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....
 
GT Haus
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      08-17-2008, 06:19 PM   #45
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,893
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by J08M3 View Post
I get it, I just feel theoretical is irrelavant when you have the option to actually drive the cars and see how they perform against each other. I mean if you're unable to get those results in real world as you say then those results really are pointless. Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for dynoing a car and using whatever formulas necessary against itself to see how modifications are working or original design is working. But to take those numbers and use them against an entirely different car to say it is faster or slower is ridiculous. For example to say "my torque curve is bigger and flatter so my car is faster than yours" is ridiculous. Then it's just theoretical numbers when the real proof comes from getting in the cars and driving them against each other.
No, you don't get it.

You're going to see how the cars perform against each other in a test drive?

Trust me, your butt dyno ain't that good.

Even a side by side drag race is often less than perfect as a test medium. One driver is better than another at hitting perfect gear changes, somebody jumps the gun by a hair, somebody lays a 100 foot patch in their excitement, etc.

And by the way, even a basic chart like this one is infinitely better than "my torque curve is bigger and flatter so my car is faster than yours".

Nope, you're never going to get it.

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-17-2008, 06:26 PM   #46
M2381
Major
 
M2381's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3, GTI
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: FL

Posts: 1,287
iTrader: (0)

Nice work! Thanks for taking the time to do this
__________________
M2381 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-17-2008, 06:49 PM   #47
J08M3
Major General
 
J08M3's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011 M3 COUPE
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NEW YORK

Posts: 6,012
iTrader: (8)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
No, you don't get it.

You're going to see how the cars perform against each other in a test drive?

Trust me, your butt dyno ain't that good.

Even a side by side drag race is often less than perfect as a test medium. One driver is better than another at hitting perfect gear changes, somebody jumps the gun by a hair, somebody lays a 100 foot patch in their excitement, etc.

And by the way, even a basic chart like this one is infinitely better than "my torque curve is bigger and flatter so my car is faster than yours".

Nope, you're never going to get it.

Bruce
Well I guess that's where we have a difference of opinion. Because to me the side by side drag race is perfect. Even with the fact that there is driver error. Paper numbers have no value in my book if you consistently come in last in a drag race. You can argue all you want how perfect your car is on paper but for whatever reason if it's not winning races then those numbers don't mean anything.
__________________
J08M3 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-17-2008, 10:06 PM   #48
Dascamel
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Dascamel's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 e92 M3, 2010 e91 328i
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bakersfield, CA

Posts: 1,662
iTrader: (0)

Why not just look at different stock car times at a drag strip. After enough samples you will get a good idea how the car performs in a straight line with real world variables.
__________________
2008 E92 M3 Jerez Black,DCT,Fox Red ext,Prem,Tech,19", ipod/usb, CF roof and trim
2010 E91 328i Space Gray,Black int, M sport, most options
2007 Montego Blue 335i (retired)
Dascamel is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-17-2008, 10:11 PM   #49
JEllis
Brigadier General
 
JEllis's Avatar
 
Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SD CA/Yuma

Posts: 4,672
iTrader: (4)

cool stuff
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
JEllis is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 09:15 AM   #50
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by J08M3 View Post
Well I guess that's where we have a difference of opinion. Because to me the side by side drag race is perfect. Even with the fact that there is driver error. Paper numbers have no value in my book if you consistently come in last in a drag race. You can argue all you want how perfect your car is on paper but for whatever reason if it's not winning races then those numbers don't mean anything.
It is interesting to see how different cars perform differently in the hands of different drivers in different conditions etc, and understand why. But if you want to have a more objective perspective on which car performs better, you need to eliminate variance in the testing conditions. Watching m5board drag videos don't cut it in that respect although they are entertaining. Conducting the type of analysis the OP has presented is useful for that reason. I don't understand why you would want to take a strong position against this as it only contributes valuable information to the discussion. After all, that is exactly the type of thought process that makes it possible for manufacturers to develop these machines in the first place. This does not negate the experience behind the wheel, but only adds to it IMO.
__________________
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 12:20 PM   #51
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,191
iTrader: (1)

^ Right. Think about it this way do you want to know the difference between the cars or the difference between the drivers? With purely apples to apples analysis such as charts, spreadsheets and simulations we can completely remove the driver from the equation or if chosen actually account for the driver (e.g. long shift times in simulation to represent a poor drag racing driver).

As far as the M5board videos go I think they are pretty good. Sure there is always the driver effect, but they do many more rolling start videos than launch from zero. Here when you have MT driver that is indeed a variable but that is not enormous. What you see then in the videos is great because it is the relative motion of the cars. If the production power specification are consistent (which I believe they are these days, very consistent (hmmm less the GT-R...)), this relative motion (which demonstrates the relative torque to the wheels as a function of time per vehicle weight!) is very representative of the two vehicles capabilities.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 12:27 PM   #52
Herms
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: '11 Audi S4; '10 Mini Cooper S
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LA. CA

Posts: 392
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by J08M3 View Post
Well I guess that's where we have a difference of opinion. Because to me the side by side drag race is perfect. Even with the fact that there is driver error. Paper numbers have no value in my book if you consistently come in last in a drag race. You can argue all you want how perfect your car is on paper but for whatever reason if it's not winning races then those numbers don't mean anything.
Or you could drive each car and time yourself in each to remove the different driver factor. comparisons def have value, but I also see the value in real world tests. The fact is that a car may be capable of doing something, but that doesn't mean you can achieve those numbers consistenly or easily. The C63 for example, I recall seeing decent slalom numbers, but readings notes about the suspensions stiffness and power making it quite a challenge to achieve such numbers.
__________________
'07 e92 335 (sold)
'08 e90 M3 (sold)
Herms is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 02:02 PM   #53
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
T Bone, unless you're of the opinion that any and all systems that drive four wheels are horrible (based on the fact that they take more power to run, I suppose), then you are way off base on this. The fact is that awd systems offer significant advantages, and Audi's is a pretty damned good one. Especially the latest iterations. Perhaps not as effective in improving at-the-limit handling as, say, the GT-R's is, but pretty damned good nonetheless.

In fact, no matter the disparity in quoted numbers, do you think the GT-R would be as quick around the 'Ring with two wheel drive?

Bruce

No my comments are specific to Quattro with the full time AWD. The newer ones with torque vectoring with complete 100% torque shift front to back are good so long as it doesn't add too much weight. Look at the torque to the wheel differences between the M3 and the RS4.....only difference is the drivetrain losses. This is backed by observations where the RS4 gets spanked.

In the case of the GTR, they have been able to reduce drivetrain parasitic losses to a minimum.

Innovations like the off-throttle torque vector is great like the system on the X6 but we have not seen this in a performance car.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 02:25 PM   #54
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As far as the M5board videos go I think they are pretty good. Sure there is always the driver effect, but they do many more rolling start videos than launch from zero. Here when you have MT driver that is indeed a variable but that is not enormous. What you see then in the videos is great because it is the relative motion of the cars. If the production power specification are consistent (which I believe they are these days, very consistent (hmmm less the GT-R...)), this relative motion (which demonstrates the relative torque to the wheels as a function of time per vehicle weight!) is very representative of the two vehicles capabilities.
I've seen some fairly strange things in those types of videos. When someone mishifts, that really has an effect. Or things like: are the cars really equipped the way the owners, and hence, the videos report (they sure aren't checking the ECU codes); for cars with some miles on them, are they running well (they might have been abused or not maintained properly); what rpms are they shifting at exactly (for most cars, are they really shifting as close to redline as possible in lower gears); how warm/worn are the tires before the runs; what type of tires; is traction control completely off in both cars, etc? We've seen an E92 M3 run all over a 911S. The outcome was not surprising, but the total demolition was inexplicable based on specs. Regardless, overall, they can be informative, especially if we see different same model cars demonstrating similar performance.
__________________
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 04:03 PM   #55
footie
Major General
 
footie's Avatar
 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

Posts: 7,507
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
No my comments are specific to Quattro with the full time AWD. The newer ones with torque vectoring with complete 100% torque shift front to back are good so long as it doesn't add too much weight. Look at the torque to the wheel differences between the M3 and the RS4.....only difference is the drivetrain losses. This is backed by observations where the RS4 gets spanked.
For a start, the new Quattro even the one with torque vectoring will still only shift the power 25% either direction, meaning 85% max to the rear and 65% max to the front. Next, you can not base all of your opinions on M5Board events, there is other evidence which state that Quattro cars accelerate equally as well as their rwd rivals when power is the same, the only thing that bares relevance is weight when all other things are equal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
In the case of the GTR, they have been able to reduce drivetrain parasitic losses to a minimum.
Wrong, the GTR uses two drive shafts, one to the rear gearbox and transfer box and another moving forward to drive the front wheels, that means more transmission lose than what Quattro produces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
Innovations like the off-throttle torque vector is great like the system on the X6 but we have not seen this in a performance car.
The system will be seen in the S4 according to some well chosen sites, if it shows there you may get your chance to either be impressed or reject it's merits because it's connected to that awful Quattro system you dearly hate.
footie is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 05:07 PM   #56
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,191
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
I've seen some fairly strange things in those types of videos. When someone mishifts, that really has an effect. Or things like: are the cars really equipped the way the owners, and hence, the videos report (they sure aren't checking the ECU codes); for cars with some miles on them, are they running well (they might have been abused or not maintained properly); what rpms are they shifting at exactly (for most cars, are they really shifting as close to redline as possible in lower gears); how warm/worn are the tires before the runs; what type of tires; is traction control completely off in both cars, etc? We've seen an E92 M3 run all over a 911S. The outcome was not surprising, but the total demolition was inexplicable based on specs. Regardless, overall, they can be informative, especially if we see different same model cars demonstrating similar performance.
Absolutely, there are really a lot of variables to keep track of. But how well are these really kept track of by any other tests? Car magazine, personal timeslips, etc. Part of the problem is that in many cases the car being compared are close enough that it becomes a drivers race instead of a vehicle test. Again all that being said, I would bet that normal everyday street encounters with stock vehicles would reflect very similar results to those of m5board.com
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 05:13 PM   #57
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,191
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
there is other evidence which state that Quattro cars accelerate equally as well as their rwd rivals when power is the same, the only thing that bares relevance is weight when all other things are equal.
Power at the crank? Perhaps to 60 (or so) but not above. The physics says significantly higher losses = you are going to lose and I have never seen any evidence that contradicts this. Show us your "hand".

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Wrong, the GTR uses two drive shafts, one to the rear gearbox and transfer box and another moving forward to drive the front wheels, that means more transmission lose than what Quattro produces.
I tend to agree with you in that the GT-R probably has more total drive train loss than a RS4 (or equivalent) but keep in mind that the losses come from two sources - the number of components times the efficiency of each component (or perhaps more clearly stated the sum of the losses of each component is the total loss). Although a system with an extra shaft will indeed have significantly more components - it could be that the individual components are so good that the loss is not higher.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      08-18-2008, 07:21 PM   #58
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
For a start, the new Quattro even the one with torque vectoring will still only shift the power 25% either direction, meaning 85% max to the rear and 65% max to the front. Next, you can not base all of your opinions on M5Board events, there is other evidence which state that Quattro cars accelerate equally as well as their rwd rivals when power is the same, the only thing that bares relevance is weight when all other things are equal.
Buzzz.... you are so wrong it makes me cry. The only thing that matters is the force that pushes the car forward versus the car that pushes it back. Quattro eats power so a 420 hp RS4 has less to the wheels than say an M3. A related issue is the rolling resistance, tires, transmission.....this force is significantly higher in holding back acceleration on the RS4 and other full time AWD systems.

Quote:
Wrong, the GTR uses two drive shafts, one to the rear gearbox and transfer box and another moving forward to drive the front wheels, that means more transmission lose than what Quattro produces.
Who cares? This is a design choice by the Nissan engineers but they made other choices that allows a 480 hp car to actully accelerate like a 480 hp car, which means they sunk a lot of R&D into reducing rolling resistance of an AWD system.


Quote:
The system will be seen in the S4 according to some well chosen sites, if it shows there you may get your chance to either be impressed or reject it's merits because it's connected to that awful Quattro system you dearly hate.
Audi has no choice but to follow BMW and even Nissan in innovating AWD systems....
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2008, 04:35 AM   #59
footie
Major General
 
footie's Avatar
 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

Posts: 7,507
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Power at the crank? Perhaps to 60 (or so) but not above. The physics says significantly higher losses = you are going to lose and I have never seen any evidence that contradicts this. Show us your "hand".
No need to show my hand, the evidence is there in these pages.

0 ~ 60mph time:
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 4.1s (MT)
BMW E92 M3: 4.1s (R&T)
BMW E90 M3: 4.1s (C&D)
Lexus IS-F: 4.2s (R&T)
BMW E92 M3: 4.3s (C&D)
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 4.3s (C&D)
BMW E90 M3: 4.3s(MT)
Audi RS4: 4.3s (R&T)
BMW E92 M3: 4.4s (C&D)
Audi RS4: 4.5s (Autocar)
BMW E92 M3: 4.7s (AutoCar)
0 ~ 100 km/h time:
BMW E92 M3: 4.5s (AUTO-Italian Mag)
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 4.6s (Auto Bild)
BMW E92 M3: 4.6s (AMS)
Audi RS4: 4.6s (Automobil A)
BMW E90 M3: 4.7s (AMS)
BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (BMW)
BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (Sportauto)
BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (Powercar Germany)
BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (Dutch Mag - BMW Fanatics Magazine)
BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (Auto Bild)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 4.9s (Sportscars)
BMW E92 M3: 4.9s (AM&S)
BMW E92 M3: 4.9s (AM&S)
BMW E90 M3: 4.9s (Sportauto)
BMW E90 M3: 5.0s (Autozeitung)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 5.1s (Autozeitung)
BMW E92 M3: 5.1s (Automobil A (noted traction problems))
BMW E92 M3: 5.1s (18" - Powercar Germany)
Audi RS4: 5.1s (Dutch Mag - BMW Fanatics Magazine)
BMW E90 M3: 5.2s (18" - Powercar Germany)
0 ~ 100 mph time:
BMW E92 M3: 9.4s (R&T)
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 9.7 (MT)
BMW E92 M3: 9.8s (C&D)
BMW E90 M3: 9.8s (C&D)
BMW E90 M3: 10.1s (MT)
BMW E92 M3: 10.2s (AMS) (160km/h?)
BMW E92 M3: 10.2s (Autocar)
Audi RS4: 10.5s (Autocar)
BMW E92 M3: 10.6s (AM&S)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 11.0s (Sportscars)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 11.2s (Autozeitung)
0 ~ 150 mph time:
BMW E90 M3: 24.9s (C&D)
BMW E92 M3: 25.5s
Audi RS4: 25.6s
BMW M3 M-DCT: 26s (C&D)
0 ~ 200 km/h time:
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 15.2s (Auto Bild)
BMW E92 M3: 15.2s (Powercar Germany)
BMW E92 M3: 15.4s (AMS)
BMW E92 M3: 15.7s (Autobild&Sportauto)
BMW E92 M3: 15.8s (Supertest)
BMW E92 M3: 15.8s (BMW)
Audi RS4: 15.8s (Automobil A)
BMW E90 M3: 15.9s (Sportauto)
BMW E90 M3: 15.9s (Autozeitung)
BMW E90 M3: 16.0s (AMS)
BMW E92 M3: 16.0s (Dutch Mag - BMW Fanatics Magazine)
BMW E92 M3: 16.1s (18" - Powercar Germany)
BMW E92 M3: 16.3s (Auto Bild)
BMW E90 M3: 16.4s (18" - Powercar Germany)
BMW E92 M3: 16.7s (AM&S)
BMW E92 M3: 16.7s (Automobil A (noted traction problems))
Audi RS4: 17.2s (Dutch Mag - BMW Fanatics Magazine)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 17.3s (Autozeitung)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 17.6s (Sportscars)
1/4 mile time and speed:
BMW E92 M3: 12.5s @ 114.8 mph (R&T)
BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 12.6 @ 113.2 mph (MT)
BMW E90 M3: 12.6 @ 113mph (C&D)
BMW E90 M3: 12.7s @ 111.3mph (MT)
BMW M3 M-DCT: 12.7 @ 113 mph
Audi RS4: 12.8 @ 109 mph (R&T)
BMW E92 M3: 12.9 @ 111 mph (C&D)
Audi RS4: 13.1 @ 111.5 mph (AutoCar)
BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 13.4s @ ?112mph? (Sportscars)
BMW E92 M3: 13.3 @ 112 mph (AutoCar)

As you car see from the data compiled that the variation between the times are huge, but as you will also see the RS4 isn't the slowest in any of the disciplines, that title falls to the M3, nor was it the quickest, again that title falls to the M3. Does this mean that the M3 is slower, of course not, that has never been my argument, the point I am trying to make and it seems to be falling on deaf ears is that the evidence proves the RS4 is very much in the running and seldom is any slower.

P.S.
Maybe in a rolling start at the 50km/h suits the gearing of M3 better than the RS4, or maybe the drivers in the BMWs are better at shifting gear than the Audi drivers, that is something I could agree with as when you try and hurry a Quattro's shift you can fuck it up a lot of the time. I don't know the reason for their results but I can read and the above list tells a different story than anything I have ever seen at an M5Board event.
footie is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2008, 10:02 AM   #60
footie
Major General
 
footie's Avatar
 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

Posts: 7,507
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
T-Bone,

You like video evidence that show Audis being slower than other rwd cars. Well here's the opposite, an M5 getting beat by an RS6 (both stock).



Here's another street race E60 M5 vs C5 RS6 (don't know if either is stock but then we don't know about M5Board events either)

[u2b]Bq-iiEPY0rw&feature=related[/u2b]

Next is another street race, R8, M3, RS4 and 335i



Here's a traffic light race between an M6 and an RS4, again the results speak for themselves.



I am sure you can counter these videos with your own showing the RS4, RS6 and R8 getting beat but what's the point, we aren't going to agree on any of this or the fact that Quattro does not sap anywhere near the amount of power you are saying it does.

P.S.
I am not a Fanboy for Audi, I have an M3 coming in September, I just don't agree that Quattro is the devil and it's the worst thing that ever happened to motoring.
footie is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2008, 10:27 AM   #61
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

Posts: 1,893
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by T Bone View Post
No my comments are specific to Quattro with the full time AWD. The newer ones with torque vectoring with complete 100% torque shift front to back are good so long as it doesn't add too much weight. Look at the torque to the wheel differences between the M3 and the RS4.....only difference is the drivetrain losses. This is backed by observations where the RS4 gets spanked...
My knowledge of various awd systems being a bit superficial, perhaps I could use a little schooling here, as well as making sure of your position.

I should say that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much in terms of proof, but I'm a little surprised about your opinion because of my experience with our 2000 A6 4.2. This car's off-the-line performance was sluggish enough that I thought card-carrying members of the Anti-Destination League had infiltrated Audi's engineering department, but it was no slouch out on the road. In fact, on two separate occasions it managed to hold its own against a pair of 540s from a highway roll. Of course, it made more power (300 to 282), but it also weighed a fair bit more, it being a bigger car plus Quattro. Those bimmers could slaughter me off the line, but everywhere else, it was pretty even, with me seeming to have the upper hand as speeds rolled into triple-digit territory. The car wasn't anything special in terms of performance, either, running a best of 14.9 @ around 93 mph at the local drag strip, so it isn't as if I had a ringer or anything.

In any event, it didn't seem as if Quattro was hurting me a whole bunch, powerwise.

Can you tell me why Quattro suffers more power loss than, say, the awd in your bimmer? Is it the Torsen center diff? If not, what is it?

Thanks,

Bruce
bruce.augenstein@comcast. is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2008, 10:34 AM   #62
footie
Major General
 
footie's Avatar
 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

Posts: 7,507
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
T-Bone,

Can you explain what's different here. 2 videos M6 vs E55.



Can I ask you, listen to the sound of the engines in both videos of the E55, the M5Board event E55 has no go in it at all compared to the other video. Bearing in mind that the E55 in first video has over 640hp and 900Nm of torque one would rightly think that it would be a walk in the park but amazingly the M6 storms pass it as if it's sitting still.

Now which looks the more credible.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you use those videos as evidence I call you a FANBOY, plain and simple.
footie is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2008, 10:38 AM   #63
footie
Major General
 
footie's Avatar
 
Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

Posts: 7,507
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
Bruce,

He may have an answer but it will be a FANBOY answer based on calculated figures and little proof, apart from M5Board videos.

I too have raced similar powered cars in my S5 and I also found no evidence to back up TB or swamp's claims that quattro sapped power to the degree that it was noticeable.
footie is offline   No_Country
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2008, 05:44 PM   #64
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
My knowledge of various awd systems being a bit superficial, perhaps I could use a little schooling here, as well as making sure of your position.

I should say that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much in terms of proof, but I'm a little surprised about your opinion because of my experience with our 2000 A6 4.2. This car's off-the-line performance was sluggish enough that I thought card-carrying members of the Anti-Destination League had infiltrated Audi's engineering department, but it was no slouch out on the road. In fact, on two separate occasions it managed to hold its own against a pair of 540s from a highway roll. Of course, it made more power (300 to 282), but it also weighed a fair bit more, it being a bigger car plus Quattro. Those bimmers could slaughter me off the line, but everywhere else, it was pretty even, with me seeming to have the upper hand as speeds rolled into triple-digit territory. The car wasn't anything special in terms of performance, either, running a best of 14.9 @ around 93 mph at the local drag strip, so it isn't as if I had a ringer or anything.

In any event, it didn't seem as if Quattro was hurting me a whole bunch, powerwise.

Can you tell me why Quattro suffers more power loss than, say, the awd in your bimmer? Is it the Torsen center diff? If not, what is it?

Thanks,

Bruce

Ha! I traded my 2001 A6 4.2 Quattro for the 335xi. From my butt dyno, clearly not all 300 hp cars are equal and not all AWD systems are equal.

I remember a run I had when I was alot younger and dumber in Mexico, I could barely keep up with a E46 325 at higher speeds on the Highway.

The 335xi's allows torque spliting front to rear up to 100% while the present is something like 30/70:F/R, I believe I read somewhere at high speeds, the torque up front goes to zero.


BTW, a A6 4.2 on paper is very similar to a 335xi. Both have 300 hp and about 300 ft pounds of torque. The A6 weighs 3638 pounds and the 335xi weighs over 3700 pounds.... But the 335xi is in the 13s and traps over 100 mph....this couldn't be clearer data that something is intercepting the power between the flywheels and the wheels.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2008, 05:49 PM   #65
T Bone
Brigadier General
 
T Bone's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals

Posts: 4,021
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
T-Bone,

Can you explain what's different here. 2 videos M6 vs E55.

Can I ask you, listen to the sound of the engines in both videos of the E55, the M5Board event E55 has no go in it at all compared to the other video. Bearing in mind that the E55 in first video has over 640hp and 900Nm of torque one would rightly think that it would be a walk in the park but amazingly the M6 storms pass it as if it's sitting still.

Now which looks the more credible.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you use those videos as evidence I call you a FANBOY, plain and simple.

You are dumber than my shoe.

I know you spent hours scouring the internet of RS4 wins because they are far and few.

I am amazed at all the doubters of the M5board videos..... Why don't you ask Pea, Just_Me and a few others to see if they are rigged.

Here is the RS4 losing to a 5000 pound truck, has more power than the RS4 but weighs alot more and has the aerodynamics of house....no dodging this one....let's face it, the RS4 Quattro system sucks the power out of an otherwise decent engine.

Keep trying..... Just admit Quattro sucks power then we can move on.

__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
T Bone is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      08-19-2008, 06:07 PM   #66
Hans Delbruck
BMW & MB - friends in my garage
 
Hans Delbruck's Avatar
 
Drives: C63, 135i, 1959 BUICK
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Huntington Beach, CA

Posts: 1,285
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by J08M3 View Post
Well I guess that's where we have a difference of opinion. Because to me the side by side drag race is perfect. Even with the fact that there is driver error. Paper numbers have no value in my book if you consistently come in last in a drag race. You can argue all you want how perfect your car is on paper but for whatever reason if it's not winning races then those numbers don't mean anything.

Whew do I totally agree.

Sometimes I wonder if the M3 comes with a scientific calculator and a book on physics, so buyers can have all the ammo they want to justify their purchase.

Carbon fiber leather pocket protector optional.



In no way is this a slight against my (obviously very) intelligent friends who have M3's. Just a comment on the thread, which to me is like reading a math book. I can't pay attention. What do all the calculations have to do with driving a car and getting the maximum enjoyment out of it?

I guess I am just a limbic-brain caveman in a C63. Going fast, making lots of noise, and grinning from ear to ear.
__________________
2009 135i 6MT Euro Delivery 9/5/09
BMW Performance Power Kit - Exhaust - Short Shifter
Hans Delbruck is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:19 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