BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
OneEighty
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-31-2007, 08:56 AM   #1
jareknyc
New Member
2
Rep
19
Posts

 
Drives: Acura TL
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York City

iTrader: (0)

4.4 sec conf bmw m3

0-60 they said it will go under 5 sec (4.8) they just made nother test it end up at 4.4 that baby is crazy
Appreciate 0
      07-31-2007, 09:03 AM   #2
swiss_cornholio
First Lieutenant
swiss_cornholio's Avatar
Switzerland
5
Rep
379
Posts

 
Drives: E92 DTC M3 (AW/PS)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Zurich, Switzerland

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jareknyc View Post
0-60 they said it will go under 5 sec (4.8) they just made nother test it end up at 4.4 that baby is crazy
0-100km/h (62mph!!): 4.8s (official BMW spec)

==> 0-60mph <4.8s is not that surprising...
Appreciate 0
      07-31-2007, 01:42 PM   #3
Robert
Major General
118
Rep
6,902
Posts

 
Drives: 135i, current is350
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Socal

iTrader: (1)

C&D said it expects faster time under dry condition. The beast is back!
Appreciate 0
      07-31-2007, 01:46 PM   #4
Just_me
Captain
65
Rep
605
Posts

 
Drives: RWD
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sweden

iTrader: (0)

I find 0-60 times not intresting, Im more intresting what the baby is capable to 120mph
Appreciate 0
      07-31-2007, 01:54 PM   #5
Garissimo
Captain
Garissimo's Avatar
7
Rep
645
Posts

 
Drives: 4 doors, 6 gears, 8 cylinders
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Hippie Town, USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just_me View Post
I find 0-60 times not intresting, Im more intresting what the baby is capable to 120mph
Agree. For the 0-120mph time, see the thread titled "C&D First Test, full scans...". FWIW, it's slightly faster than the time C&D got for their manual transmission Audi R8.
Appreciate 0
      07-31-2007, 03:47 PM   #6
Garrett
Banned
16
Rep
1,356
Posts

 
Drives: 2004 330ci
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mich

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jareknyc View Post
0-60 they said it will go under 5 sec (4.8) they just made nother test it end up at 4.4 that baby is crazy
??

BMW claims was 0~62mph in 4.8 seconds. But everyone knows that was a highball figure, BMW always does this!

Is it really surprising to you that it's been recorded at 4.4 seconds??







-Garrett
Appreciate 0
      07-31-2007, 09:31 PM   #7
MisterBMW
Private First Class
2
Rep
167
Posts

 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Asia

iTrader: (0)

so why did some magazine reviews says its slower than the Rs4 ?
Appreciate 0
      07-31-2007, 09:44 PM   #8
Epacy
Reincarnated
Epacy's Avatar
88
Rep
4,227
Posts

 
Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterBMW View Post
so why did some magazine reviews says its slower than the Rs4 ?
Uh-oh, that is like putting the Batman symbol in the sky. You are going to call out all the Audi fanboys.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      07-31-2007, 10:24 PM   #9
gtb75
Private
gtb75's Avatar
1
Rep
95
Posts

 
Drives: 2006 Corvette Z06
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: IL, USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterBMW View Post
so why did some magazine reviews says its slower than the Rs4 ?
Maybe traction issues during early testing (as C&D hinted at)? I seriously doubt the new M3 will be slower than the RS4 once full road tests hit the stands. And the M-DCT tranny should improve the situation even further
__________________
2006 Corvette Z06
Black / Ebony - 459RWHP / 438RWTQ

2005 Subaru Legacy 2.5 GT Wagon
Brilliant Silver / Tweed M5 - 229AWHP / 260AWTQ
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2007, 02:21 AM   #10
Garrett
Banned
16
Rep
1,356
Posts

 
Drives: 2004 330ci
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mich

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterBMW View Post
so why did some magazine reviews says its slower than the Rs4 ?
Every car and every test driver is different. So your going to get DIFFERENT 0~62 times....!!

We all know the car is capable of 0~60 times of 4.4 seconds. And it's undoubtedly going to get quicker than that. Tempurature, road surface all have an impact.

0~62mph and 0~60mph times will be mismatched because people don't uasually pay attention to those extra 2mph! In and regards, it's conceiveable that the new M3 will post times of: (given the right driver, track conditions...etc)

0~60mph @ 4.2seconds
0~62mph @ 4.3seconds

And with M-DCT about .100ms and possible 200ms quicker!!










-Garrett
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2007, 03:36 AM   #11
esquire
Colonel
esquire's Avatar
United_States
58
Rep
2,801
Posts

 
Drives: 2011.5 Dakar Yellow M3 Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epacy View Post
Uh-oh, that is like putting the Batman symbol in the sky. You are going to call out all the Audi fanboys.
right you are robin! ready the batmobile!! *blam* *crunch* *zow* *bang*
__________________

[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip]
[Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE]
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2007, 05:42 AM   #12
gmund1948
Second Lieutenant
Germany
5
Rep
253
Posts

 
Drives: 335 cab,C-6 08, 73 911E 59 D,
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: American in Germany

iTrader: (0)

So I can get flamed

Quote:
Originally Posted by BOB Nevada View Post
lol
Annoying Uncoordinated Driving Idiots


Now this is in fun so Flame me if you want but its more fun to do something like this I am sure you can do the same with any brand !

__________________
TELL me what real drivers training do you have besides your State Drivers License ?
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2007, 10:47 AM   #13
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,908
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

0-60 times are useless

Quote:
Originally Posted by jareknyc View Post
0-60 they said it will go under 5 sec (4.8) they just made nother test it end up at 4.4 that baby is crazy
0-60 times are essentially useless because: A) There isn't any "true" 0-60 time, and B) It wouldn't matter if there was a true 0-60 time, because it doesn't equate to anything out here on the actual planet that we can relate to.

In regard to A), test conditions vary, driving styles vary, and test procedures vary.

If you're at 90 humid degrees ambient and testing with trusty stopwatch in hand at sea level (and assuming that speedometer needle lag just makes up for BMW's traditional three mph optimism), you're going to be about a second slower than Car and Driver's 4.4 time, testing the same car - providing you are very good with clutch, shifter and launch techniques.

Car and Driver is fairly aggressive in terms of their test procedures and correction factors, but they don't power shift, so it's possible that you may get a 4.3 or better if you use their procedures and don't bother to lift on the one-two. Would that be a "true" 0-60 time? Or, how about using BMW's published time. Is that a true time?

You see the issue, I hope.

In regard to B), there isn't any way to relate an 0-60 time to something concrete out here on the mean streets (or tracks). Although the "faster" car has a better than 50% probability of being ahead of the slower car at 60, it's far from a done deal. Time to speed has essentially nothing to do with time to distance, so a car that reaches 60 before another car may very well be behind in a drag race at the time. The only thing that you can say with complete confidence is that the car with the quicker 0-60 time will be going faster than the car with the slower 0-60 time - at either carís 60. It may be behind (and catching up), even with (and about to pull away), or ahead and widening its lead.

Pop quiz in regard to time-to-speed vs time-to-distance:

Car A does zero to 100 in about 11.8 seconds, and zero to 108 in 13.2.
Car B does zero to 100 in 13.2 seconds, and zero to 108 in about 15 seconds.

Question: Who's ahead at 100? (either car's 100)

BRAAAP!! Wrong! Thank you for playing!

In this case, car B was a GMC Syclone AWD turbo pickup in the right lane at Atco dragway in southern Jersey, while car A was me in a '93 LT-1 six-speed Corvette. At the green, I got a pretty decent launch, but with AWD and pre-loading the turbo against his torque converter, he launched like a ball bearing out of a slingshot, and I spent the entire quarter mile with right foot on the floor, rowing the gearbox in an effort to catch up.

At the finish line, we were essentially side by side, with me loping by at a fast jog. Other than the win light in his lane, the time slips said it all:

Me: 13.22 at 108 and change.
Him: 13.21 at 100.

Moral: Don't bother with 0-60 times. If you're interested in comparing your car with somebody else's, quarter mile times are a more reliable guide. Even then, it's wise to use Car and Driver or Motor Trend as guides, since they correct their times to weather standards.

Bruce

PS - Assuming similar 0-60 times (or even if the new M3 is a bit quicker), I'd be willing to bet that the RS4 would be ahead at that point. You can rev that Audi to redline, then pop the clutch while flooring it at launch, getting out ahead of the M3. So what. The M3 will be the faster car at all speeds except launch, so even if it's still behind at 60, it's a matter of time.
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2007, 10:58 AM   #14
Martl
Private First Class
Martl's Avatar
Germany
3
Rep
109
Posts

 
Drives: BMW M3 E30 and M3 E92
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Cool what the hell

4,2 or 4.4 what the hell!!!!
The car is great

regards Martl
Appreciate 0
      08-01-2007, 11:16 AM   #15
Garrett
Banned
16
Rep
1,356
Posts

 
Drives: 2004 330ci
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Mich

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
0-60 times are essentially useless because: A) There isn't any "true" 0-60 time, and B) It wouldn't matter if there was a true 0-60 time, because it doesn't equate to anything out here on the actual planet that we can relate to.

In regard to A), test conditions vary, driving styles vary, and test procedures vary.

If you're at 90 humid degrees ambient and testing with trusty stopwatch in hand at sea level (and assuming that speedometer needle lag just makes up for BMW's traditional three mph optimism), you're going to be about a second slower than Car and Driver's 4.4 time, testing the same car - providing you are very good with clutch, shifter and launch techniques.

Car and Driver is fairly aggressive in terms of their test procedures and correction factors, but they don't power shift, so it's possible that you may get a 4.3 or better if you use their procedures and don't bother to lift on the one-two. Would that be a "true" 0-60 time? Or, how about using BMW's published time. Is that a true time?

You see the issue, I hope.

In regard to B), there isn't any way to relate an 0-60 time to something concrete out here on the mean streets (or tracks). Although the "faster" car has a better than 50% probability of being ahead of the slower car at 60, it's far from a done deal. Time to speed has essentially nothing to do with time to distance, so a car that reaches 60 before another car may very well be behind in a drag race at the time. The only thing that you can say with complete confidence is that the car with the quicker 0-60 time will be going faster than the car with the slower 0-60 time - at either carís 60. It may be behind (and catching up), even with (and about to pull away), or ahead and widening its lead.

Pop quiz in regard to time-to-speed vs time-to-distance:

Car A does zero to 100 in about 11.8 seconds, and zero to 108 in 13.2.
Car B does zero to 100 in 13.2 seconds, and zero to 108 in about 15 seconds.

Question: Who's ahead at 100? (either car's 100)

BRAAAP!! Wrong! Thank you for playing!

In this case, car B was a GMC Syclone AWD turbo pickup in the right lane at Atco dragway in southern Jersey, while car A was me in a '93 LT-1 six-speed Corvette. At the green, I got a pretty decent launch, but with AWD and pre-loading the turbo against his torque converter, he launched like a ball bearing out of a slingshot, and I spent the entire quarter mile with right foot on the floor, rowing the gearbox in an effort to catch up.

At the finish line, we were essentially side by side, with me loping by at a fast jog. Other than the win light in his lane, the time slips said it all:

Me: 13.22 at 108 and change.
Him: 13.21 at 100.

Moral: Don't bother with 0-60 times. If you're interested in comparing your car with somebody else's, quarter mile times are a more reliable guide. Even then, it's wise to use Car and Driver or Motor Trend as guides, since they correct their times to weather standards.

Bruce

PS - Assuming similar 0-60 times (or even if the new M3 is a bit quicker), I'd be willing to bet that the RS4 would be ahead at that point. You can rev that Audi to redline, then pop the clutch while flooring it at launch, getting out ahead of the M3. So what. The M3 will be the faster car at all speeds except launch, so even if it's still behind at 60, it's a matter of time.


Great response...! :rocks:
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST