Official acceleration times for M3 E92 6MT?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

Hey thanks, I tryed the link and it does'nt work, I guess there's some kind of error with that time because I have yet to see a manuel M3 getting close to that ET or trap speed! That's as fast as my blown M3 on bad days!

Sorry, at one point all of the links worked to fully document all listings. Here is a summary of that particular test, it was indeed a MT

http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...MW-M3_data.pdf

2 more minutes of googling can probably locate the full test if you want it.

[davesaddiction]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Sorry, at one point all of the links worked to fully document all listings. Here is a summary of that particular test, it was indeed a MT

http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...MW-M3_data.pdf

2 more minutes of googling can probably locate the full test if you want it.

I'm sure I've seen this before, but I guess I'd never noticed the test notes:

With MDrive, we can disable stability and select ultimate sport mode with one button. Rev to 3900 rpm and quickly release the clutch while rolling into the throttle. Shifting at redline requires only light lever pressure.

I'd been looking for the best technique for the fastest time. Would this be considered "dumping the clutch", or can this be done is such a way to put very little wear on the clutch?

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Sorry, at one point all of the links worked to fully document all listings. Here is a summary of that particular test, it was indeed a MT

http://www.roadandtrack.com/cm/roada...MW-M3_data.pdf

2 more minutes of googling can probably locate the full test if you want it.

Thanks again!

I got to say, those results are seriously surprising to say the least! :

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

Thanks again!

I got to say, those results are seriously surprising to say the least! :

They are definitely the best results, MT or M-DCT (for the 1/4 mi, I didn't check their other results vs. the database). Are they outrageous enough to think that it was an error? Not in my evaluation. Cars vary, tires vary, surfaces vary, magazines compensate for weather in different ways. There are lots of variables. You might note 1/4 mi times as bad as 13.3 seconds and traps as low as 108. Performance numbers can be quoted as best, average or worst. It's statistical. As long as the best numbers do not appear to be outliers (say perhaps from a one off ringer), I always like to stick with quoting the best numbers. The best numbers are more about the car and it ultimate potential rather than the driver.

Cheers.

[Alex07M3]

Not to argue with you but IMHO, it's 100% sure it's a mistake, having done with my car close to 50 pass on many different days, always on 94octane, Ive seen my traps vary from 108 to 111mph, and 111mph really did'nt come often! To think that one would've trap 3-4mph faster makes absolutly no sense to me, most people with decat/tuned DCT will trap close to that, and there's no way a stock manual is even close to being as fast! Just my .02$!

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

Not to argue with you but IMHO, it's 100% sure it's a mistake, having done with my car close to 50 pass on many different days, always on 94octane, Ive seen my traps vary from 108 to 111mph, and 111mph really did'nt come often! To think that one would've trap 3-4mph faster makes absolutly no sense to me, most people with decat/tuned DCT will trap close to that, and there's no way a stock manual is even close to being as fast! Just my .02$!

Your information is well short of complete. Density altitude? Prevailing wind? Shifting skills?

Car & Driver's last E92 tested (against a C63 coupe) was a six-speed car, and it trapped at 114 mph, with a 12.7 ET. They of course adjust observed numbers to their "standard day" conditions, which if memory serves is comparable to the way-old standard day conditions from back in the '60s - meaning 60 degrees, 29.92 barometer and zero humidity. This makes for fairly aggressive times and speeds, but not unobtainable on a "good" day.

Road & Track didn't adjust observed numbers back at the time of their initial M3 test- but their test was in Germany, and who knows what the conditions were.

Bruce

[roastbeef]

Like others have said, there are a ton of environmental variables that will change something as delicate as a 0-60 run.
Nothing presented can ever be taken as rock solid, and that goes for every car.
Some may say it "consistently" hits 4.2 sec times, and some might says 4.2 is the "fastest run". Interpret each accordingly.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Your information is well short of complete. Density altitude? Prevailing wind? Shifting skills?

Car & Driver's last E92 tested (against a C63 coupe) was a six-speed car, and it trapped at 114 mph, with a 12.7 ET. They of course adjust observed numbers to their "standard day" conditions, which if memory serves is comparable to the way-old standard day conditions from back in the '60s - meaning 60 degrees, 29.92 barometer and zero humidity. This makes for fairly aggressive times and speeds, but not unobtainable on a "good" day.

Road & Track didn't adjust observed numbers back at the time of their initial M3 test- but their test was in Germany, and who knows what the conditions were.

Bruce

I know I'm missing some details, I did'nt bother because a 12.5@114.8mph with a stock manual e92 is simply impossible, unless in the freezing cold weather, with drag radials on a hot surface, under see level, with 100 octane and a big wind pushing you in the back while going down hill!

Seriously, the fact that not a single person has been able to report a trap speed even close to this one is a good indication that there's a error somewhere! Also there's no denial that the DCT cars are much faster then the manuals and even them can't replicate a trap that high!!

[Amirsm3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

I know I'm missing some details, I did'nt bother because a 12.5@114.8mph with a stock manual e92 is simply impossible, unless in the freezing cold weather, with drag radials on a hot surface, under see level, with 100 octane and a big wind pushing you in the back while going down hill!

Seriously, the fact that not a single person has been able to report a trap speed even close to this one is a good indication that there's a error somewhere! Also there's no denial that the DCT cars are much faster then the manuals and even them can't replicate a trap that high!!

So, because you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist? Food for thought: Not everyone who takes their car to a drag strip, circuit track, etc. is going to report their times.

If a magazine was able to reach that time and trap speed, I'm sure its attainable. They don't just run the car once and print the article.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by Amirsm3

So, because you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist? Food for thought: Not everyone who takes their car to a drag strip, circuit track, etc. is going to report their times.

If a magazine was able to reach that time and trap speed, I'm sure its attainable. They don't just run the car once and print the article.

No, it's because no one has seen a time like that anywhere else then in this magazine!!

You can be sure that after 7 years and +50000 E9x M3s on the market, if this car was really capable of a 1/4 mile like that, someone would have posted it by now, yet, the bests of the bests we have are 12.7-12.8@111-112mph, majority of people only do 12.9-13.0@108-109mph, those would be incredibly slow for a car capable of 12.5@114.8mph!!

Personnaly, I'm more the type to do 1+1 then the type to believe everything I see on the net, but if you think otherwise, please go ahead and explain your reasoning, I'd be more then happy that you enlighten me!

[davesaddiction]

With "outlier" data on a OEM-supplied car, one does have to wonder if it had a special tune or something going on. I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but it's been seen before (from other makers, if not BMW).

[Amirsm3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

No, it's because no one has seen a time like that anywhere else then in this magazine!!

You can be sure that after 7 years and +50000 E9x M3s on the market, if this car was really capable of a 1/4 mile like that, someone would have posted it by now, yet, the bests of the bests we have are 12.7-12.8@111-112mph, majority of people only do 12.9-13.0@108-109mph, those would be incredibly slow for a car capable of 12.5@114.8mph!!

Personnaly, I'm more the type to do 1+1 then the type to believe everything I see on the net, but if you think otherwise, please go ahead and explain your reasoning, I'd be more then happy that you enlighten me!

So you've asked everyone in the world, then?

The magazine posted it. That means they did it. I don't understand what's so hard to believe there. The exterior variables weigh heavily on the performance. I don't believe everything I read on the net, but it's hard to disagree with the magazine that posted the numbers. Could they have loaded the test? Maybe, but what for?

I really don't see why you're so against the M3 being capable of running that time. It takes nothing from you or makes your car/driving skills any less significant.

[Amirsm3]

Originally Posted by davesaddiction

With "outlier" data on a OEM-supplied car, one does have to wonder if it had a special tune or something going on. I'm not saying this is definitely the case, but it's been seen before (from other makers, if not BMW).

Could be, but for what's in front of us, the magazine achieved it.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by Amirsm3

So you've asked everyone in the world, then?

The magazine posted it. That means they did it. I don't understand what's so hard to believe there. The exterior variables weigh heavily on the performance. I don't believe everything I read on the net, but it's hard to disagree with the magazine that posted the numbers. Could they have loaded the test? Maybe, but what for?

I really don't see why you're so against the M3 being capable of running that time. It takes nothing from you or makes your car/driving skills any less significant.

I meant no one in here!

Seriously, if you don't even understand what's hard to believe, I'm probably losing my time speaking with you!!

And I know that many variables can play a role here, I've been going to the drag strip at least 6-7 times a year for the last 12 years, probably have done more then a thoulsand pass with my many different cars so i know how it work!

And finally, I'm not against the M3 being capable of doing that time, I'd love if it could, the problem is that I know it can't! Not because I could'nt, simply because I've been looking all my life at those kinds of stats from cars and I think I know it when something does'nt add up, and this surelly does'nt add up with everything else I've seen this car doing!!

So again, if you have any fact(other then the fact that it's written in this magazine) that could lead you to believe that a stock manual M3 would be capable of a 114.8mph trap, please please please enlighten me!! And if you don't, then let's agree to disagree!

[Amirsm3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

I meant no one in here!

Seriously, if you don't even understand what's hard to believe, I'm probably losing my time speaking with you!!

And I know that many variables can play a role here, I've been going to the drag strip at least 6-7 times a year for the last 12 years, probably have done more then a thoulsand pass with my many different cars so i know how it work!

And finally, I'm not against the M3 being capable of doing that time, I'd love if it could, the problem is that I know it can't! Not because I could'nt, simply because I've been looking all my life at those kinds of stats from cars and I think I know it when something does'nt add up, and this surelly does'nt add up with everything else I've seen this car doing!!

So again, if you have any fact(other then the fact that it's written in this magazine) that could lead you to believe that a stock manual M3 would be capable of a 114.8mph trap, please please please enlighten me!! And if you don't, then let's agree to disagree!

How do you know the M3 with a manual can't post up the times that the magazine published? Just because you've been incapable of such, doesn't mean the possibility is 0. You're criticizing me for believing everything I read on the web or in a magazine, but expect me to believe you....?

I'm not saying what R&T wrote is the absolute, final solution to acceleration times etc. etc. I'm disputing your claim that it can't be done.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by Amirsm3

How do you know the M3 with a manual can't post up the times that the magazine published? Just because you've been incapable of such, doesn't mean the possibility is 0. You're criticizing me for believing everything I read on the web or in a magazine, but expect me to believe you....?

I'm not saying what R&T wrote is the absolute, final solution to acceleration times etc. etc. I'm disputing your claim that it can't be done.

I know because I've been looking at this car since its debut and never I've seen a time or trap close to this one, stop bringing my time into the subject, it's just one reason among many others!!!!!!!!

Also I'm not criticizing you, nor I want you to believe me, I just ask you what are your reason, and still you have'nt brought any!!

[Amirsm3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

I know because I've been looking at this car since its debut and never I've seen a time or trap close to this one, stop bringing my time into the subject, it's just one reason among many others!!!!!!!!

Also I'm not criticizing you, nor I want you to believe me, I just ask you what are your reason, and still you have'nt brought any!!

I've posted earlier why I said it was feasible. External, favorable variables and the fact that Road & Track published their times.

It's definitely not impossible.

"...Official times as published by BMW (6-speed manual times in parentheses):
Coupe/Convertible 0–100 km/h 4.6 s (4.8 s)[39]
Coupe/Convertible 0–60 mph 4.5 s (4.7 s)[40]
Saloon 0–100 km/h 5.1 s (5.3 s)[41]
Saloon 0–60 mph 4.9 s (5.1 s)[42]
Coupe/Convertible 80–120 km/h in 4th/5th gear 4.9/6.0 s (4.2/5.2 s)[39]
Saloon 80–120 km/h in 4th/5th gear 5.7/7.1 s (5.0/6.3 s)[41]
Tested performance:
0–60 mph 3.9 s measured by Car and Driver magazine[36] (2011 E92 w/ DCT)
1/4 mile: 12.4 s @ 114 mph measured by Car and Driver magazine. (2011 E92 w/ M-DCT Trans)[36]
1/4 mile: 13.1 s @ 109 mph (2009 E93 Convertible w/ M-DCT Trans)[citation needed]
Top Speed: 155 mph (electronically limited) Delimited: 203 mph (327 km/h)[36]
Skid Pad: 0.98 g[citation needed]
Slalom: 114.9 km/h (71.4 mph)[citation needed]..."

That's from the M3 Wiki with a source posted. Check the source. That's 2 magazines now (arguably one since R&T and C and D are owned under the same publisher) that have posted the same times.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by Amirsm3

I've posted earlier why I said it was feasible. External, favorable variables and the fact that Road & Track published their times.

It's definitely not impossible.

"...Official times as published by BMW (6-speed manual times in parentheses):
Coupe/Convertible 0100 km/h 4.6 s (4.8 s)[39]
Coupe/Convertible 060 mph 4.5 s (4.7 s)[40]
Saloon 0100 km/h 5.1 s (5.3 s)[41]
Saloon 060 mph 4.9 s (5.1 s)[42]
Coupe/Convertible 80120 km/h in 4th/5th gear 4.9/6.0 s (4.2/5.2 s)[39]
Saloon 80120 km/h in 4th/5th gear 5.7/7.1 s (5.0/6.3 s)[41]
Tested performance:
060 mph 3.9 s measured by Car and Driver magazine[36] (2011 E92 w/ DCT)
1/4 mile: 12.4 s @ 114 mph measured by Car and Driver magazine. (2011 E92 w/ M-DCT Trans)[36]
1/4 mile: 13.1 s @ 109 mph (2009 E93 Convertible w/ M-DCT Trans)[citation needed]
Top Speed: 155 mph (electronically limited) Delimited: 203 mph (327 km/h)[36]
Skid Pad: 0.98 g[citation needed]
Slalom: 114.9 km/h (71.4 mph)[citation needed]..."

That's from the M3 Wiki with a source posted. Check the source. That's 2 magazines now (arguably one since R&T and C and D are owned under the same publisher) that have posted the same times.

All I see there are 0-60 times or DCT 1/4 miles wich does'nt say much about what we are talking about!

Forget it and pass to an other subject, we are both losing time here! No hard feeling I hope!

[Amirsm3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

All I see there are 0-60 times or DCT 1/4 miles wich does'nt say much about what we are talking about!

Forget it and pass to an other subject, we are both losing time here! No hard feeling I hope!

Oh balls, sorry, I missed the DCT part.

At any rate, there definitely aren't any hard feelings. It's a forum, lmfao.

[swamp2]

Don't forget that most if not all US magazines report all acceleration results using a 1 foot roll out (the US drag racing standard). This give about 0.2-0.4 seconds faster to 60 mph and for 1/4 mi times as compared to 0 roll out.

[FogCityM3]

Faster times with the M3 tended to occur with cars tested in Germany. Different software, different gas/octane (low ethanol), possible "aggressive tuning" (known this happens with manufacturers incl GM and Ferrari especially on first release), lighter drivers, how much tank is full, wind, not completely flat surface, rollout, surface conditions etc etc. Also the mags tend to try many different launch techniques and multiple attempts (think C&D does 10 in both directions). Doesn't seem that far fetched to me, especially considering cars with similar weight/power ratios achieve those times/traps.

[besiktas]

Guys relax. dont forget conditions matter, from temperature to altitude, or engine software to road pavement.... just know that you will be faster than 5 seconds and slower than new carrera