I can conceive that at a certain power point, AWD is helpful to keep the wheels from losing traction when you take a corner. I don't really follow this type of racing.
I think it was conceded awhile ago that the M3 is faster in a long highway-type run, but shirokuma provided the best info I've seen here since this thread got going on the road-course advantages of AWD on DRY TARMAC.
I'm done with this...
Evolving Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Ok there was a magazine (can't remember which, R&T?, MT?, C&D?)...they had a face off with the EVO vs like the Lamborgini, Z06 and a bunch of other cars...and the reason the EVO was able to keep up was because of the AWD. If its a course with lots of straights, things change.