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) > M3 vs....
 
EclipsisNA
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-11-2014, 10:52 AM   #397
Groundpilot
Major
 
Groundpilot's Avatar
 
Drives: 135I DCT , e92 M3 DCT, Audi A6
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: long island,ny

Posts: 1,106
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via ICQ to Groundpilot
[quote=gthal;15423614]2LT with GT seats. GT seats were fantastic... can only imagine how nice the competition seats will be.

I think competition seats=bucket seats. Will be great for the track, but pain in the butt for daily driving
__________________

David
Groundpilot is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-11-2014, 10:58 AM   #398
Petros
Captain
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada

Posts: 813
iTrader: (0)

You're putting words in my mouth and making strawman arguments. I never mentioned peak torque. That's an irrelevant number. What I meant was the torque curve at the wheels. Your argument seems to hinge on using power to weight for its predictive value regarding vehicle performance. And I agree it's a good metric with some predictive power. However, it is also based on the assumption that peak power correlates with overall power throughout the rev range, and that is mostly true for modern engines since they're designed to have a semi-constant torque curve. But hp/lb isn't always a good predictor of performance.

For example an Evo X GSR has 291 hp and 3527 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08251. 0-60 is 4.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 13.6 s

On the other hand an AP1 S2000 has 240 hp and 2745 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08743. However, 0-60 is 5.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 14.4 s.

Your metric of power to weight ratio would predict the S2000 would be faster, yet it is substantially slower than an Evo X.
Petros is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-11-2014, 11:01 AM   #399
Petros
Captain
 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Canada

Posts: 813
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Swamp.

Stop. Just stop.

He doesn't get it. He may never get it. Why bother?

He's also the kind of guy who feels the need to demonstrate that he knows the difference between mass and weight. (!)

My dad once told me to never get into an argument with an idiot, because people may not be able to tell the difference.

Good advice. Take it.

Bruce
I would say the biggest sign of an idiot is making inane comments that don't add any value and insulting people from behind the safety of a computer screen. Seems like your dad forgot to teach you how to act like a human being and keep it classy. I'd be happy to teach you that if I ever saw you face to face.
Petros is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-11-2014, 11:47 AM   #400
Groundpilot
Major
 
Groundpilot's Avatar
 
Drives: 135I DCT , e92 M3 DCT, Audi A6
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: long island,ny

Posts: 1,106
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via ICQ to Groundpilot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
I would say the biggest sign of an idiot is making inane comments that don't add any value and insulting people from behind the safety of a computer screen. Seems like your dad forgot to teach you how to act like a human being and keep it classy. I'd be happy to teach you that if I ever saw you face to face.
Very good Lets see if he accepts your challenge
__________________

David
Groundpilot is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-11-2014, 12:08 PM   #401
Handy Man
Private
 
Drives: Pending
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: United States

Posts: 50
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
For example an Evo X GSR has 291 hp and 3527 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08251. 0-60 is 4.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 13.6 s

On the other hand an AP1 S2000 has 240 hp and 2745 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08743. However, 0-60 is 5.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 14.4 s.

Your metric of power to weight ratio would predict the S2000 would be faster, yet it is substantially slower than an Evo X.
Bad example. AWD gives the EVO a huge advantage in 0-60. After the 60' mark the S2000 is faster, which is exactly what its hp/lb predicts.
Handy Man is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-11-2014, 12:30 PM   #402
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,866
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
I would say the biggest sign of an idiot is making inane comments that don't add any value and insulting people from behind the safety of a computer screen. Seems like your dad forgot to teach you how to act like a human being and keep it classy. I'd be happy to teach you that if I ever saw you face to face.
Really. You want to get physically confrontive?

Sheesh. I fought quite a bit in high school, but then I grew up. I suggest you do the same.

On the other hand, see my next note. I feel the need to apologize.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-11-2014, 12:45 PM   #403
Groundpilot
Major
 
Groundpilot's Avatar
 
Drives: 135I DCT , e92 M3 DCT, Audi A6
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: long island,ny

Posts: 1,106
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via ICQ to Groundpilot
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Really. You want to get physically confrontive?

Sheesh. I fought quite a bit in high school, but then I grew up. I suggest you do the same.

On the other hand, see my next note. I feel the need to apologize.

Bruce
__________________

David
Groundpilot is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-11-2014, 12:56 PM   #404
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,866
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
You're putting words in my mouth and making strawman arguments. I never mentioned peak torque. That's an irrelevant number. What I meant was the torque curve at the wheels. Your argument seems to hinge on using power to weight for its predictive value regarding vehicle performance. And I agree it's a good metric with some predictive power. However, it is also based on the assumption that peak power correlates with overall power throughout the rev range, and that is mostly true for modern engines since they're designed to have a semi-constant torque curve. But hp/lb isn't always a good predictor of performance.

For example an Evo X GSR has 291 hp and 3527 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08251. 0-60 is 4.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 13.6 s

On the other hand an AP1 S2000 has 240 hp and 2745 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08743. However, 0-60 is 5.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 14.4 s.

Your metric of power to weight ratio would predict the S2000 would be faster, yet it is substantially slower than an Evo X.
OK, I apologize. Sincerely. Schoolboy fisticuffs threat aside, it seems you really do get it.

On the other hand, quarter mile ET is hard to predict from power to weight deltas. What weight over power predicts with some accuracy is trap speed. No it's not perfect. Far from it, in fact. But on the other hand weight over torque predicts absolutely nothing in terms of acceleration performance, over a quarter mile or whatever.

Having said that, however, it's true that if you compare two cars with roughly equal power-to-weight numbers, the car with better torque-to-weight numbers will tend to win the drag race, because it will make more power after each shift, backing up your statements regarding average power over whatever duration. The early C63s vs E92s demonstrated this point. The bimmer had a slightly better power-to-weight number, but couldn't stay with the Merc over a quarter mile.

As an example of variances within a power-to-weight spectrum, I predict the M4 will outperform normal expectations based on power to weight, because it will essentially continually stay at max power from third gear on, quite unlike, say, the E9X M3, or the new Corvette. Those cars drop quite a bit of power after each shift.

Bruce

PS - Just as a rule of thumb, quarter mile trap speed varies as per the cube root of the power to weight delta. Torque need not be considered. As an example, the Dynojet folks calculate power by having your drive wheels accelerate a known mass from some speed to another speed. They don't bother with torque unless you want to hook up a tach feed. Then they'll calculate torque from their power readings at whatever rpm - but they don't need that and don't give a damn about it.

Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 02-11-2014 at 01:03 PM.
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-12-2014, 12:29 AM   #405
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,027
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Handy Man View Post
Bad example. AWD gives the EVO a huge advantage in 0-60. After the 60' mark the S2000 is faster, which is exactly what its hp/lb predicts.
Thank you, spot on. Not directed at you, since you "get it" but I've never claimed (peak) power to weight is an omniscient predictor, just the best simple predictor by far.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-12-2014, 12:50 AM   #406
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,027
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
You're putting words in my mouth and making strawman arguments. I never mentioned peak torque. That's an irrelevant number. What I meant was the torque curve at the wheels. Your argument seems to hinge on using power to weight for its predictive value regarding vehicle performance. And I agree it's a good metric with some predictive power. However, it is also based on the assumption that peak power correlates with overall power throughout the rev range, and that is mostly true for modern engines since they're designed to have a semi-constant torque curve. But hp/lb isn't always a good predictor of performance.

For example an Evo X GSR has 291 hp and 3527 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08251. 0-60 is 4.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 13.6 s

On the other hand an AP1 S2000 has 240 hp and 2745 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08743. However, 0-60 is 5.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 14.4 s.

Your metric of power to weight ratio would predict the S2000 would be faster, yet it is substantially slower than an Evo X.
You said (again),

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petros View Post
Power is just a number used by marketing departments to sell cars. What makes you accelerate is torque.
If you are speaking consistently then you must be talking about a single peak number, just above you are comparing power "a number" to torque. I'd never argue that knowing peak power is somehow better than knowing an entire torque curve. It seems to be clear that what you said and what you meant weren't quite the same.

I already addressed your example above on the two specifics. But again, finding an exception to the rule does not detract from the rule's simplicity and predictive power.

As a small concession I think I understand where the idea that torque is "what matters" or torque is what accelerates a car comes from. Torque is simple, concrete, its just a force acting through a distance (typically on a rotating object). When you think about the physics of the car, the drivetrain and its acceleration and of course when writing a spreadsheet or vehicle acceleration simulation tool, the first thing one would likely do is make tables of torque at the wheels as a function of each gear and all rpms. Then a basic force and torque balance provides the net thrust force on the car (with some careful treatment of losses and interias). After all torque twists that wrench when we work on our cars and torque twists the crankshafts and ultimately the wheels. There is nothing wrong with this point of view. Power on the other hand is slightly more abstract, especially to the lay person (not you, obviously with your background). It's not until one carefully dissects the problem and resolves my prior numbered statements about torque and power (even those are actually only "first order" correct, there are corrections abound which have all been discussed in great detail here on this forum) that the simplicity and importance of power and then peak power becomes transparent and even enlightening.

Last but not least, I ain't a mod here, but I will try to help self police the forum. Bruce made a uncalled for insult. However, the threat (even a loose one) of physical violence is totally unacceptable here. Please keep that in check to insure this is a place we all want to hang out.

Cheers.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-12-2014, 01:43 AM   #407
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,027
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
On the other hand, quarter mile ET is hard to predict from power to weight deltas. What weight over power predicts with some accuracy is trap speed. No it's not perfect. Far from it, in fact.
Not so. It's sort of all about the R^2 value... Really.

There is only a 3% difference in the predictive capability of power to weight vs. trap and power to weight vs. ET. And in fact the model for ET actually has fewer outliers:

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
But on the other hand weight over torque predicts absolutely nothing in terms of acceleration performance, over a quarter mile or whatever.
As much as I thought the data would make a massively worse correlation (hence my challenge to Petros) the short answer is that is is way better than I expected. The data just happened to be present in the link above so I grabbed it and did the work.

We have to accept (observe) that average power correlates reasonably well with peak power. If that wasn't the case we would not have such a strong predictive power in this model. However, power and torque are certainly correlated as well. Of course since peak torque and peak power pretty well never occur at the same rpm we can't use the rigid relationship at a given rpm. However, not surprisingly peak torque and peak power as well as average power are all correlated. The R^2 value when running the regression is a surprisingly high, 0.78. Again that is compared to a 0.93 for trap speed vs. (peak) power to weight. So in short the torque to weight model is only capturing 15% less of the observed variation.

Last but not least, we should observe that despite this reasonable correlation this relationship is still entirely less CAUSAL than regressing vs. power to weight. Recall the important distinction between correlation vs. causation. The physics indicate we should observe a correlation in the power to weight case and we do. It just so happens that peak torque also correlates with peak power. There is no reason this has to be so, as evidenced by F1 cars that make absurd power with very little torque. And again we can do the thought experiment where we double peak torque and performance won't change appreciably, we can't do the same with power.

I won't be surprised if you have a more elegant way of explaining why the correlation is much better than expected.
Attached Images
 
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |

Last edited by swamp2; 02-12-2014 at 01:52 AM.
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-12-2014, 12:38 PM   #408
Blipit_
Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90M
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bmw

Posts: 567
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsweet View Post
You got me wrong if you think i'm angry, I'm having fun here seeing GM trying so hard with the same old platform over and over. Grandpa's condo association are big supporters of vettes
They will continue to win races and championships with their "same old platform". Back to back ALMS championships against your so-called superior platform competition. Do you have the same opinion about Porsche and their "same old platform" for the 911?

And since you are into generalizations and think only grandpa's drive Corvettes. Here is a generalization for you, anyone that lives in North Carolina a redneck.

Last edited by Blipit_; 02-12-2014 at 12:45 PM.
Blipit_ is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-12-2014, 02:08 PM   #409
sunsweet
Banned
 
Drives: '13 ZCP ED+PCD Only Owner
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NC

Posts: 828
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blipit_ View Post
anyone that lives in North Carolina a redneck.
really ?? you just discredited yourself big time.
sunsweet is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-12-2014, 02:41 PM   #410
///M3AN
First Lieutenant
 
///M3AN's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 Jet Black E90 M3
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NW Arkansas

Posts: 319
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
2008 BMW M3  [0.00]
2007 BMW 335I  [0.00]
2008 Chevrolet Tahoe  [0.00]
Does it have leaf springs?
///M3AN is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-12-2014, 03:42 PM   #411
Blipit_
Lieutenant
 
Drives: E90M
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: bmw

Posts: 567
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsweet View Post
really ?? you just discredited yourself big time.


You did that to yourself many posts ago. See how that works. Pot calling the kettle black.
Blipit_ is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-12-2014, 06:59 PM   #412
sunsweet
Banned
 
Drives: '13 ZCP ED+PCD Only Owner
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NC

Posts: 828
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blipit_ View Post


You did that to yourself many posts ago. See how that works. Pot calling the kettle black.
The topic is about individual views on the C7 zo6 which is what my posts are. You don't like my views, go deal with it (to put it politely). Everyone is welcome to express their views on the topic without having some ____ like you go personal on them and namecalling an entire state for it.
sunsweet is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2014, 04:40 AM   #413
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,027
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ///M3AN View Post
Does it have leaf springs?
From a similar thread in a similar topic a couple years back...

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
2) If the M3 had the Vette leaf springs, it would handle as well and would definitely be lighter. Those leaf springs are essentially an engineering tour de force.
As much as the somewhat low tech approach of certain Corvette systems do not appeal to me from a technical perspective, you can not argue with results. Bruce is spot on here. The transverse composite leaf spring rear set up on the Vette (Z06 and ZR1) is not your father's pick up truck leaf spring set up. It is light, highly refined and effective. That being said the GT2 C6.R Vette did go with an upgraded to the leaf spring set up to a full coil over in the rear. From that we can conclude either the performance or adjustability dictated the upgrade. I would guess a bit of both, not just adjustability. So even though we might conclude there is a bit more performance to be had from a more traditional rear suspension set up for the production Vette, you simply can not argue with its handling prowess.
And yes the new C7 car still uses a leaf springs and I'll guess the Z06 will as well. There are a plethora of advantages to this design including, lower center of gravity, less weight, less reinforcement structure/weight in the shock tower, built in anti-roll function meaning less weight in the formal roll bar. They system also offers height/corner weight tuning. The only draw back I see to the design is lack of ability to easliy change the spring rate.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2014, 01:05 PM   #414
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,866
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Not so. It's sort of all about the R^2 value... Really.

There is only a 3% difference in the predictive capability of power to weight vs. trap and power to weight vs. ET. And in fact the model for ET actually has fewer outliers:
For me, that 3% is essentially a yawning gap. At least it is out on a drag strip. I admit that numerically speaking, 3% is a relatively tiny amount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Nice find! Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As much as I thought the data would make a massively worse correlation (hence my challenge to Petros) the short answer is that is is way better than I expected. The data just happened to be present in the link above so I grabbed it and did the work.

We have to accept (observe) that average power correlates reasonably well with peak power. If that wasn't the case we would not have such a strong predictive power in this model. However, power and torque are certainly correlated as well. Of course since peak torque and peak power pretty well never occur at the same rpm we can't use the rigid relationship at a given rpm. However, not surprisingly peak torque and peak power as well as average power are all correlated. The R^2 value when running the regression is a surprisingly high, 0.78. Again that is compared to a 0.93 for trap speed vs. (peak) power to weight. So in short the torque to weight model is only capturing 15% less of the observed variation.

Last but not least, we should observe that despite this reasonable correlation this relationship is still entirely less CAUSAL than regressing vs. power to weight. Recall the important distinction between correlation vs. causation. The physics indicate we should observe a correlation in the power to weight case and we do. It just so happens that peak torque also correlates with peak power. There is no reason this has to be so, as evidenced by F1 cars that make absurd power with very little torque. And again we can do the thought experiment where we double peak torque and performance won't change appreciably, we can't do the same with power.

I won't be surprised if you have a more elegant way of explaining why the correlation is much better than expected.
Sans elegance, three things:

First, taken across a plethora of data points, torque-to-weight will generally be a rough average percent (compared to power) across many internal combustion engines.

Second, expect the rough average to change as we move further into force-fed proliferation of engines, and particularly, force-fed diesels. In these cases, the torque-to-power relationship changes pretty dramatically, while quarter-mile performance changes only somewhat..

Lastly (and just in agreement), power and weight will be a strong predictor of quarter mile performance case by case, and torque and weight will not be. The fact that you've found a moderately loose relationship across a large number of cars is interesting, but no more than that.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2014, 01:12 PM   #415
Groundpilot
Major
 
Groundpilot's Avatar
 
Drives: 135I DCT , e92 M3 DCT, Audi A6
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: long island,ny

Posts: 1,106
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via ICQ to Groundpilot
Very interesting video, that demonstrates how much stronger the CF drive shaft is vs the conventional steel one. CF will used in C7 Z06

__________________

David
Groundpilot is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2014, 01:30 PM   #416
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,027
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundpilot View Post
Very interesting video, that demonstrates how much stronger the CF drive shaft is vs the conventional steel one. CF will used in C7 Z06
That is a good video. It has been discussed in some detail in the M4 section as that new car also has a CF drive shaft. One of the main points I made over there was that this is definitely neither new nor exotic. The 2001 Mitsubishi Montero had one. The 350Z had one in the Japanese version in 2002. The Mazda RX-8 had one as well in 2003. The Acura RL in 2005. I think maybe even earlier Nissans had them as well. Don't drink all of the CF this and CF that BMW Kool-Aid.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK |
| Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors |
| Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels |
| XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit |
swamp2 is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2014, 01:36 PM   #417
Wolfinwolfsclothing
Captain
 
Drives: E92 ///M3 Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: B-roads

Posts: 866
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
That is a good video. It has been discussed in some detail in the M4 section as that new car also has a CF drive shaft. One of the main points I made over there was that this is definitely neither new nor exotic. The 2001 Mitsubishi Montero had one. The 350Z had one in the Japanese version in 2002. The Mazda RX-8 had one as well in 2003. The Acura RL in 2005. I think maybe even earlier Nissans had them as well. Don't drink all of the CF this and CF that BMW Kool-Aid.
+1
__________________
IPE/Gintani
Wolfinwolfsclothing is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-13-2014, 10:58 PM   #418
Groundpilot
Major
 
Groundpilot's Avatar
 
Drives: 135I DCT , e92 M3 DCT, Audi A6
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: long island,ny

Posts: 1,106
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via ICQ to Groundpilot
Shark grey c7z06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=eucnb7Qf08U
__________________

David
Groundpilot is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
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 11:26 AM.




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