[swamp2]

Originally Posted by gbb357

First of all you did say "your conclusion", i even quoted you on it. There is always going to be variation on the results. I already have given you an example from 4 different magazines. The 0-60 range where from 4.2 to 4.8. No way any car even with the same driver will come up with the same figures all the time, let alone with different drivers from different magazines. C'mon that's a given. You're right, stop wasting your time, your not going to be right all the time. Making an example of a stock civic going 8 secs to 100mph is really pathetic. You seem to be very smart but your logic is comical at best and you lack common sense. See ya.

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.

Originally Posted by gbb357

I never doubted Swamp2's data or calculations. As a matter of fact i think it is quite valid and accurate if you look at it scientificly. The point that i'm trying to make is that you can have all the simulations, calculations and what not, it's not going to be as accurate as the real world testing. That is the final conclusion of all. Of course you're going to have mistakes, wheter it'll be instrumentation or human error. Can it be skewed or manipulated, of course it can. But these magazines don't really have any reason to do that especially if their reputation is on the line. As a matter of fact, i think it might be an incentive for them to get the best performance out of each cars they test. It's bragging rights. BTW, C&D's rolling start acceleration test is a seperate test. That simulates real world driving for you and me. That's why it is usually a lot slower compare to their regular test. And furthermore, the times that the IS-F got from C&D is not that far off from the M3's and RS4's results. And their specs are very close also, so i don't see this being controversial at all.

Hmmm, you never doubted my calculations? That is all you have done.

And just because you have used a formula to estimate the performance and come up with some data, all that is is an estimation. The real data is what the car will do on actual driving condition, no formula will come up with a better result than that.

And just because you have used a formula to estimate the performance and come up with some data, all that is is an estimation. The real data is what the car will do on actual driving condition, no formula will come up with a better result than that.

Again, as accurate as your calcultion can be, it does not calculate real world testing and situations.

What you continue to fail to realize is that every real world test is just a good as another. They all have variables and uncertainly. Unless they screw up big time, each is a valid data point. The same variation (at least most of it) can be accomplished with simulation and I have pointed out all of the variables and processes that go into simulation along the way. Despite your stubborness I think you are learning a bit here.

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!