BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

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


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
INDustry distribution
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-04-2007, 01:10 PM   #1
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Weight and power to weight ratio

OK looks like we have a winner 3483 lb curb weight (btw my guess back in 11/06 was 3500 even ). I sure hope the number is solid. IMO this is a fantastic achievement. The 335i weighs in at 3571 this is almost 100 lb lighter!! This is a huge achievement given the things that add weight to the vehicle relative to 335i: chassis stiffening, engine, clutch, rotors/calipers, tires, cooling system, exhaust system, etc.

I think the list of weight savings items other than composite roof and body panels will look pretty darn impressive once we learn about all of the effort that went into this.

Updating my lb/hp list we now have:
  • Corvette C5: 8.0
  • E60 M5: 8.1
  • E92 M3 8.3
  • F355: 8.3
  • New Carrera S (+20 hp rumored): 8.3
  • Carrera S: 8.8
  • RS4: 9.4
  • AM Vantage: 9.5
Boys with an extra .3-.4 seconds per shift with ZSG we are really going to have a on our hands.

Last edited by swamp2; 04-05-2007 at 03:28 AM.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 01:27 PM   #2
Kafka
Private
 
Drives: E46 M3 SMG
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canada

Posts: 65
iTrader: (0)

2008 M3 Cab vs hard top handling?

Thanks Swamp. Excellent info as usual.

It makes me wonder what it will "feel" like to drive (adrenalin rush for sure at least I expect). Do you have any thoughts on the carbon topped cab that will be released a bit later? I have one now (2004 M3) and while it is a bit heavier etc. on the track it is still a joy (and a bit scary at times) to drive. Do you think the newM3 carbon roofed cabs will offer an improvement from the softtops re handling and weight? Given the extra cost of the cabs this is an important consideration.
K.
Kafka is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 01:42 PM   #3
M3onTwomps
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: '02 E46 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Sandbox

Posts: 319
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
OK looks like we have a winner 3483 lb curb weight (btw my guess back in 11/06 was 3500 even ). I sure hope the number is solid. IMO this is a fantastic achievement. The 335i weighs in at 3571 this is almost 100 lb lighter!! This is a huge achievement given the things that add weight to the vehicle relative to 335i: chassis stiffening, engine, clutch, rotors/calipers, tires, cooling system, exhaust system, etc.

I think the list of weight savings items other than composite roof and body panels will look pretty darn impressive once we learn about all of the effort that went into this.

Updating my power to weight list we now have.
  • AM Vantage: 9.5
  • RS4: 9.4
  • Carrera S: 8.8
  • New Carrera S (+20 hp rumored): 8.3
  • F355: 8.3
  • E92 M3 8.3
  • E60 M5: 8.1
  • Corvette C5: 8.0

Boys with an extra .3-.4 seconds per shift with ZSG we are really going to have a on our hands.


Maybe I'm looking at something wrong, but I've got 8.66 for the Audi RS4 with 420hp and weighing 3,638lbs.
M3onTwomps is offline   Iraq
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 02:03 PM   #4
maq
Lieutenant
 
Drives: MTA Monthly Pass
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC

Posts: 470
iTrader: (0)

You guys' math is off. How can the RS4 have a better ratio than the M3? Assuming both are rated at 420hp, how can the heavier Audi have a better number? Even if the M3 is rated at 414hp, the Audi's extra 6hp can't possibly offset 155lbs of extra weight, can it?

My calculation using the industry standard horsepower per ton:

M3 - 265hp/ton
RS4 - 254hp/ton
maq is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 02:05 PM   #5
RandyB
Lieutenant Colonel
 
RandyB's Avatar
 
Drives: '03 330i, '09 M3 Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas

Posts: 1,504
iTrader: (0)

Not with the extra 50 lbs that silly thing will weigh. And you 'boys' better hope for a F430-esque launch control to boot if you plan on getting out on a 6-speed car.

But yeah, I like the weight.
RandyB is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 02:06 PM   #6
M3onTwomps
First Lieutenant
 
Drives: '02 E46 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Sandbox

Posts: 319
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by maq View Post
You guys' math is off. How can the RS4 have a better ratio than the M3? Assuming both are rated at 420hp, how can the heavier Audi have a better number? Even if the M3 is rated at 414hp, the Audi's extra 6hp can't possibly offset 155lbs of extra weight, can it?

My calculation using the industry standard horsepower per ton:

M3 - 265hp/ton
RS4 - 254hp/ton
Sounds good to me.

I just divided weight by horsepower. In my calculations, the M3 still has a better ratio, but my RS4 numbers were different than Swamp's.
M3onTwomps is offline   Iraq
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 04:29 PM   #7
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

RS4 weight

3957 lb, read past the first hit on google.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 04:33 PM   #8
jtown
Lieutenant
 
jtown's Avatar
 
Drives: TBD
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Norcal

Posts: 596
iTrader: (0)

The RS4 is a fat pig.
jtown is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 04:43 PM   #9
kyotousa
Banned
 
Drives: Acura TSX
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: TX

Posts: 168
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown View Post
The RS4 is a fat pig.
maybe compare to the E90 M3
kyotousa is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 05:02 PM   #10
Robert
Major General
 
Drives: 135i, current is350
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Socal

Posts: 6,899
iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown View Post
The RS4 is a fat pig.
It still performs beautifully. More car than I can handle right now.
Robert is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 05:30 PM   #11
chitown08
Second Lieutenant
 
chitown08's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 M3
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago

Posts: 277
iTrader: (0)

Send a message via AIM to chitown08
swamp ur rs4 number is off, it can't have better power/weight than the M3.

the car weighs 3957lbs and has the same hp as the M3
chitown08 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 05:51 PM   #12
kyotousa
Banned
 
Drives: Acura TSX
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: TX

Posts: 168
iTrader: (0)

anyway since the weight is out...anyone gonna guess the 1/4 mile time?

12.8...
kyotousa is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 09:02 PM   #13
Jason-NY
Enlisted Member
 
Drives: '01 M3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY

Posts: 30
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kyotousa View Post
anyway since the weight is out...anyone gonna guess the 1/4 mile time?

12.8...
Well, the RS4 ran a 12.8 @ 109.7 in 8/06 Road & Track with a curb weight of 3920 and 420 HP. The E92 will supposedly weight 442 lbs less with the same power. 12.5 sec ¼mile is my guess.
Jason-NY is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 10:49 PM   #14
GregW / Oregon
Commander-In-Chief
 
Drives: 2015 M4 Coupe, 2012 ML350
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR

Posts: 7,564
iTrader: (2)

Garage List
1/4 mile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason-NY View Post
Well, the RS4 ran a 12.8 @ 109.7 in 8/06 Road & Track with a curb weight of 3920 and 420 HP. The E92 will supposedly weight 442 lbs less with the same power. 12.5 sec ¼mile is my guess.
I agree, 12.5 at, say, 110-112.
__________________

Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
2015 M4 Coupe - Silverstone/Sakhir/CF
2012 ML350
GregW / Oregon is online now   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-04-2007, 11:00 PM   #15
skierman64
Brigadier General
 
skierman64's Avatar
 
Drives: 2008 E92 Space Gray M3 & E36M3
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Greater St Louis Metro area

Posts: 3,068
iTrader: (1)

Garage List
1998 M3 Coupe  [0.00]
2008 M3 Coupe  [0.00]
Send a message via Yahoo to skierman64
Some of you guys are reading the power to weight ratio backwards. The lower the number the better. It is really a listing of lbs per hp. Less lbs the better. Which is why the plastic car is listed as the best.
skierman64 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-05-2007, 12:45 AM   #16
JEllis
Brigadier General
 
JEllis's Avatar
 
Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SD CA/Yuma

Posts: 4,701
iTrader: (4)

Yep, he is listing pounds per HP not the other way around. If it was HP per pounds then you would get fractions of HP..DUH!

To but it simply for you idiots (sorry I had a bad day), the smaller the number the better......!!!!!!!!

Jason
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
JEllis is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-05-2007, 01:20 AM   #17
maq
Lieutenant
 
Drives: MTA Monthly Pass
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC

Posts: 470
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEllis View Post
Yep, he is listing pounds per HP not the other way around. If it was HP per pounds then you would get fractions of HP..DUH!

To but it simply for you idiots (sorry I had a bad day), the smaller the number the better......!!!!!!!!

Jason
I've never seen a lbs/hp ratio in my life. It's called a power to weight ratio, not the other way around (weight to power). So if he called it a power to weight ratio, the power number should be placed before the weight number. The industry standard W/P ratio is measured in hp/T.

It doesn't matter how big or small the number is, you put the BEST number on top when making a list like this. Do you go to the bottom of a list to find the best lap time?

I personally have nothing against the OP, just trying to point out an error. Calling us idiots because we don't think the same way the OP does on this subject (which is neither scientific nor logical) speaks volumes about yourself.
maq is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-05-2007, 02:02 AM   #18
enigma
Captain
 
Drives: E92 M3 and Elise
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Land of the Microchip

Posts: 689
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by maq View Post
I've never seen a lbs/hp ratio in my life. It's called a power to weight ratio, not the other way around (weight to power). So if he called it a power to weight ratio, the power number should be placed before the weight number.
Both are equally valid and I have seen both used in a lot of places. As long at the units are listed beside the number there should be no confusion.
enigma is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      04-05-2007, 03:26 AM   #19
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Clarifications

Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma View Post
Both are equally valid and I have seen both used in a lot of places. As long at the units are listed beside the number there should be no confusion.
Indeed I used lb/hp, the less the better. I should have stated that and given units. However, as enigma said both lb/hp (around 10 for sporty vehicles, nowadays 8...) as well as hp/ton are common. I changed the order and added units per other suggestions.

BTW, all of this should have been pretty obvious. It doesn“t make anyone an idiot but you should be familiar with numbers of about 10 lb/hp.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-05-2007, 05:14 AM   #20
esquire
Colonel
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011.5 Dakar Yellow M3 Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California

Posts: 2,801
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEllis View Post
Yep, he is listing pounds per HP not the other way around. If it was HP per pounds then you would get fractions of HP..DUH!

To but it simply for you idiots (sorry I had a bad day), the smaller the number the better......!!!!!!!!

Jason
"to BUT it simply for you idiots" ??? clearly you're a genius... einstein.
remind me again, how far apart are the 'b' and 'p' keys on the keyboard?
__________________

[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip]
[Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE]
esquire is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-05-2007, 06:02 AM   #21
esquire
Colonel
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011.5 Dakar Yellow M3 Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California

Posts: 2,801
iTrader: (0)

swamp, i'm curious... where did you get the 3483 lb curb weight figure from? i must be missing something, because i haven't seen it in any of the recent posts.
__________________

[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip]
[Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE]
esquire is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      04-05-2007, 06:24 AM   #22
Epacy
Reincarnated
 
Epacy's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL

Posts: 4,227
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
The weight is real. Actually, can't believe you haven't seen it.
__________________
Epacy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:13 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