Sparker

Does it matter? Are you specifically only comparing the used RCF you've had for a few months against new M4's so that you feel good that you finally have a decent car that can keep up stock to stock? BMW M3 or 4 a prev gen or current gen does it matter? They all have the capability to put you to shame. Whether I lied or not, you can't prove who/what i know so get the stick out of your *** and tone down your ego. Whether or not it was 800 hp, we can all agree there are M's putting down serious power so good luck to you if you can afford and install the tune and FI kit once they crack the ecu. Not like anyone has tried or time has gone by. Post pics/videos when you do, since you'll be the first.

Davew77

It's simple physics and math. Something I get paid 6 figures per year to be good at (and I don't even work all year). I'll certainly be posting up more than pics/videos. I'll have timeslips to go with them.

You certainly don't sound like a RC F fan. Maybe you should go back to your true love?

Sparker

Yes, it's pretty simple and mathematically evident that our cars are not as quick. I'm happy you have the need to tell everyone you get paid 6 figures to stay at the la quinta time to time in the middle of nowhere America, but please do post the vids/pics and timeslips of the car. We'd love to see them.

Again, I love my RCF and i've mentioned numerous times i picked it over the M (i actually had an M on order and decided to search for an alternative because of the delayed order) for the overall uniqueness and everyday use. I'm a car enthusiast, not just as RCF fanboy as you've clearly turned into after owning a used example for all of 3months. There's a difference. Stop trying to turn this into a cult and acknowledge that there are other cars out there that are superior in some aspects.

Davew77

So you've gone from lying to personal attacks and putting words into people's mouths? Typical. LOL. You do realize other people can read this entire conversation, right? They can see every lie told and truth twisted. But if it makes you feel better to try and twist my words, have at it. I'm secure in everything I have stated.

The RC F engine is capable of more power than the M4 engine on the stock internals. At no point have I stated anything different than that. At no point does that mean there are not other cars that are superior in any aspect. Nor does it mean that the M4 is not superior in any way. It means EXACTLY what I said. The RC F engine is capable of more power than the M4 engine on the stock internals. Feel free to keep trying to twist words and launch personal attacks.

I have nothing more to say here that hasn't already been said. Good day to you, sir!

Sparker

I'm glad they can read it and that you feel secure. I have nothing to hide and I speak my honest opinion and the truth the best to my knowledge. Good day! I will be looking forward to your posts when you've unleashed all of the capability so I can finally witness somebody with an F truly spanking some M's.

Davew77

No problem. I'll be sure to come to some NYC car meets so you can see it in person. I'm probably going to have to drive to PA anyway for tuning.

05RollaXRS

I find it very amusing that you made a condescending statement like "poking fun" at me when you would say such a laughable patently false statement like "Torque for acceleration, HP for top speed". I was cautious in making sure the whole time I was respectful and did not sound condescending while pointing it out. I mean, seriously? I have always been within the boundary of respect every time addressing your posts and it is appalling that rather admitting the misleading statement you wrote, you were "poking fun" at me.

Now I would ask you more directly, have you acknowledged the inaccuracy of your statement? I have not found it anywhere in your posts.

Broad rpm ranges are put in there by engineers for a reason. I am merely explaining why cars are engineered the way they are. You are talking about DCTs for shift speeds (when you mentioned a flat torque curve till 5252 rpm with 200 ft-lbs flat across this range), but I gave you exactly why that is not a realistic real-world scenario because it will never work in the real world with such a narrow rpm band limiting speed range per gear unless the gearing is set so tall that it ends up in the same place since torque multiplication offered through gears is significantly less on tall gears. Shift speed would only go so far to cover for the deficit in torque the car has due to lack of multiplication.

For non internal combustion engines, a Tesla S 90D has electric motors generating so much torque going to all four wheels with AWD right off the bat with a 1 speed transmission, it scoots off the line quicker than anything, but the acceleration tapers off very quickly where 60 - 100 mph takes a full 4.7 seconds and 60 - 150 mph takes 19 seconds.

It becomes even less plausible for cars that are tested/tuned on a high speed race track like Nurburgring where the cars accelerate hard on the long straights constantly. I will reiterate where I started from, all of these variables influence each other. They are not independent of each other.

I am explaining why engineers spend millions and millions of dollars in R&D in order to find the right balance between low rpm torque and high rpm torque/HP combined with optimal gear ratios striking balance between torque multiplication and speed range/gear. It is definitely possible no doubt, but I have never seen a modern day production performance car that only relies on torque band in the 1000 - 5000 rpm and utilizes a tall gear ratio spread to strike the balance between torque and speed/gear.

97-SC300

iTrader: (17)

Too many people claiming high 800-1000whp BMW in this thread. Need some videos please. What dyno are they using. Where are these cars.

DougHII

Lol, that's more than I have time to or care to read, but when you gotta say so much mumbo jumbo to try and make an INTERNET point . . .

I live in reality, you read crap on the Internet and you are twisting what I said . . you cut and paste selected quotes here and there, leave parts out so context is lost.

Take this fine German CLS 550 pictured below. 400 hp, 440 torque, weighs 200 pounds more than the RCF and is same 0-60 and in quarter mile as the RCF even though the RCF has 65 more horsepower, quicker transmission and weighs approximately 200 pounds less. Real world times for CLS are 4.3 0-60 and 12.8 and I can tell you that the car actually feels quicker than the RCF at any speed under 100 mph and it rear tires break lose more than the RCF's.

Give me area under torque curve for acceleration. I have spent upwards of $50k to $70k on several NA and turbo engines over the years and for street . . . we tuned to maximize area under torque curve for acceleration . . . for the track, we tuned top end hp. You will make sacrifices either way you build.

DougHII

Ms have a nice flat, decent torque curve due to the forced induction, but I would hardly call it serious power. 400hp and 410 torque is not serious power these days. Trying to tweak hp out a NA engine can be an expensive, frustrating exercise in futility unless serious $$$ are dropped. Without a doubt, forced induction is where it is at if you are truly lacking in the female or genital size department and need to get your kicks out of being a paper or magazine 0 - 60, 1/4 mile figure wonder boy.

DougHII

I dunno, I kind of thinking who the fleck would spend that kind of money on a crappy BMW to begin with. Take the money and put it into a real car, that has traction, looks good and is the complete package.

05RollaXRS

Ah OK. Apparently the science and engineering (and my background in physics and engineering) that all of the automotive engineers use is "mumbo jumbo" to you. Why don't you try to discredit what I said. What part was the mumbo jumbo? The fact that the engineers need to find the best possible balance between speed range/gear while determining gear ratios/final drive for the specific redline? Or the fact that I said your theory of a car having 5000 rpm redline with a flat torque curve will never work (I gave an explicit example of a Golf TDI with 256 ft-lbs and 150 HP to illustrate that)? Explain which part of that is correct

Why do you need to resort to insults like you have been the whole time? It is very odd you are dissing my knowledge and claiming to be living in real world you made a statement like "torque is for acceleration, HP for top speed" is like saying, the pyramids are upside down. It appears to me like self-righteous attitude is really getting the best of you so much so I am baffled that you resort to insults when someone politely tries to correct a simple fact.

If you think I am stupid and living in the internet world, please why don't you explain how "torque for acceleration and HP for top speed" works then?

BTW, I am not an internet junky. I am engineer who found the improvement points and tuned a lowly and inferior 190 HP high-revving 8350 rpm Yamaha-built engine to improve the car's acceleration by over 0.5 seconds and a trap speed that went up from 93 mph stock to 97 mph. I know what I am talking about because I have personal experience in tuning and test car engine/reduction in unsprung mass, powertrains internals. I have eaten many cars with way more torque with quick revibility, short gear ratios and a flat/broad torque curve. I am not as stupid as you think I am. I can tell you, if I switch out my stock 4.53:1 final drive for say, a 3.32:1, my car would be slow as hell because it makes a piddly 135 ft-lbs of torque (albeit across a wide range).

All of the test weights of the CL 550, is 4100 lbs and the weight is within 100 lbs of a stock RCF. No RCF has ever weighed less than 40XX lbs. Weight is almost similar. What are the gear ratios? Especially when I keep repeating torque multiplication through gear. RCF is not geared ideally for 1/4 mile. RCF is known to have a 2.93:1 final drive which is numerically very low (meaning, it is geared rather tall). I have repeated many times gear ratios are the other half of the equation for torque multiplication. Some owners said, the gear ratios despite having 8 ratios were set to be tall in order to keep it from consuming too much gas. A high-revving car like RCF will do best in 1/4 mile with a short (numerically high) final drive. Swap the final drive for an 2nd gen IS350 (6 speed) and RCF will explode off the line and rip the 1/4 mile in 12.2 - 12.3 seconds. Many of the ISF owners have done exactly that by swapping 2nd gen IS350 numerically high final drive and swear by drastic improvements

The other question is, how do they accelerate past the 1/4 mile? Why not look at the total picture rather than just focusing on just a portion of the variables involved?

I also believe RCF and M4 would be even if RCF could shed 400 lbs to equal M4 weight. However, that is just my hypothetical with no proof.

I also recently saw a 1/2 mile video of stock GT350 vs modified C63 PP with boat loads more torque and the GT350 still killed it despite having similar HP and no torque below 4000 rpm. Once it got into high revs, the GT350 just walked.

Again, this is a serious question and also I will remain within the boundary of respect in order to keep this conversation civil on my side.

DougHII

Brother, brother, brother, you are trying way too hard and funny how just conveniently or selectively cut out portions of what I say so you can mischaracterize, spin or do whatever you do to make yourself feel like an internet keyboard God or compensate for something. Dude, I don't know if you are stupid or you just use Google. Don't care, but you just seemed mighty incapable of grasping and following some very basic concepts and logic. Although it does seems like such a brilliant engineer dude would be able to buy some pretty killer rides rather than just stalking them on internet forums.

Sheez, you are right . . . the CLS 5500 sitting in my garage weighs only 50 pounds more than my non-TVD RCF also sitting in my garage, the 2.47 makes it quicker than the RCF, hp and not area under the torque curve is the key to 0 - 60, 0 - 100 or 1/4 miles and after approximately 30 years of professional racing (road courses, not drag) I had it wrong and perhaps could perhaps have been successful at racing had you clued me in long ago so I would have tuned my road course cars for more torque and not for top end hp.

05RollaXRS

True. I have had the same car for 14 years and only have spent on slowly modifying it. I would be questioning that too, if I were you. Maybe, I should scan my access badge with my title and company on it? or maybe not. I don't care what you think of me not having flashy and killer rides (because I am a professional engineer so I should be making boat loads of money). Not everyone in this world blows their money on cars. Some people decide to take it more strategically. I am single-income married and have a young family. Not everyone wants to blow it on cars and want to prioritize children college funds, mortgage etc over it.

I do not post that much either. Look at how many posts I have made in the last one month and it should tell you how skewed your thinking is regarding how much time I spend on the internet.

Yes, you continue to resort to insults calling me stupid and thinking everything I wrote could be dug up randomly from google on the fly. Expect nothing better than that. The fact that nothing I am writing from my own personal experience and knowledge, is making any sense is beginning to explain the pattern in your posts. OK, so I am stupid. Why don't you educate me then? Explain to me how does "torque for acceleration, HP for top speed" works? Please explain to me like I am dumba**.

Also, how do you know like all the German cars, it is not underrated? M5 and E63 were massively underrated so being a turbo engine, unless dynos should it makes power in line with the 400 HP claim, it cannot be eliminated as a plausible reason.

DougHII

Yep, forgot that. The CLS 550 really has 642 hp and 12 torque so it should run a blistering 3 second 1/4 mile with that 2.47 final drive ratio.

Dude, seriously . . . You are a hoot. Could it just possibly, just plausibly within the realm of remote possibility be that the HUGE, FLAT TORQUE CURVE produced by FI engines that makes it run with or better than the RCF . . . and not Lexus lying about weight, Mercedes lying about weight, the 2.47 gearing (must be a lie too), Mercedes hiding the ball on true power, Lexus lying about true power, aliens, bigfoot or other conspiracy theories. Torque, just simply awesome area under the torque curve? NAH, that would be just too dumb.