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....
 
VF Engineering
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      10-24-2007, 10:59 PM   #23
JEllis
Brigadier General
 
JEllis's Avatar
 
Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SD CA/Yuma

Posts: 4,652
iTrader: (4)

Interesting...

I dont mind the looks that much and the 59K is very nice considering the competition. I hope M3 undercuts even 59K but I guess time will tell..
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
JEllis is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-24-2007, 11:33 PM   #24
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,142
iTrader: (1)

Direction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzStriker View Post
A car is more than just how quickly it gets to 100kph or how long it takes to move over 1 kilometer.

Honestly I think that thing looks horrible. For me there is no passion in a Lexus.....M3 on the other hand....

Each to his own of course but for me the M3 is more than just a 0-100 time of 4.8seconds
Not sure to whom this was directed but I'll take a stab at a reply. You are right that there is much more to a car than its 0-100 time (or its 0-X time, whatever X may be). However, one point of my post was to begin to compare the cars as inevitably will be done in great detail. Another point of the simulations, the main point there, was to demonstrate the the car is almost surely under rated to obtain the numbers it has.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-24-2007, 11:50 PM   #25
Bennu
Colonel
 
Bennu's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW Coupe
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: West Palm Beach

Posts: 2,191
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2014 BMW/M235i  [0.00]
I am actually surprised by the numbers. Especially since it weighs soo much. I didn't expect such a fast 0-60, or even the quarter mile figure. Nevertheless, I still would not even consider it even if it was as fast as a GTR. That car is damn ugly and I dont care how many times its been said.
__________________
------------------------------------------------
Lack of money is not the problem. It is merely a symptom of what's going on inside of you! - T Harv Eker

Bennu is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 12:10 AM   #26
sickbimmer78
Registered
 
Drives: Infiniti G
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: WA

Posts: 3
iTrader: (0)

After looking at the BMW M3 Sedan E90, the New IS-F looks 10x better. I agree the coupe E92 looks awsome. But the E90 looks so ugly it makes me want to its that UGLY!

PS. Compare sedan to sedan.
sickbimmer78 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 12:16 AM   #27
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,142
iTrader: (1)

Over rated

OK did some tweaking with CarTest to get a ball park estimate of the power and torque figures required to obtain the quoted numbers could not get perfect - a few numbers ended up a bit quick and others a bit slow but it is way closer than with the as quoted figures.

hp: 470 (94 hp/l)
tq: 440 ft lb (88 ft lb/l - probably unreasonable, F430~80 ft lb/l)

0-60 mph: 4.6 s
0-100 mph: 10.1 s
0-150 mph: 23.7
1/4 mi: 12.8s @ 114 mph
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 12:29 AM   #28
ToothDoc
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 997.2 TTS, IS-F, X5M
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chicagoland

Posts: 231
iTrader: (0)

There is a dyno available. RWP on a dynojet was only 330 hp or so so 470 at the flywheel doesn't make any sense.
ToothDoc is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 12:36 AM   #29
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,142
iTrader: (1)

Over rated

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToothDoc View Post
There is a dyno available. RWP on a dynojet was only 330 hp or so so 470 at the flywheel doesn't make any sense.
So again, to be clear, I am not saying the car is speced at 416 hp and is hiding a full 470 hp. CarTest is a simulation tool and can not predict every car right on the money. It does however do a very accurate job on many cars. My point is simply this. One or more pieces of the following puzzle are completely and largely inconsistent:

1. The reported performance figures from the car mag in my opening post.
2. The weight figure for the car.
3. The reported hp and tq figures for the car.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 12:46 AM   #30
Robert
Major General
 
Drives: 135i, current is350
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Socal

Posts: 6,895
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzStriker View Post
A car is more than just how quickly it gets to 100kph or how long it takes to move over 1 kilometer.

Honestly I think that thing looks horrible. For me there is no passion in a Lexus.....M3 on the other hand....

Each to his own of course but for me the M3 is more than just a 0-100 time of 4.8seconds
Oh please dont state the obvious. We all know straight line performance isn't everything. DUH. It's like yelling at someone, "Please dont touch the fire it's hot." The fact that a kitchen appliance can reach 60, 1/4, 100 as fast as a M3 is impressive and worthy of discussion.
Robert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 11:14 AM   #31
kishg
Private First Class
 
Drives: 2003 540i/6
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Northern NJ

Posts: 187
iTrader: (0)

meh.. lexus is truly uninspiring.. i would rather get a 1series than a lexus.
__________________
'05 X5/3.0 Sport (E53)
'03 540i/6 M-Sport (E39)
'91 325i/5 Sport Package (E30)
BMWCCA #360858 SCCA# 374179 NASA # 128290
kishg is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 11:38 AM   #32
absoluteis350
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: audi RS4
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: boston

Posts: 314
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan View Post
As for the IS-F, I never doubted its staight line performance capabilities. I'm actually happy to hear that it should perform well. What kills my interest in the IS-F is its aesthetic appeal (..or lack thereof), and it's lack of a traditional manual. Lexus' historical lack of steering feedback/feel also has me a bit doubtful of its on-road prowess.
Agreed completely. Those too are my major concerns.
absoluteis350 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 03:36 PM   #33
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Here's the Dyno results from the Automobilemag:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp2
Looks about right and it consistent with a top speed of 172 (limited). CarTest computes 179 unlimited. I still had to make a few estimates for CarTest. I assumed a frontal area of 25.2, Cd = .29, curb weight = 1690 kg, compression 11.8, weight on front 53%. Last but not least I gave the automatic tranny a big benefit of the doubt with enagage time and shift time of exactly .1 seconds (fast). Still the numbers are nowhere close to quoted figures. I think they are significantly under rating! Either way if they do get the straight line numbers the mag. reported it will be a really fast car. I have to try a few more custom transmission parameters as it looks like the sihifts are not quite fast enough in the acceleration graphs but for now I fully call under rated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
OK did some tweaking with CarTest to get a ball park estimate of the power and torque figures required to obtain the quoted numbers could not get perfect - a few numbers ended up a bit quick and others a bit slow but it is way closer than with the as quoted figures.

hp: 470 (94 hp/l)
tq: 440 ft lb (88 ft lb/l - probably unreasonable, F430~80 ft lb/l)

0-60 mph: 4.6 s
0-100 mph: 10.1 s
0-150 mph: 23.7
1/4 mi: 12.8s @ 114 mph
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swamp2
So again, to be clear, I am not saying the car is speced at 416 hp and is hiding a full 470 hp. CarTest is a simulation tool and can not predict every car right on the money. It does however do a very accurate job on many cars. My point is simply this. One or more pieces of the following puzzle are completely and largely inconsistent:

1. The reported performance figures from the car mag in my opening post.
2. The weight figure for the car.
3. The reported hp and tq figures for the car.
You've got to be kidding me!? How do you figure it's under rated? You'll see that the results is comparable to what they got for the RS-4 with 420hp. And remember that the U.S. spec RS-4 is almost 4000lbs and the performance figures are quite similar. And also, Car and Driver has always gotten the best performance figures on any car compare to any other magazines. So the 0-60 @ 4.2 secs and 12.7 1/4 mile they got for the IS-F is no surprise. In other words, i'm almost sure this car is not underrating it's hp and weight figures. Besides, it's not like they could hide that or get away with it anyway. Car and Driver already has the full test on it and all the specs as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Automobilemag
2008 Lexus IS-F Dyno Run
By Jason Cammisa

You're in a compact sedan with a 5.0-liter, 416-hp V-8 with four-valve Yamaha heads that contain titanium intake valves. Where do you head? The dyno, of course.
And so we did. The fellas at Ralph Willis Automotive in Salinas, California cleared their schedule for us to sneak the IS-F onto their DynoJet dynamometer. The results, as you can see from the chart below, are impressive. The IS-F is rated at 416 hp and 371 lb-ft of torque at the engine - and it delivered 333 of those horses and 318 lb-ft of torque to its rear wheels.
Those are impressive numbers given that the engine's output is funneled through an eight-speed automatic transmission. And how do they compare to the competition?
An RS4 we tested (see the link below to the full story) put out a very close 331 horsepower (and 276 lb-ft of torque) to its wheels. We should mention that the RS4 was tested on a Dynapack, which may be calibrated differently than the DynoJet model used for the Lexus.
As always, it's not the peak numbers of a dyno graph that are important, it's the shape of the torque curve. The Lexus' torque builds in a linear fashion as revs rise, but then things get a little hairy. Torque dips slightly between 4500 and 5000 rpm, and then peaks at 5200.
What happens afterward is disappointing - the curve drops off steeply, confirming our seat-of-the-pants impression that the engine is running out of breath. If you compare the shape of the curve to the RS4's, you'll notice that the RS4's V-8 doesn't make as much peak torque (it is, after all, 800cc smaller) but its twist is distributed much more evenly over a long rpm range. And from 6500 rpm up, where the Lexus is simply done, it continues pulling - all the way to over 8000 rpm.
The IS-F's V-8 certainly produces a lot of power and torque. We wish, however, that it didn't have such a steep dropoff in torque at high revs - that kind of rev-happy motor would suit the IS-F's track-star personality much better.

gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 03:52 PM   #34
rogsel
Sargeant First Class
 
rogsel's Avatar
 
Drives: 2006 SG
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: TENNESSE

Posts: 125
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to rogsel
I spent 8 years out my 22 years in the army stationed in Germany and I've seen the BMW brand perform on the autobahn and in all types of weather conditions (real world) how long as toyota (Lexus) been real performers on the autobahn, they are really nice cars but a BMW they are not, BMW's have set the standards the others are just keep trying to keep up.
__________________
2006 330i SG,PP,SP,HS,STEP,GR LEATHER
2007 Infiniti G35 Journey
2002 Mazda Tribute LX
rogsel is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 04:00 PM   #35
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogsel View Post
I spent 8 years out my 22 years in the army stationed in Germany and I've seen the BMW brand perform on the autobahn and in all types of weather conditions (real world) how long as toyota (Lexus) been real performers on the autobahn, they are really nice cars but a BMW they are not, BMW's have set the standards the others are just keep trying to keep up.
And your point is exactly what? I think everyone in the world knows that already. That's not what we're discussing here.

Last edited by gbb357; 10-25-2007 at 06:05 PM.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 05:13 PM   #36
E36 325i
New Member
 
Drives: E-36 BMW 325i coupe M-technic
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portugal

Posts: 9
iTrader: (0)

The numbers are good, but don't forget that it has a 8 speed sequencial gear box and 4 wheel drive.
E36 325i is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 06:08 PM   #37
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by E36 325i View Post
The numbers are good, but don't forget that it has a 8 speed sequencial gear box and 4 wheel drive.
The IS-F is not 4 wheel drive nor does it have a 8 speed sequencial manual gear box. It has a regular rev-matching 8 speed automatic with paddle shifts. I wish it had SMG or a regular manual gearbox, which is one of it's short comings.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 07:12 PM   #38
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,142
iTrader: (1)

Read

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
You've got to be kidding me!? How do you figure it's under rated? You'll see that the results is comparable to what they got for the RS-4 with 420hp. And remember that the U.S. spec RS-4 is almost 4000lbs and the performance figures are quite similar. And also, Car and Driver has always gotten the best performance figures on any car compare to any other magazines. So the 0-60 @ 4.2 secs and 12.7 1/4 mile they got for the IS-F is no surprise. In other words, i'm almost sure this car is not underrating it's hp and weight figures. Besides, it's not like they could hide that or get away with it anyway. Car and Driver already has the full test on it and all the specs as well.
(^Nice use of all bold font.)

I figure it is under rated by using multiple methods. Don't attack my conclusions here just because you drive a Lexus. Try to argue your points with more evidence, science, logic, etc.

The reasons/methods I have used to determine the car is under rated are scaling on power to weight. Power to weight ratio is one of the best indicators of acceleration performance (F=ma, more or less). The M3 has a substatntially better power to weight ratio and especially considering the additional power losses from an automatic transmission (meaning power delivered to the ground divided by weight, which is what really matters). The M3 has been dyno-ed at 373 rwhp(link). So we have:
  • M3 lb/rwhp = 3648lb/373 rwhp = 9.8 lb/rwhp
  • IS-F lb/rwhp = 3725lb/333 rwhp = 11.2 lb/rwhp

That is a whopping 13% difference which equates to about an extra 50 hp if the cars weights were to be equal. You think this does not matter.. You think it makes sense that the IS-F is faster??

Next I used physics based simulation software (the same basic techniques used to design the majority of the cars we all drive by the way). This software is called CarTest and I encourage you to play with it (well maybe not, it probably requires an engineer or scientist to get decent results from it)

The IS-F figures vs. the Audi are still suprising to me. The RS4 should absolutely get the jump on the IS-F 0-60 with its AWD. Furthermore the 114 mph trap speed for the quarter is more of an indicator of the hp rather than the ET. This thing is really moving at the end of the 1/4. Again this does not add up given its delivered power to weight ratio.

The substantial besting of the M3 by the IS-F to 100 mph is also quite suprising given its the same reasons outlined above (less power to weight, more weight, more lossy transmission, etc.)

So in conclusion stop thinking I am "dogging" the IS-F; the numbers it is delivered, at least straight line numbers () are astounding. So astounding that something just does not add up.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 07:23 PM   #39
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

Posts: 489
iTrader: (0)

Swamp, ur little program is flawed. Anybody who does a lot of drag racing, or straightline performance knows that Max numbers mean absolutely NOTHING. You must take into consideration the whole torque curve. Plotting max numbers into your little calculator does nothing. What if the lexus makes that much torque throughout the rpm band? The car most likely is not underrated. If you look at the torque graph, the car makes a lot of power starting at 2k rpms, something the new m3 does not do.
ChitownM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 07:26 PM   #40
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

Posts: 489
iTrader: (0)

Oh, and by the way, you keep talking about power to the ground, and then refering to horsepower. Horsepower does not equate power to the ground, it is an easy calculation that allows simple minds to understand torque at higher rpms. You can figure out real power to the ground by looking at the torque numbers and gear ratio, something I don't feel like doing right now.
ChitownM3 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 07:41 PM   #41
spearfisher
Lieutenant
 
spearfisher's Avatar
 
Drives: C6 ZO6
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL

Posts: 409
iTrader: (0)

very quick for a toyota
spearfisher is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 07:55 PM   #42
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
(^Nice use of all bold font.)

I figure it is under rated by using multiple methods. Don't attack my conclusions here just because you drive a Lexus. Try to argue your points with more evidence, science, logic, etc.

The reasons/methods I have used to determine the car is under rated are scaling on power to weight. Power to weight ratio is one of the best indicators of acceleration performance (F=ma, more or less). The M3 has a substatntially better power to weight ratio and especially considering the additional power losses from an automatic transmission (meaning power delivered to the ground divided by weight, which is what really matters). The M3 has been dyno-ed at 373 rwhp(link). So we have:
  • M3 lb/rwhp = 3648lb/373 rwhp = 9.8 lb/rwhp
  • IS-F lb/rwhp = 3725lb/333 rwhp = 11.2 lb/rwhp

That is a whopping 13% difference which equates to about an extra 50 hp if the cars weights were to be equal. You think this does not matter.. You think it makes sense that the IS-F is faster??

Next I used physics based simulation software (the same basic techniques used to design the majority of the cars we all drive by the way). This software is called CarTest and I encourage you to play with it (well maybe not, it probably requires an engineer or scientist to get decent results from it)

The IS-F figures vs. the Audi are still suprising to me. The RS4 should absolutely get the jump on the IS-F 0-60 with its AWD. Furthermore the 114 mph trap speed for the quarter is more of an indicator of the hp rather than the ET. This thing is really moving at the end of the 1/4. Again this does not add up given its delivered power to weight ratio.

The substantial besting of the M3 by the IS-F to 100 mph is also quite suprising given its the same reasons outlined above (less power to weight, more weight, more lossy transmission, etc.)

So in conclusion stop thinking I am "dogging" the IS-F; the numbers it is delivered, at least straight line numbers () are astounding. So astounding that something just does not add up.
Me driving a Lexus has got nothing to do with this. I for one is a huge BMW fan as well. The point i'm making is your making a conclusion or assumption right away that Lexus is under rating the IS-F just base on it's performance without even having any real data is ridiculous. 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. Now in terms of the figures that Car and Driver came up with, everyone knows that those numbers can change anytime. As a matter of fact, 4 different 0-60 times have been recorder so far for the IS-F that has quite huge discrepancy. Edmunds being the worst at 4.8 secs, Motor Trend at 4.7 and Automobile at 4.6. I just posted and showed you an actual dyno and yet your still arguing that the IS-F is underrated. Reading is fundamental. Everyone knows that the wheel hp is usually around 20% less than the crank hp. Calculate 416hp at 80% and you'll get around 330hp which is close to what Automobilemag came up with in their dyno test. Just because you don't like the results and it favors Lexus, does not mean it's not correct. I could care less if you "dogging" Lexus, but don't be such a fanboy about it. BMW makes some of the best cars out there, but that does'nt mean they're the best at everything.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 08:02 PM   #43
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownM3 View Post
Oh, and by the way, you keep talking about power to the ground, and then refering to horsepower. Horsepower does not equate power to the ground, it is an easy calculation that allows simple minds to understand torque at higher rpms. You can figure out real power to the ground by looking at the torque numbers and gear ratio, something I don't feel like doing right now.
Thank you for pointing that out. You got cars out there that makes tons of horsepower but cannot put it on the ground. BMW is one of the best out there in terms of putting it on the ground. The big advantage that Lexus has is it's torque figure. But to be honest, i think BMW's higher and faster rpm should equalized that, and that's probably why the numbers are so close between the IS-F and M3 when Car and Driver tested them.
gbb357 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      10-25-2007, 08:09 PM   #44
gbb357
Captain
 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

Posts: 707
iTrader: (0)

Here's the Car and Driver test on the M3 and the article on the IS-F:



http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-f.html?al=164

C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.8 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 24.7 sec
Street start, 560 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing -mile: 12.7 sec @ 114 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 172 mph
Braking, 700 mph: 159 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92 g

Base MSRP of Test Vehicle: $59,990

MSRP of Test Vehicle: $62,540
gbb357 is offline  
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 11:48 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