View Single Post
      10-26-2007, 10:18 PM   #112
swamp2
102
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Cont.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
^^ Thanks Swamp. I do see the figures to be dead on with the second results(40,000miles). But if you look at the first figures(new), it is the same difference that your getting with the IS-F results. Around 0.4 secs. Since your calculation with the program is giving you around 4.7 or 4.8 with the ISF, it is possible that it could be off by 0.3 to 0.4. In other words, 4.2 might not be as imposssible as you may think, but 4.4 is probably more realistic and logical. Not to say that this proves anything. But it does show some kind of consistency.
No they are not dead on with the 40k mile result, only for 0-60 perhaps. How is 4.7-4.2=.4? Oh well that is not so important...

It is more the deltas (differences) comparing 100, 150, 1/4mi that got me concerned. 0-60 is more difficult to predict than other speeds because it is slow enough that the relative error on launch can be large compared to the total time. Again using my improved numbers with the updated transmission figures (optimistic figures, perhaps even non physical, I remind you...)

spec, C.T., C&D, delta
0-60...4.7...4.2...0.5
0-100...10.7...9.8...0.9
0-150...25.9...24.7...1.2
1/4mi...13.1...12.7...0.4

These are more off and off consistently. Notice how some of the differences with the M3 were + and some -. Typical of a good simulation vs. test. More like average (delta) = 0. Here the error is always in the same direction C7D test always better than simulation.

The other reason why 4.2 is so suprising is again the AWD RS4 should best the IS-F here and I think 4.2 is the best number I have ever seen (again maybe and outlier) for the RS4.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
Appreciate 0
Reply With Quote