View Single Post
      10-26-2007, 02:24 PM   #92

Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
It is not about me being right all of the time. What you can not seem to accept, as many others here have, is that something simply does not add up. You keep sticking to your guns that the car is so similar to an Audi and that it's performance results are so similar that all is rosy and consistent in the world. If you dig just a bit deeper you will see that this is not the case both on 0-60 (AWD - hint, hint) and 0-100 (smoking the E92 M3 with way more power to the ground and less weight). The civic example was chose particularly absurd just to make a point, it was not a literal case study, but it seems even the extreme nature of that thought experiment does not help you broaden your perspective - even by a tiny, tint bit. Thank for your insightful opinions on my logic and common sense. Have a look in the mirror my boy.

Last but not least when you say the M3, RS4 and IS-F "specs" are close you have to dive a lot deeper than hp! So on the surface you are correct but looking at what matters you are terribly and grossly wrong. You need peak torque, the enitire torque curve, the weight and last but not least one of the most important things you keep over looking is the importance of the transmission type and gear ratios (gears AND final drive). Did you happen to read my post about torque multiplication and showing how the M3 has about 25% more torque delivered to the ground than the IS-F in 1st gear (and similar but smaller advantages in other gears)? I don't, and no one who knows anything, gives a rats a$$ about the engine peak torque spec. or even rear wheel dyno torque results comparing the these two (or any two cars for that matter...). The torque delivered to the wheels divided by the weight is an absolutely essential factor. It is absolutely not about which car I like better or which has superior data sheet specs. - it is about consistency of all of the specs, testing, data and simulation. If the IS-F had the superior torque delivery and poor real world tests I would be just as confused and questioning everything as well!
Listen Swamp, what i meant by i don't doubt your results is that i believe what you got i just don't agree with them. Those are only estimations, they don't necessarily have to match real world results. Which to me is what matters the most and the only final conclusion. As i stated before, there could be errors which in that case it should be tested again and again. In the end, the real world results is what only counts, not a computer simulated test. And as far as the similarities between the ISF, M3 and RS4, i'm not just talking about HP figures. I'm talking about other specs such as their performance figures and weight.

C&D results: note: Not too sure about the RS4 figures, it actually might be better than that.
M3= 0-60 @ 4.4 secs/ 1/4 mile 12.9 secs/ 3650lbs
RS4= 0-60 @ 4.6 secs/ 1/4 mile 12.8 secs/ 3900bls+
ISF= 0-60 @ 4.2 secs/ 1/4 mile 12.7 secs/ 3800lbs

As you can see, they are not that far apart, you almost can't get any closer than that. So for you to think that the IS-F is under rating their HP figures just because it's 0.2 secs quicker is idiotic. Remember, these performance results could easily change hand at any given time depending on the "real world" condition that they are being tested. I still think that the M3 should be quicker. I actually predicted 4.1 or 4.2. So again, why does it not add up and why in the hell should everything add up to your calculations? I think your being just a little too technical about this whole thing. But that's fine, to each his own. We are obviously not going to agree on this. You are pretty much convinced with your "similuted test results" and that's the end of it all. That's fine, and i will stick to what the real world test results will show me.

Originally Posted by Swamp2
The last possibility is that the C&D car was a sleeper (a new and definite possiblity - this has been done before). I would LOVE to have a dyno result for that particular car vs. the reported dyno results in this thread. That would likely end this entire debate.
LOL!!! Oh my God! That's a good one, what's your next conspiracy theory, i know, they used NOS. You are sooooooo reaching. But if that makes you happy, so be it. Just so you know, the dyno results on this thread is by Automobilemag. Their results as far as 0-60 is 4.6. The difference is they don't launch their cars like C&D, i don't think any of the other magazines launch their cars like C&D. Car and Driver are known and have always been quicker and quickest than any other magazines when it comes to accelarations. They are the only ones that got 4.9 secs to 60 from the 335i coupe as far as i know.