Originally Posted by gbb357
[b]I'm just interested on what kind of figures you'll get. I'm not flaming or anything like that, i'm just curious.
OK since you asked, I will humor you. There is no reason not to share the capabilities or validation of a software tool I like and call accurate.
Using the exact figures in your post and making only the following minor changes to the default CarTest parameters: weight - to match the measured curb weight (software includes options and defaults for driver weight and gas weight and they did not match the number you posted for this particular car), shift times - default is .5 s a more realistic figure for a good driver in a MT is .3 s. Conclusions:
-0-60: right on the money or within 3/10th however you like to call it
-0-100: within 7/10th or 1/10th
-1/4mi: within 1/10th to 4/10ths on ET
-1/4mi: trap within 1.5 - 3.5 mph
I think this is very typical of what one car get with CarTest. Do you notice how much closer this is comparing simulation to one actual test than the case we argued about for pages. I suspect that some tests do show better numbers and others worse for the E46 M3. My conclusion from this exercise is that both the reported figures for the car, the inputs to CarTest, the actual test itself and the simulation outputs are "consistent". There is no glaring/obvious problem with any of the pieces of the puzzle.
My C63 AMG results today were just as good!
P.S. One big reason the E46 M3 is fairly fast given its peak hp/weight ratio (not all that hot) is it's high redline and short gear ratios i.e. torque multiplication, just like the new car (I mean wrt gearing not a moderate hp/weight ratio).