Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
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.
|
Actually they are dead on with the 40,000 miles, they are not dead on with the brand new figures. You're right 4.7-4.2 is not 0.4, that's why i said
around 0.4(0.3,0.4,0.5). My point is, your figures with e46 M3 to 60 @4.5 and you Cartest results of 4.84 is a diifference of 0.34, and that's acceptable. Should'nt the 4.7 and 4.2 difference of 0.5 on the ISF results be acceptable as well? In other words, there is a margin of error. I don't think it's necessarily an exact science. In terms of the RS4, remember it is close to 200lbs heavier.
spec:
C&D/40k/
CarTest
0-60=
4.5/ 4.8/
4.84
0-100=
11.2/ 12.0/
11.91
1/4mile =
13.1/ 13.4/
13.5
