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....
 
Evolve Automotive
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-21-2007, 02:55 PM   #177
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Swamp, swamp.

Just so you know, i just changed the title twice just now on my thread about "what other cars you would consider below $70k". Originally it said "consider around $70k". How long you've been on this forum, and you did'nt know you could change your thread title, see how easy it is to be wrong. But it's okay to be wrong, there's nothing wrong with that at all, as long as you learn from your mistakes. Back on topic, again your sadly mistakenly confusing your so called evidence to actual proof. But i'm not going to waste my time.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2007, 03:08 PM   #178
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
Just so you know, i just changed the title twice just now on my thread about "what other cars you would consider below $70k". Originally it said "consider around $70k". How long you've been on this forum, and you did'nt know you could change your thread title, see how easy it is to be wrong. But it's okay to be wrong, there's nothing wrong with that at all, as long as you learn from your mistakes. Back on topic, again your sadly mistakenly confusing your so called evidence to actual proof. But i'm not going to waste my time.
A perfect point. Thanks. But using the edit button always give me access to the complete body but never the title. What is the trick?

Again, all I am calling the evidence I listed is EVIDENCE. I am absolutely not calling it PROOF.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2007, 03:13 PM   #179
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
A perfect point. Thanks. But using the edit button always give me access to the complete body but never the title. What is the trick?

Again, all I am calling the evidence I listed is EVIDENCE. I am absolutely not calling it PROOF.
When you go to edit, click the advance tab. From there you can edit the title as well as your post. No problem bro.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2007, 03:46 PM   #180
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
ruff's Avatar
37
Rep
1,184
Posts

 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

iTrader: (0)

Swamp,

One of the things I like about you is you are always good to reply to people's posts, even if it isn't fun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Keep on misquoting, misrepresenting as well as misunderstanding me. Your false beliefs of my opinions on the M3 and on the M3 "vs." the GT-R are simply in 100% contradiction with my stated position (again stated over and over and over). I hope these things give you some comfort and security because all they do otherwise is detract for your reputation and your desired position/status.
Don't you think it is a bit difficult to misquote you when I cut and paste your very own quotes? You are the one who worries about your ridiculous "status" on an internet forum, not me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
My reply to your endless future replies to this will simply be to reread my post #165 over and over again until you get it and accept it.
Listen to yourself, could you be just a bit more narcissistic? The only person I have ever know who is never wrong is Swamp, what a burden it must be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Oh and having your own position/argument/evidence on this topic wouldn't be a bad idea either (suggested previously as well...). Otherwise you simply have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines poking me like the silent little kid mentioned above. It is time to take a stand on the actual point of discussion rather than endlessly obsessing and talking about the discussion itself and an contributor of content to the discussion. Ruff, Mr. Meta-discussion is more like it.
The very reason you are arguing with me is because I did state in my original post on this thread that IMO, BMW was resting on it's Motor Sport laurels and the GT-Rs incredible price to supercar performance caught M on an extended Siesta.

My opinion didn't fly with your fantasy that the M3 outperforms everything in it's class for the money, unlike my thread on the M3 being a better performer, C2S without an LSD, which, surprise surprise, you thought was a great thread on my part. Although I am sure you also believe the M3 is also a better performer than a C2S with a LSD per your belief that the M3 is the best perfoming car for the money.

If I am lucky enough that my opinion happens to fit into your M3 performance fantasy world, there is never an argument between us now is there? Infact, I would be getting that a boys from you. This GT-R must really be causing you some dissonance and heartache. 0-60 in 3.3 and not on ideal surfaces. No more, at least logically, hanging your hat on the M3 being the performance/price choice. So now, as expected, you back track and say price to performance is not the most important thing....oh ya, so now what is the most important thing...back seats or in reality is it really the fancy German Marque and accompanying status and street cred? What else could it be? Performance, obviously is not your first prioty, as you always state, because if it was, there are now better choices than the M3 don't you think?

Now if you would of just said, you just like M3's the best, that would of be fine. However, to see you go on and on the past few years about the M3's performance advantage vs the competition and how price to performance is what sets it apart from the competition; then just as quickly about face and try to discredit the GT-R in every which way, looks a bit disingenuous don't you think?

Would you still like more of my opinions on the GT-R vs M3 in regards to price/performance?

If I were a betting man, I would guess you will respond to this, even though you claim you will not. Venture to guess your ego and "status" will not be able to let this go. However, I could be wrong and have been wrong many times over, something you apparently have never had the fortune or misfortune to experience.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2007, 06:11 PM   #181
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Swamp,

One of the things I like about you is you are always good to reply to people's posts, even if it isn't fun.



Don't you think it is a bit difficult to misquote you when I cut and paste your very own quotes? You are the one who worries about your ridiculous "status" on an internet forum, not me.



Listen to yourself, could you be just a bit more narcissistic? The only person I have ever know who is never wrong is Swamp, what a burden it must be.



The very reason you are arguing with me is because I did state in my original post on this thread that IMO, BMW was resting on it's Motor Sport laurels and the GT-Rs incredible price to supercar performance caught M on an extended Siesta.

My opinion didn't fly with your fantasy that the M3 outperforms everything in it's class for the money, unlike my thread on the M3 being a better performer, C2S without an LSD, which, surprise surprise, you thought was a great thread on my part. Although I am sure you also believe the M3 is also a better performer than a C2S with a LSD per your belief that the M3 is the best perfoming car for the money.

If I am lucky enough that my opinion happens to fit into your M3 performance fantasy world, there is never an argument between us now is there? Infact, I would be getting that a boys from you. This GT-R must really be causing you some dissonance and heartache. 0-60 in 3.3 and not on ideal surfaces. No more, at least logically, hanging your hat on the M3 being the performance/price choice. So now, as expected, you back track and say price to performance is not the most important thing....oh ya, so now what is the most important thing...back seats or in reality is it really the fancy German Marque and accompanying status and street cred? What else could it be? Performance, obviously is not your first prioty, as you always state, because if it was, there are now better choices than the M3 don't you think?

Now if you would of just said, you just like M3's the best, that would of be fine. However, to see you go on and on the past few years about the M3's performance advantage vs the competition and how price to performance is what sets it apart from the competition; then just as quickly about face and try to discredit the GT-R in every which way, looks a bit disingenuous don't you think?

Would you still like more of my opinions on the GT-R vs M3 in regards to price/performance?

If I were a betting man, I would guess you will respond to this, even though you claim you will not. Venture to guess your ego and "status" will not be able to let this go. However, I could be wrong and have been wrong many times over, something you apparently have never had the fortune or misfortune to experience.
Thanks, it helps being stubborn as we can both attest to!

By misquoting, what I specifically mean is that you have missed the unequivocally clear INTENT of my stance (which was explicitly clarified ad nauseam) by quoting a single sentence I placed in a post. Are you familiar with the immense power of limited quoting? Politicians do it all the time. Even in the post from which this quote came from it was clear that given the present state of the evidence I am unwilling to admit I am incorrect about the possibility that the GT-R is under-rated. My crystal clear stance for perhaps the millionth time is that there is evidence on both sides and the jury is out. You know this is my position but can't let go of your silent little jabbing me in the side exercise/game. You simply have to cut to the chase here and say you agree that my stance is clear and that your isolated quote unfaithfully represents my stance. If you claim otherwise, we simply can not continue a rational discussion on this. This is the one direct, no nonsene question for which I demand a yes/no answer from you.

Funny you mention how I am "never wrong" when I just was a couple posts back! gbb357 pointed out me being 100% wrong and I thanked him for a useful tip. Talk about absolute maximum irony.... Are you following along here? Is the ADD getting to you as well? Oh well nice try.

You are also flattering yourself greatly in your characterization as to why I am arguing with you. It could not be much less related to the potential competitive stance between BMW and Nissan and the M3 vs. GT-R. Continue on with your view of convenience, it is categorically incorrect. This is another point I have been clear, repetetive and unwavering on.

I still do contend that once we know the M3s price it will OVERALL outperform everything in its class and cost less as well. We pretty much know this already. Sure the C63 is faster in a line and the IS-F will be close enough that this will be a drivers race. But in all comparisons thus far the M3 has prevailed OVERALL. I simply do not call the GT-R a direct competitor to the M3 its targets are the 997TT and Z06, etc. Comparisons will be abound between the M3 and GT-R and they are certainly more appropriate than say a Cayman to a C63, but the actual "out the door" US price is a much bigger question on the GT-R than M3, isn't it? If the GT-R performs as it has been and it is sold for list price we have heard, it will be THE price to performance champ in the ENTIRE world, period. That is what I admire most about the car and it is a "spec" Nissan execs have directly quoted themselves, something like the cars "lap time per dollar". Not only do I respect this but I have touted it over and over and over. Will you please read what I write and accept it as my honest opinion rather than the constant psychology games and meta-posts where you try to fit what you think are my motivations with my actual words. Your ability to reconcile the two is NIL.

Ugh, back to Porsche and the 997S. What a dead topic. Who in their right mind would not say that in terms of raw performance numbers that the M3s price to performance far exceeds the 997S? This case is closed. You can argue steering feel, brake fade, weight (pretty red or yellow calipers) and this and that all day, but in the end the numbers are what they are the and M3 pretty much matches or exceeds the 997S in all metrics for nearly $25k less. CASE CLOSED.

Your perpetual second guessing, accusations through "psychological speculation", meta-posts and misrepresentation are absolutely exhausting. It is 100% apparent you do not wish to discuss the actual issue at hand and have nothing to add there.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2007, 08:55 PM   #182
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
ruff's Avatar
37
Rep
1,184
Posts

 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

iTrader: (0)

I figured you couldn't help yourself and you would have to respond despite your statement not to do so. You are a master flip flopper, numbers cooker, and slick, when it is convenient for you to do so. This is why it useless to even try to present real evidence to you and have any kind of legitimate debate. Remember you drivel about Toyota and Lexus getting the best of me with marketing and then when I presented the evidence from J.D. Power and Associates, you had a quick change of tune, but of course you were still right and I was wrong....Classic Swamp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Ugh, back to Porsche and the 997S. What a dead topic. Who in their right mind would not say that in terms of raw performance numbers that the M3s price to performance far exceeds the 997S? This case is closed. You can argue steering feel, brake fade, weight (pretty red or yellow calipers) and this and that all day, but in the end the numbers are what they are the and M3 pretty much matches or exceeds the 997S in all metrics for nearly $25k less. CASE CLOSED.
Congratulations. Your concrete and rigid M3 fan boyism takes your narcissism to a whole new level..."CASE ClOSED?" Take your CASE CLOSED to any enthusiast forum besides this one, including other BMW sites, and see how ridiculous you look. This statement holds no water outside the friendly confines of this forum.

You are quick to dismiss steering feel as a subjective performance factor becase it is apparently numb in the M3 and great in Porsches. You even inferred you were pleased it was more numb than the base 3 series. Another example of your master of rationalization to fit your rigid thinking. You do this because it obviously bolsters your M3 DCT fantasy. If the M3 had great steering feel we would never hear the end from you with how important it is and how it bests it's competitors. We both have driven enough cars to know steering feel is very real and is of the upmost importance to a sports car. It is much more important than your obsession about a tenth of second here or there, but listening to you, you would never know it.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2007, 10:12 PM   #183
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
I figured you couldn't help yourself and you would have to respond despite your statement not to do so. You are a master flip flopper, numbers cooker, and slick, when it is convenient for you to do so. This is why it useless to even try to present real evidence to you and have any kind of legitimate debate. Remember you drivel about Toyota and Lexus getting the best of me with marketing and then when I presented the evidence from J.D. Power and Associates, you had a quick change of tune, but of course you were still right and I was wrong....Classic Swamp.



Congratulations. Your concrete and rigid M3 fan boyism takes your narcissism to a whole new level..."CASE ClOSED?" Take your CASE CLOSED to any enthusiast forum besides this one, including other BMW sites, and see how ridiculous you look. This statement holds no water outside the friendly confines of this forum.

You are quick to dismiss steering feel as a subjective performance factor becase it is apparently numb in the M3 and great in Porsches. You even inferred you were pleased it was more numb than the base 3 series. Another example of your master of rationalization to fit your rigid thinking. You do this because it obviously bolsters your M3 DCT fantasy. If the M3 had great steering feel we would never hear the end from you with how important it is and how it bests it's competitors. We both have driven enough cars to know steering feel is very real and is of the upmost importance to a sports car. It is much more important than your obsession about a tenth of second here or there, but listening to you, you would never know it.

You are right and I am wrong (enjoy that b$%&#, it is not going to happen often) I said I would not continue to engage, but I can not just let your enormous absurdity go on and on and on. Have fun, keep changing the topics, rehashing old news, drawing in totally irrelevant old news, never address the real issues up for debate and discussion and weasel your way out of any serious and honest admissions. You don't want to deal with evidence here EVER because you never have any. It is that simple.

Nice avoidance of the SINGLE yes/no question I demanded you answer. It is painfully obvious why you can't - it makes your last 5 or so posts completely worthless/redundant/contradictory. Oh well enjoy wallowing in your own mess. This is absolutely and truly despicable to me ruff. ANSWER THE F&^$@#* QUESITON ABOVE YOU COWARD! If I sound pissed, I am.

You are really getting me going now. Time to back up your BS empty statements. FIND ME A single god damn number I have "cooked". You can't you lying sack. Time to not be so jealous of someone good with numbers, science and evidence. Time to head back into your little dark age cave and enjoy your hopelessly subjective world.

Last I checked car performance was a very OBJECTIVE thing, that means NUMBERS. No, it is certainly not the whole story but they sure don't talk much about feel and other flowery BS when the winner gets the checkered flag do they? Show me any number where the 997S price to performance ratio bests the E92 M3, then you have an agrument on this. Of course if you value two tenths here or there at $25k then yes-sir-eee you've got a point. Until then NOTHING. Yes, CASE CLOSED. Perhaps you should refer back to the thread tracking all of the performance figures for both cars? Oh yeah that is objective and compiled by a bunch of members here, myself included - it must be cooked. Ugh.

Another fantastic mis-representation of my comments on steering feel vs. steering numbness. You simply can not accurately recapitulate anything I say here, despite it being CRYSTAL clear. You change, warp and modify to suit your own twisted little games, insecurities and lies. It is beyond old, ruff, time to act like a freaking adult. Just to be 100% clear (again) on the steering issue: I said I feel that the E36 M3, although having excellent steering transmits too much of the bad along with the good through its steering system. I thought it would be a great idea for BMW to lose as much of the bad while trying to preserve as much of the good/needed feel and feedback as possible. And although I have not driven the car IT SOUNDS like this is what they have done. This is simply NOT AT ALL how you represented my thoughts above, NOT AT ALL.

I may be embarrasing myself here with my inability to control my anger but you are embarassing yourself in a much worse way. Ruff, this is pathetic.
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2007, 11:41 PM   #184
ArtPE
Banned
4
Rep
471
Posts

 
Drives: e46 M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Earth

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
Objectivity means looking at all the evidence. The evidence out there supports the GT-R being faster than the 911TT. To whit we have:

1) Nissan having as a stated design goal to be faster than the 911TT at the N'ring.

2) Hundreds no thousands of witnessed test laps of the GT-R with a 911TT.

3) A fully data logged and video recording of the GT-R going around the N'ring faster than a 911TT with a race driver N'ring specialist in its drivers seat.

4) SportAuto editor in 1 day of GT-R testing going faster than he ever had around N'ring in a 911TT.

5) Independent documented track times at 3 other racing circuits with the GT-R being faster.

The how this is possible will come out later, right now the evidence is overwhelming that the GT-R does indeed beat the 911TT in terms of getting around a road racing circuit.
1) meaningless

2) meaningless...I'm pretty sure if nissan controlled both cars, we can predict the 'winner'...now put a factory Porsche with Walter out there...different outcome...

3)short lap...cut slicks

4)cut slicks, prototype, tweeks?

5)all form Japanese sources indebted/beholden to nissan and nation pride...

we'll know in 1.25 years when it's released in Europe...

til then:
500 lbs heavier
16% less torque
1/3 less power band
>driveline loss
same HP

NOT faster, no way...
Appreciate 0
      12-21-2007, 11:57 PM   #185
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
1) meaningless

2) meaningless...I'm pretty sure if nissan controlled both cars, we can predict the 'winner'...now put a factory Porsche with Walter out there...different outcome...

3)short lap...cut slicks

4)cut slicks, prototype, tweeks?

5)all form Japanese sources indebted/beholden to nissan and nation pride...

we'll know in 1.25 years when it's released in Europe...

til then:
500 lbs heavier
16% less torque
1/3 less power band
>driveline loss
same HP

NOT faster, no way...
I am basically with you Art that there is plenty to doubt here and plenty to be suspicous of as well. That being said, on the points 3&4, I have been reasonably well convinced of nothing "sneaky" going on. I have been convinced by discussions, links, references and explanations here on various threads. It is my belief that the lap time for this 7:38 lap is consistent with the length used for the vast majority of other quoted lap times. A similar thing goes for the "cut slicks" controversy. I do believe production, 20", Bridgestone tires were used for the run. BUT these tires are exotic, Nitrogen filled 20" runflats that I'd bet are every bit at sticky or maybe more so than a MPSC/MPSC+.
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 12:30 AM   #186
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
ruff's Avatar
37
Rep
1,184
Posts

 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

iTrader: (0)

Swamp,

First of all, your post and the tone of it speaks volumes. I will just leave it at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Nice avoidance of the SINGLE yes/no question I demanded you answer.
You said I didn't answer the question that you so angrily "demanded". I believe you mean, I didn't answer why I think your assumption is wrong that the GT-R may be underrated? Below is my first response to your thread, as you can see, I didn't questioned whether the GT-R is underrated, in fact, I would probably agree with you that it is and wished the M3 would have been underrated. So my answer is Yes I agree with you based on your data. I hope that makes you feel better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Thanks Swamp and Sdiver,

I would say too bad BMW didn't underrate the M3 like they did the 335. Everyone would then be talking about how fast it is vs the competition, just like the 335 vs it's competition. BMW marketing must of been on holiday when the specs were released.

Actually no, the GT-R it isn't over hyped, it is performing beyond early expectations. The new M3 is the one that was overhyped. Look at the mixed reviews. We don't see many mixed reviews of the GT-R and the R8 now do we?

It is amazing how you can spin the data with the GT-R to make it look as bad as possible, which quite frankly, is even impossible for you. The GT-R plain and simply destroys the new M3. The GT-R numbers, in what ever flavor you wish to display them, do not lie. I guess you can try for the low road in the subjective looks department, since there is really nothing left to argue about.

The Germans are running with their tails between their legs, with simpleton Nissan destroying the whole notion of German supremecy in automotive engineering. The Japanese are spanking the Germans at their own game. To make matters worse, the Lexus LF-A is around the corner. The M3 is going to be average in it's first year of production. How will it compare to it's competition in it's 5th year of production?

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...hotopanel..2.*

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
You are really getting me going now. Time to back up your BS empty statements. FIND ME A single god damn number I have "cooked". You can't you lying sack. Time to not be so jealous of someone good with numbers, science and evidence. Time to head back into your little dark age cave and enjoy your hopelessly subjective world.
Is this Narcissism in all its splendor or an angry outburst? Maybe a bit of both?

You continually use your simulation numbers to put the M3 in a good light and it's competition in a negative light, especially before the actual numbers are out. Once the actual numbers are out, and you find out that the M3 didn't stack up so well to the C63 and GT-R, as you so humbly predicted, then you wave the only flag you have left, which is the white flag and say the competition is hp underrated, which indeed it may be. My point is, your pre- actual number analysis has not lived up to your pre-actual number hype for the M3 against the competition. How come? How about this, maybe If you wouldn't have been so biased towards the M3 from the get go, you would of have originally predicted the better C63 and GT-R 0-60 times... just a thought. My point is: bias effects the numbers we want to see and not see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Last I checked car performance was a very OBJECTIVE thing, that means NUMBERS. No, it is certainly not the whole story but they sure don't talk much about feel and other flowery BS when the winner gets the checkered flag do they?
Now that you are once again so interested in a cars performance vs flowery things such as badges and steering feel/response, maybe you should check out the GT-R and Z06, since their performance numbers and similar price indicate that they should take the all important checkered flag over your vaunted M3. Agree or disagree?

Oh ya, the "flowery" steering feedback does effect a cars performance, especially in the corners. You don't believe it? Hit a corner at high speed with numb steering feel and see where you confidence and speed is in the next corner.


Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Another fantastic mis-representation of my comments on steering feel vs. steering numbness. You simply can not accurately recapitulate anything I say here, despite it being CRYSTAL clear. You change, warp and modify to suit your own twisted little games, insecurities and lies. It is beyond old, ruff, time to act like a freaking adult. Just to be 100% clear (again) on the steering issue: I said I feel that the E36 M3, although having excellent steering transmits too much of the bad along with the good through its steering system. I thought it would be a great idea for BMW to lose as much of the bad while trying to preserve as much of the good/needed feel and feedback as possible. And although I have not driven the car IT SOUNDS like this is what they have done. This is simply NOT AT ALL how you represented my thoughts above, NOT AT ALL.
So you prefer a number steering feel that transmitts less feedback than your E36. Remember, less feed back means less feel, period, pretty simple theory to follow. The OP of thread was comparing the M3 to a 3 series and was dissapointed in the M3's steering feel compared to the 3 series. How again did my inferrence misrepresent you? Are you now saying you like more feed back, but only the good feed back. Remember the theory is really simple, feedback is feedback, both good and bad. You can't have it both ways ie good feed back only and numbness to bad feedback.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I may be embarrasing myself here with my inability to control my anger but you are embarassing yourself in a much worse way. Ruff, this is pathetic.
Actually, I am a bit embarrassed for you, but still respect you. As we both know, profanity and anger does not enhance one's argument, it only diminishes it.

Last edited by ruff; 12-22-2007 at 12:53 AM.
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 03:51 AM   #187
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Swamp,

First of all, your post and the tone of it speaks volumes. I will just leave it at that.



You said I didn't answer the question that you so angrily "demanded". I believe you mean, I didn't answer why I think your assumption is wrong that the GT-R may be underrated? Below is my first response to your thread, as you can see, I didn't questioned whether the GT-R is underrated, in fact, I would probably agree with you that it is and wished the M3 would have been underrated. So my answer is Yes I agree with you based on your data. I hope that makes you feel better.






Is this Narcissism in all its splendor or an angry outburst? Maybe a bit of both?

You continually use your simulation numbers to put the M3 in a good light and it's competition in a negative light, especially before the actual numbers are out. Once the actual numbers are out, and you find out that the M3 didn't stack up so well to the C63 and GT-R, as you so humbly predicted, then you wave the only flag you have left, which is the white flag and say the competition is hp underrated, which indeed it may be. My point is, your pre- actual number analysis has not lived up to your pre-actual number hype for the M3 against the competition. How come? How about this, maybe If you wouldn't have been so biased towards the M3 from the get go, you would of have originally predicted the better C63 and GT-R 0-60 times... just a thought. My point is: bias effects the numbers we want to see and not see.



Now that you are once again so interested in a cars performance vs flowery things such as badges and steering feel/response, maybe you should check out the GT-R and Z06, since their performance numbers and similar price indicate that they should take the all important checkered flag over your vaunted M3. Agree or disagree?

Oh ya, the "flowery" steering feedback does effect a cars performance, especially in the corners. You don't believe it? Hit a corner at high speed with numb steering feel and see where you confidence and speed is in the next corner.




So you prefer a number steering feel that transmitts less feedback than your E36. Remember, less feed back means less feel, period, pretty simple theory to follow. The OP of thread was comparing the M3 to a 3 series and was dissapointed in the M3's steering feel compared to the 3 series. How again did my inferrence misrepresent you? Are you now saying you like more feed back, but only the good feed back. Remember the theory is really simple, feedback is feedback, both good and bad. You can't have it both ways ie good feed back only and numbness to bad feedback.



Actually, I am a bit embarrassed for you, but still respect you. As we both know, profanity and anger does not enhance one's argument, it only diminishes it.
Ruff, I apologize for the poor language. There is never much of an excuse for that, but you are really pushing my hot buttons on some things very dear to me and that I am very sensitive about. That should be obvious and I think you simply enjoy it. Not cool and also not cool that you NEVER EVER accept my word on anything about character or motivation. It is one thing to disagree and debate and to often come to different conclusions, but you are just going way too far here.

Let's keep going... You did not answer the question I demanded that you answer. You answered the wrong one. Again it seems you just do not read nor understand the points of anything I write.

I agree 100% that simulation is garbage in and garbage out. I very much like to classify it that way, it is its essense. It can, therefore, be totally biased. But again your false assumptions about my use of such tools is so insidious it makes me nothing but an evil liar. Which I am not. Let me understand this. I know what various inputs to the software should be, but I'm so insecure about my own personal car preferences that I purposefully (or maybe even funnier - subconsciously) stack the inputs against cars that I often admire very much, but simply are not my favorites and that I don't want to buy myself? Ruff, this is so offensive and categorically false it is actually a bit humorous/entertaining. Every accusation and insinuation you make along these lines is so inaccurate and untrue it astounds me. With science comes responsibility and despite my opinions, my use of science is governed by a life long study and commitment to it. Although passionate and stubborn about cars, I simply will not abuse science nor simulation for these petty reasons. Perhaps you will recall that simulation is also my profession (loosely, not actively doing it as an engineer these days but have, now on the sales and marketing side - TECHNICAL sales that is). Remember to me science>cars, truth>ego, engineering>driving skill. Maybe someday you will understand one or two simple things about me, but not yet, not even close. No matter how many times I state my goals and lay it all on the table of how I try to meet those goals you simply can not be convinced against your bizarre theories of my psychology and motivations. My goal with cars is a deeper understanding of them through consistency of specs with performance and through engineering explanations, period.

So how does this relate to my simulation efforts on various cars. The M3 is fairly easy to simulate as nothing is hiding in the numbers. It takes very few changes to default values to get its numbers correct (pretty much shift times only). Do remember my initial inability to get reasonable DCT sims though and how I carefully posted the explanation for that and thanked lucid who gave me the simple insight to get it correct? You probably forgot or simply did not read that. On to the C63 AMG which is so clearly under-rated. My enveloping procedure showed this very clearly and the dyno results on an almost identical engine really made that "case closed". Will the M3 M-DCT be very close to as fast as the C63, yes pretty close to 100 mph or so, but then it simply won't be able to keep up. The obvious reason is the large hp deficit. Will it best it back on the track, I'd say very likely. No bias, real numbers, solid conclusions. Do I think the C63 is pretty darn ugly, yes, will that bias me to not give it a completely fair shake in simulation, not an iota of a chance. There is little hiding one can do from truth and facts and good science. I would simply have to be a fool to think I could pull off some grandiose deception like this - selectively incorrect inputs. Hmmm, next: Did I use the incorrect IS-F final drive number that someone provided to me, yes. Did I admit and explain the error and revise my theory based on correcting the mistake? Yes. It is all so simple ruff, your outlandish theories that constantly attack my credibility are simply without merit.

My previous comments about the checkered flag were only to make the point that in motor sports performance directly tied to solid numerical quantities (lap time) always rules. Similarly knowing your and your vehicles capability precisely and providing razor sharp consistency rules in more straight line type of events. No one really cares what the winning nor losing driver feels about the comfort, steering feel, brake feel, etc. Sure the driver cares a bit and teams surely do there fair share of obsessing on these things, but in the end, the numbers speak much louder. This was (obviously) not an argument of the only way one should choose a car - especially choosing a car for a daily driver that one may occsionally take to the track. Misunderstanding, misunderstanding, misunderstanding.

Last on steering feel: You have it wrong here again, sorry. It is possible to isolate or filter through simple engineering principals (mass, stiffness, damping) the bad feel and feedback from a steering system vs. the good feel. The bad feel is much more an NVH issue and the transmission of higher frequency "noise" i.e. vibration through the front chassis and steering components which then affect the feel at the wheel. Good feel obviously relates to the ability to feel what your tires are doing and being able to gage the force feedback into the system from the turning tires. An ability to feel the behavior of the tire itself and the contact patch is also important. This feedback happens from the torque exerted on the wheels through their contact patch working through the front end geometry that tends to self correct turned wheels back to straight. Important design considerations here are steering ratio, power assist vs. no power assist, steering boost, rack design/mechanism, front end suspension type (McPherson vs. double A-arm), etc. Although in practice the design of a system with very good "good feel" relies to some extent on enough stiffness of the front sub frame, suspension arms, the entire steering rack and shafts going to the steering wheel. This stiffness can indeed have a deleterious effect in increasing bad steering feel. Damping and isolator stiffness in the suspension and steering systems will also affect both bad and good steering feel but with careful engineering you can absolutely improve/maintain one and reduce the other. It is my hope and speculation, very loosely supported by various testers comments, that these issues were addressed in the design of the E9X M3s systems. It could be some reality here it could be hopeless want as well. More importantly though than my opinion is that to a large extent each driver, only after some time really spent probing the limits in the car, will be able to decide this. And it will be a matter of opinion with a tremendous amount of subjectivity involved.

Can we please, please stop the incessant questioning of motivation, re-hashing the past, credibility attacks, meta-posts, etc. It is really a bit of a circus and relies on essentially unverifiable speculation. We will disagree but neither of us can really prove many of these things. Our posts that are on topic must speak for themselves. If we can better stick to the issues, our own arguments and opinions, what we think about other's on topic arguments and opinions and then keep all of this primarily focused on cars and the E9X M3, everyone will be way better off. I have been requesting and suggesting this to you in many posts.
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 05:02 AM   #188
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
160
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
swamp,

I must say that ruff does give you a really hard time and like you said regardless of what answers you give in return. I actually think the times you have given for the M-DCT is as good as we can get given that there is currently no actual data and spec to work with.

It's doubtful that BMW will alter the character of the M3 engine to this new gearbox though in fairness it would be a very simple thing to done and might be beneficial.

Will the M3 with M-DCT match either the C63 or IS-F to 150mph, definitely NO against the C63, it extra power and way more torque will always win in such situations. As for the IS-F, that's a trickier one to answer, I reckon the IS-F will win but by the smallest of margins.

On the track, sorry but there is no substitute for the engineering in the M3.
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 06:53 AM   #189
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
swamp,

I must say that ruff does give you a really hard time and like you said regardless of what answers you give in return. I actually think the times you have given for the M-DCT is as good as we can get given that there is currently no actual data and spec to work with.

It's doubtful that BMW will alter the character of the M3 engine to this new gearbox though in fairness it would be a very simple thing to done and might be beneficial.

Will the M3 with M-DCT match either the C63 or IS-F to 150mph, definitely NO against the C63, it extra power and way more torque will always win in such situations. As for the IS-F, that's a trickier one to answer, I reckon the IS-F will win but by the smallest of margins.

On the track, sorry but there is no substitute for the engineering in the M3.
I'm sure that they won't touch the engine as well.

I think the 0-150 (and other) times will look something like this for M3 M-DCT, IS-F, C63:

To clarify key assumptions (in case ruff is reading ). Almost everything is "default" in the sims except shift times. For the M3 and M3 M-DCT (.25 and .03 s respectively), for both the MB and IS-F I have assumed very fast shifting, high performance, low loss automatics (not as low loss as a std. MT though). For example Lexus claims the IS-F will shift in 100ms but I made up a reasonable engagement time to match (not very significant anyway). Lastly with the AMG I have used some known acceleration numbers to establish the under-rating of the car and then just ran with those more realistic figures for hp and tq.

Also relevant:Simulation results at high speeds require detailed frontal area and drag figures, the latter of which is probably fudged quite a bit. For this reason the 150 mph times are likely less accurate than the 100 mph or less figures. What should be the most accurate is their order and relative differences.

Last but not least BMW may have chosen different optimization goals than mine for the DCT gearing and if so there is no reason the IRL results could be expected to match my sims. However, that being said, I think I chose very reasonable gear optimization of simply asking for a bit more performance "everywhere".
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 09:23 AM   #190
sdiver68
Expert Road Racer
22
Rep
1,330
Posts

 
Drives: 07 335i e90, 09 335i e93
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St. Louis, MO

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtPE View Post
1) meaningless

2) meaningless...I'm pretty sure if nissan controlled both cars, we can predict the 'winner'...now put a factory Porsche with Walter out there...different outcome...

3)short lap...cut slicks

4)cut slicks, prototype, tweeks?

5)all form Japanese sources indebted/beholden to nissan and nation pride...

we'll know in 1.25 years when it's released in Europe...

til then:
500 lbs heavier
16% less torque
1/3 less power band
>driveline loss
same HP

NOT faster, no way...
6) Your criticisms, already discussed and shot down ad naseum much as your pistonheads article was already shot down.

It's obvious you are a newbie to the 911TT v GT-R discussions that have been flying around the internet for quite awhile now, so until you have something new or enlightening to add, engaging in this discussion with you is like hitting my head with a hammer.

Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 11:02 AM   #191
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
ruff's Avatar
37
Rep
1,184
Posts

 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Ruff, I apologize for the poor language. There is never much of an excuse for that, but you are really pushing my hot buttons on some things very dear to me and that I am very sensitive about. That should be obvious and I think you simply enjoy it. Not cool and also not cool that you NEVER EVER accept my word on anything about character or motivation. It is one thing to disagree and debate and to often come to different conclusions, but you are just going way too far here.
So, this how you apologize to people? Usually people who have an ounce of sincerety don't use the word "but" in there apology, nor do they try and claim they are some kind of victim as to justify having a childish tantrum. This so called apology only bolsters my original question and really demonstrates you inability to ever really admit to being wrong about anything:

Do you have the ability to simply admit you are wrong without saying another word? Your answer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As far as admitting I was wrong I simply won't do it.
How is one able to misinterpret this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Let's keep going... You did not answer the question I demanded that you answer. You answered the wrong one. Again it seems you just do not read nor understand the points of anything I write.
Ok lets do it. And so your question for me is? Looks like you ability to control your emotions gets the best of you once again and you rip on me for not answering the right question then forget to point out your "demanded" question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Ruff, this is so offensive and categorically false it is actually a bit humorous/entertaining. Every accusation and insinuation you make along these lines is so inaccurate and untrue it astounds me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
your outlandish theories that constantly attack my credibility are simply without merit.
About your quotes here...Hyperbole, narcissistic, victimization?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
My previous comments about the checkered flag were only to make the point that in motor sports performance directly tied to solid numerical quantities (lap time) always rules. Similarly knowing your and your vehicles capability precisely and providing razor sharp consistency rules in more straight line type of events. No one really cares what the winning nor losing driver feels about the comfort, steering feel, brake feel, etc. Sure the driver cares a bit and teams surely do there fair share of obsessing on these things, but in the end, the numbers speak much louder. This was (obviously) not an argument of the only way one should choose a car - especially choosing a car for a daily driver that one may occsionally take to the track. Misunderstanding, misunderstanding, misunderstanding.
Flip flopping again? So are you now saying flowery things like back seat room and whether it is a better daily driver are of great importance, since you are primarily going to choose the M3 as a daily driver? So then wouldn't the E90 M3 be a better choice, almost identical performance numbers to the E92 and better back seats room and the convenience of four doors make it the better daily driver? Or are you just not a sedan guy? Anyway, I thought you said "numbers speak much louder." So if I may try this again, does the similarily priced Z06 and GT-R's numbers speak softer than the M3's and does the M3 take the checkered flag over these cars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Last on steering feel: You have it wrong here again, sorry.
Narcissism, sincerety, and sorry do not go together. Hard to have an honest and fair debate with someone who believes he is always right and others are always wrong, even when it comes to something as "flowery and "subjective" as steering, right?



Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Can we please, please stop the incessant questioning of motivation, re-hashing the past, credibility attacks, meta-posts,
Listen to yourself Swamp. Are you not able to see any hypocracy in your statement above? So you do not demand answers to your question or question motivation or rehash the past or make "meta posts" and engage in credibility attacks? Or is it, as you suggest, you are once again right, the person who always takes the higher ground, and I am once again simply wrong...black and white, and very scientific don't you think? This may come as a surprise to you but scientists who interpret the science and statistics with all their perceptions and biases, effectively turn an objective field like science into a somewhat subjective field. For example: a court room scenerio where the scientist for the defense is arguing one way for the DNA evidence and the scientist for prosecution is arguing the opposite way for the very same DNA results. Heard of global warming?

So, do not try to kid yourself into believing I am so naive as to think that our perceptions and biases do not effect our interpretations of a cars performance numbers. Unless of course your are so naive to believe that it doesn't.

Last edited by ruff; 12-22-2007 at 11:32 AM.
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 11:42 AM   #192
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
ruff's Avatar
37
Rep
1,184
Posts

 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
swamp,

I must say that ruff does give you a really hard time and like you said regardless of what answers you give in return.
And I defended you when Swamp attacked you for no legitimate reason, regardless of how you kindly tried to answer him.
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 07:31 PM   #193
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
So, this how you apologize to people? Usually people who have an ounce of sincerety don't use the word "but" in there apology, nor do they try and claim they are some kind of victim as to justify having a childish tantrum. This so called apology only bolsters my original question and really demonstrates you inability to ever really admit to being wrong about anything:
Take the apology for what it was. It's too bad if my apology does not meet your strict, by the etiquitte books "rules" for an apology. I am sorry about the use of my language, that's it. I am not sorry about being firm, aggressive nor defensive. You are being just at improper by not accepting the apology and whining about it. You are pushing my buttons, it's painfully clear, there is no reason for it and you like it. Talk about immature. All of this should be about the GT-R and or the M3 but you have none of your own facts, no arguments and nothing novel to add. It's simple. Hence the meta-posts which are so atrocious I can't let them go without my defense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Do you have the ability to simply admit you are wrong without saying another word? Your answer:

...

How is one able to misinterpret this?
That is 100% misinterpreted because you will not stop taking things out of context. My reply was not a direct/isolated reply to the direct/ioslated question above. How many times can we rehash this? My reply was about specifcally admitting I am or am not wrong about their being current evidence for the GT-R being under-rated. Your ability to make this seem as my universal answer/opinion is convenient for you, but is simply and blatantly false and quoting out of context.


You did indeed miss the example of me being wrong, admitting it, thanking the fellow and moving right along didn't you? Please read, it is so tiring that you won't. This has happened (me being wrong) a few times in the past here and the same thing happens. Just because you can't point to an event between us does not make it universal fact. This is such a clear fallacy of a biased sample and guess what - YOU ARE WRONG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Ok lets do it. And so your question for me is? Looks like you ability to control your emotions gets the best of you once again and you rip on me for not answering the right question then forget to point out your "demanded" question?
I have the right to make a simple demand to you in a discussion. When you never stick to any point for more than 1/10th of a thread you avoid key/central issues. And this never ends. You are so slippery and never want to be pinned down and it's obvious to me (and probably most of us) why.

You misinterpret and misrepresent the explicitly repeated and clarified meaning of my quotes and miss key questions that I ask you. It is painfully obvious that you simply DON'T READ MY POSTS. Give it a try, you might see much that renders 80% of your replies repitition, confusion and irrelevant.

I am not going to give you the luxury of repeating my "KEY" question. It was labeled as such the first time I made it, it was painfully obvious and explicit, and if you will simply read you will see it. If you want to maintain any sense of dignity or ability to debate in a reasonable fashion you will answer the question. THE KEY QUESTION. When you do your inconsistency and fallacies will be highlighted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Flip flopping again? So are you now saying flowery things like back seat room and whether it is a better daily driver are of great importance, since you are primarily going to choose the M3 as a daily driver? So then wouldn't the E90 M3 be a better choice, almost identical performance numbers to the E92 and better back seats room and the convenience of four doors make it the better daily driver? Or are you just not a sedan guy? Anyway, I thought you said "numbers speak much louder." So if I may try this again, does the similarily priced Z06 and GT-R's numbers speak softer than the M3's and does the M3 take the checkered flag over these cars?
Funny, funny. Back seats and back seat room are not flowery. How can you keep getting the simplest of things wrong? The appropriate metrics for back seats and back seat room are boolean (do they have them), two distance measurements (head and leg room) and one volume measurement (volume per passenger). Logic, numbers, wow what a suprise?

Sure the Z06 whoops the M3 in performance big time (what a boring and foregone conclusion...) but I just can not figure out why you want to continue with these comparisons? Both the Z06 and GT-R are phenomenal cars for price to performance, besting European super cars costing twice as much. BUT IMO THEY ARE NOT CLOSE M3 COMPETITORS. How many times can I say this? As you know, they both are about $10k more expensive than the base M3. Some current estimates I have seen are estimating the GT-R to be going for $15k-$20k over sticker. If so, which I think is likely, this also makes these cars much more remote "competitors", if you can even still use that word. I have explained my own personal rationale and criteria for choosing a car to you over and over and over again. Literally a half dozen times on different threads. My criteria pushes me heavily toward the M3. What is the point? You have to like the looks before you get to an analysis of price to performance (well at least I do). As well, the car has to be in the basic size, type, class, price range etc. first before other important criteria are invoked. This is just my process and it is all so simple and obvious to me. Probably not that much different than most folks process. If you have a different process, different criteria, whatever, that's fine. If a Z06 or GT-R or Cayman S or C63 AMG or whatever it is tickles your fancy the most, BUY ONE. You can have your reasons and I can have mine and they will never be the same. Why the obsession with my criteria and rationale for choosing a car? I certainly don't exhibit the same obsession here as you.

And, as long as this keeps going I will continue to claim that among its close competitors the M3 offers the best price to performance ratio you can find. It also equals or bests the performance of cars costing $25-$40k more. My list of these competitors roughly includes the following (RS4, C63 AMG, IS-F, Vantage V8, CTS-V, Jaguar XKR, 997S, R8). Again some are closer competitors with the E90 than the E92 and some are a bit more of a stretch than others (R8 based on size, seat count for example). This is my view of "close" competitors based on a combination of class, price, performance, size, etc. I suppose a reasonable argument based on price and performance could put the GT-R and Z06 in any list containing the 997S and R8 but those are cars are on the periphery anyway so sure, some subjectivity in involved. Everyone must have their own "lists".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Narcissism, sincerety, and sorry do not go together. Hard to have an honest and fair debate with someone who believes he is always right and others are always wrong, even when it comes to something as "flowery and "subjective" as steering, right?
I really can't help it if you continue to make obviously incorrect statements typically about the engineering/design and technical nature of cars. You do it time and time again and usually get called on it. Steering here was another example where your lack of understanding makes you wrong. Bad and good elements of steering "feel" can be designed and engineered in to a car and to some extent separated. It is simple again and I absolutely will not admit I am wrong when I am right. The truth hurts and this is what often drives your attacks and obsession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Listen to yourself Swamp. Are you not able to see any hypocracy in your statement above? So you do not demand answers to your question or question motivation or rehash the past or make "meta posts" and engage in credibility attacks? Or is it, as you suggest, you are once again right, the person who always takes the higher ground, and I am once again simply wrong...black and white, and very scientific don't you think? This may come as a surprise to you but scientists who interpret the science and statistics with all their perceptions and biases, effectively turn an objective field like science into a somewhat subjective field. For example: a court room scenerio where the scientist for the defense is arguing one way for the DNA evidence and the scientist for prosecution is arguing the opposite way for the very same DNA results. Heard of global warming?

So, do not try to kid yourself into believing I am so naive as to think that our perceptions and biases do not effect our interpretations of a cars performance numbers. Unless of course your are so naive to believe that it doesn't.
Ruff, this particular one on one duel was started by you, elevated by you and maintained by you. It began roughly on your post #148, butting in to my debate with Bruce. Remember that? Unlkely. I will remind you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Swamp,
You appear to have this enormous ego that could never be satiated, coupled with your need to defend it and massage it, ad nauseam. Do you have the ability to simply admit you are wrong without saying another word?
By the way that was the whole post, verbatim and nothing taken out of context. Please answer. Was this on topic, was it car related, was it an attack, please do answer?

Sure it takes two to tango but I am very much in defense mode here and you know why - your attacks on the core of my beliefs, motivations, methods, etc.

Science can indeed be full of bias, politics, hidden motivations and the like. My methods, analysis, interpretation, theories, conclusions and even my speculations are 100% open to scrutiny, yours, the forums, the net and the whole world. We'll simply have to agree to disagree, you think I am hopelessly biased, fudge and fake numbers, am a fanboy and do bad science. I believe the direct opposite and will let my posts stand for their content to be judged by this community. Many of which has explicitly appreciated their novelty, insight, accuracy and value. Period. Perhaps you can bring some of these things here other than whining, attacking, focusing on prose and entirely subjective issues.

Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 10:18 PM   #194
jaiman
Captain
9
Rep
657
Posts

 
Drives: very fast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post

As you know, they both are about $10k more expensive than the base M3. Some current estimates I have seen are estimating the GT-R to be going for $15k-$20k over sticker.
excellent, M3 pricing has been released for the US. Can you point me to a thread?

If it hasn't been released you're making comparisions based on estimates for the M3 price and any markup on the GTR. not really all that fact based is it?

perhaps we can leave the value question out until we have some confirmed numbers.
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 10:19 PM   #195
jaiman
Captain
9
Rep
657
Posts

 
Drives: very fast
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdiver68 View Post
6) Your criticisms, already discussed and shot down ad naseum much as your pistonheads article was already shot down.

It's obvious you are a newbie to the 911TT v GT-R discussions that have been flying around the internet for quite awhile now, so until you have something new or enlightening to add, engaging in this discussion with you is like hitting my head with a hammer.

reminds me of the saying "Never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"
Appreciate 0
      12-22-2007, 11:32 PM   #196
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Perhaps you do not understand evidence vs. proof? Let's revisit the evidence. This all been beat to death but you seem to have missed it, typical. Each piece of evidence does have mitigating factors as well which I will point out. Again these mitigating factors are what makes this really a matter of science and something that requires an investigative approach and requires mutiple, consistent pieces of evidence to make any final calls.
Forgive the interruption, but I'm having a problem with this list, and the general thrust of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
[*]The N'ring laptimes on a track absolutely dominated by power to weight ratio. Mitigating factors include an ace driver, DCT, likely VERY sticky UHP tires similar to a MPSC or MPSC+.
Who says the lap times are absolutely dominated by power to weight? There appears to be some correlation, but until you have say, five hundred passes using the data you've been using, or a fewer number (but still large) using data from strictly controlled passes (weather and driver, mostly), you have at best a loose correlation. There are bunches of flyers (some greater than others), and most don't fall on a statistical line.

This is like saying that quarter mile passes vary by the cube root of the power to weight ratio. That's also statistically true, but traction, gearing and weather absolutely screw up the results on a car by car basis.

It's also pretty much like saying that the GT-R is Massively under-rated...

I also have trouble with two of the the mitigating factors. Ace driver? Nobody's better than Rohrl, and his 7:40 Porsche Turbo time is proof enough. As for the tires, I'm willing to believe that Nissan and Bridgestone have established a higher performance plane for runflats, but up until now, nobody's done a runflat that will stay with, say, a PS2, Advan Neova or Falken Azenis. Let's say the new combo will run with those stalwarts and leave it at that. A PSC competitor? Not likely as yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
[*]The dyno test of the GT-R. Mitigating factors include accounting for tire loss, the likely dynapack non-conservatism, other observed inconsistencies in the dyno results.
Artpe's commentary on this test ought to throw enough doubt into the proceedings that one would likely throw that data out - although I must say his analysis showing the dyno rigged for a 17.5% shortfall is food for thought. If so, that would mean the car may be rated accurately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
[*]Comparisons with the 997TT performance figures. This car has more torque and weighs quite a bit less than the GT-R and very likely has less drivetrain losses. There is dyno evidence and simulation evidence as well for the 997TT being under-rated. Mitigating factors again include the DCT.
I would argue that the GT-R has arguably less drivetrain loss compared with the "fast" (meaning Tiptronic) Porsche. The extra driveshaft will add little in the way of friction and rotational loss compared with the Tiptronic losses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
[*]Simulation results indicate an under-rating. Both mine and Bruce's in fact since his system gets reasonable predictions for the cars time but misses all the hp lost in the car's complex drivetrain.
My simulations of these cars indicates an under-rating down in the noise level for both cars. When you're down in the one or two percent range in a simulation, that's pretty much dead on balls accurate (as per Marissa Tomei in "My Cousin Vinny").

I'd also question the power lost to a sophisticated awd system, The normally aspirated 911S vs the 4S shows very little difference in both quarter mile times and speeds, and since the Turbo uses the same system, it's likely to be very efficient as well. Note that very little power is transferred forward in these cars, and essentially none if traction isn't an issue - which it won't be for most of a quarter mile. If power isn't being transmitted, there's no loss, and these are lightweight parts indeed since they never transmit a lot of torque. I can't speak for the GT-R, but assume it will be at least as sophisticated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
*]History: Nissan is well known for under-rating Skylines/GT-Rs in the past.
This is simply not admissable as any sort of evidence in my opinion. The government-inspired manifacturers' pact in Japan to limit power to a published max has been gone for a long time, and the last Skyline tested by C & D seemed to be pretty close to published ratings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
There is probably more evidence as well but these were just quickly from memory.
There are two pieces of evidence you've left out. One is Edmunds' experience that their Porsche was quicker than the GT-R on the street in mid-range and up acceleration, although markedly slower in the twisties.

The other is in the form of a question. In this current day of no restrictions on Japanese cars and 500 and 600 horsepower cars coming out of Europe and the States, why on Earth would Nissan bother to lie, especially since they're going to face the SAE music shortly?

Swamp, your list smacks of a biased train of thought. When I combine this with your commentary that's there's nothing special about this car, it makes me wonder about your motives. As fas as I can tell, pretty much everything is special about this car.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      12-23-2007, 06:17 AM   #197
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Forgive the interruption, but I'm having a problem with this list, and the general thrust of it.
...
I don't take contention with most of what you say. Again there is evidence on both sides of this potential under-rating topic. I would admit my list of evidence was the evidence FOR a possible under-rating, not necessarily the best nor most complete possible list to show an honest rating. I think your biggest find/eye-opener is on the torque split. Much more on that later...

My comments and contentions are:

Our regression analysis as well as a bit of common sense showed that N'ring times are indeed dominated by power to weight. It is a fast track that obviously favors high hp just the same way the 1/4 mi run does. Tires, driver and other effects are obviously significant factors, and I think those two are the largerst after power to weight. Suspension can be a big factor but I suspect there is just ulimately too little variation in practice to see much of an effect here. I did add lateral g force (as an overall measure of tires+chassis+suspension) as a regression parameter and although it did have an effect it was quite small. So again lap times are absolutely dominated by power to weight. By the way do you recall the sensitivity study done with varying number of cars by lucid and another by me? Not only did that show very little effect, the large number of cars themselves represent a nicely semi-randomized group of events. Not perfect data, surely, but as good as we have and good enough to draw a solid conclusion from.

What exact problem do you have with the ace driver point? This is a mitigating factor AGAINST an under-rating theory. With a top notch driver that Nissan had he could get a better time than most, certainly better than Horst, and this would be an effect that looks like an under-rating but then actually is not. It is simply an ace driver.

On the tires, who knows, may be as good as a PS2, maybe a PSC+ maybe not a PSC, who knows. Given the history and what run flats have achieved to date I'll trust you that it is unlikely that these tires will perform as well as a PSC. Given the level of innovation we see in the car...

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on the drive train losses of the GT-R vs tiptronic. The GT-Rs drivetrain loss is almost for sure > 997TT 6MT but do the extra cases and shafts balance out vs. the AT? Might be close.

I think you are on to something here with the variable F/R torque split. A modern and sophisticated AWD is able to effectively limit power losses (and preserve good steering feel as well) to figures much closer to a TWD equivalent system when the transmission to the front wheels can be almost disenegaged. If the vast majority of the power is routed this way on acceleration this can make the car accelerate closer to a TWD equivalent. A quick check indicates Audis quattro system has a permanent 40/60 split F/R whereas the Carrera system can vary the split between 40/60 to 5/95. The GT-R varies from 50/50 to 2/98 and it makes adjustments every 20 ms! (Side note BMWs xDrive system can vary between 0/100 and 100/0 but I can not find how often it adjusts). Hence the characteristically high drive train loss we see on the RS4 and hence also the close acceleration times you have found comparing C4 vs C4S. Time for some more simulation! I need the ability to switch off the AWD after launch which I am having a hard time figuring out how to do immediately... Another important factor as far as handling and preventing torque steer during hard acceleration will be the further ability to split the power left to right as well as fore to aft and I suspect the GT-R does this nicely at both ends.

I have never said that there is nothing special about the GT-R, period. What I have said is that it is unlikely that Nissan has entirely reinvented the sports car. I'll be the first to admit and congratulate Nissan for the technological prowess of the car (and have made these statements over and over and over again all over this thread and other places in the forum). The drivetrain is likely one of the most advanced around but the suspension being active/adjustable and user configurable is nothing particularly new and not something that has shown to be an enormous effect on laptimes nor on absolute grip level, etc. Do keep in mind the "lowly" Evo can adjust it's F/R torque split amost identically to the GT-R (a bit more control actually, 50/50 to 0/100) and does so actively as well. The question is can it adjust it as often or as quickly as the GT-R.

I have heard the rumor that Nissan is shooting for SAE certification of "around" 480 hp. I posted the exact quote earlier in this thread. However SAE hp certification is 100% voluntary, correct?

Thanks for some good points and definitely points that matter toward getting to the bottom of this issue.
Appreciate 0
      12-23-2007, 09:54 AM   #198
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
160
Rep
7,507
Posts

 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
A quick check indicates Audis quattro system has a permanent 40/60 split F/R whereas the Carrera system can vary the split between 40/60 to 5/95. The GT-R varies from 50/50 to 2/98 and it makes adjustments every 20 ms! (Side note BMWs xDrive system can vary between 0/100 and 100/0 but I can not find how often it adjusts). Hence the characteristically high drive train loss we see on the RS4 and hence also the close acceleration times you have found comparing C4 vs C4S.
Actually swamp this is technical wrong, Audi's quattro split is indeed 40/60 but it's can vary as much as 25% in either direction (65/35 or 15/85) and it performs this in a time compatible to the Nissan. As for the X-Drive, yes it can vary fully in either direction but it is quite dimwited in comparison and is much more inclined to spin the wheels for Quattro will.

I can't comment on whether Quattro loses more power than either Porsche's setup or Nissan's but I can't believe it's any worse then either because Autocar tested both the M3 and RS4, their split times at each speed segament right up to 150mph only place the two cars 0.3s apart and as both have identical power outputs and their torque figures on the most part are also very close one must assume that Quattro doesn't lose that much power at all. Also you have to remember that the RS4 weighs over 100kgs more in that test which is surely another disadvantage in terms to acceleration.
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 06:53 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