Unofficial Nordschleife time - 8:02

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by JEllis

Swamp,

Here is the exact quote...there is another pearl in it other than the 8:10 comment. I think we can have a more precise estimate dont you?

"It might seem a little too well mannered, but it is faster around the Nurburgring Nordschleife than the V-10 powered M5 sedan, says M GmbH boss Gerhard Richter. How much faster? Precisely 3.54 seconds a lap, says Richter, who adds the new M3 will turn an 8:10 lap without raising a sweat: "I could do that while talking to you as I drive.""

Jason

Indeed that is fairly concrete/precise but we all know BMW sandbags! And this gets us to 8:09. I suspect she's going to do a bit better than that.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by devo

I was putting stock in the 8:12 claim because I mistakenly thought that an pre-release car had officially run that time. My bad.

Regarding the other hypothetical times; they are just that...actually they are just HYPE. Its not that I don't believe the M will run an impressive time, it just won't run a sub 8:05 on the tires it will be delivered with. And, I think an 8:05 is very optimistic...an 8:10 is more likely.

What I don't like about the article it that it was created to take on a life of it's own, which it already has here on this forum. Some journalist, who doesn't know shit, makes a claim that the M runs that fast and people start believing it.

Look, wasn't I accurate enough to say UNOFFICIAL in the title of my post? I agree I could have been slightly more accurate and said RUMORED, I guess. Calling such statements from journalists hype is a bit too harsh IMO. Also what is your basis for saying this particular journalist doesn't know shit? I don't suppose you have any evidence of his bad automotive journalism? He obviously knows enough to drive the car WELL before you!

Last but not least the straight line performance of the car and the sheer number of unofficially reported times are all leaning toward a consensus of a damn fast time. All we will have is rumors and unofficial times until the Sportauto test. I find it useful and insighful to report rumors and unofficial times until that point. What fun would this entire board be without some rumors and unofficial information.

[e36jakeo]

Keep in mind the OEM tires on the E92 M3 are PS2s,which are MUCH stickier than the tires the E46 M3 came with (PS1, I think). The PS2s have pulled a full 1.0 g in multiple cars (a Boxster being one, I believe), so their additional stick alone will be worth some seconds at the Ring.

[Phoenix 21st]

Swamp,

do i remember you posting a comparison of bhp / weight of the E46 M3 csl v the E92 M3 and that the E92 M3 had a better ratio?

If this is the case, with R compound tyres the E92 should be sub 7.50. Simplistic i know but logical.

So, if there is some correlation between cars with and without R compound tyres, we may have another insight to the time by applying this equation to the sub 7.50 time.

[m_bazeepaymon]

the Rs4 does not come wth R compounds am I correct?
(I know it doesnt I just wanna clarify)
you guys think they will ever do this on the E92 so they can shut every1 up...

I will be even happy if the M3 loses by only 1-3 seconds than the Rs4's time

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by m_bazeepaymon

the Rs4 does not come wth R compounds am I correct?
(I know it doesnt I just wanna clarify)
you guys think they will ever do this on the E92 so they can shut every1 up...

I will be even happy if the M3 loses by only 1-3 seconds than the Rs4's time

R compound tires were an option in Europe for the RS4 when it was released. I think the option has been discontinued.

Let's see . . . release the car with a very limiteed R tire option to post a good Nordschleife time in "stock" configurationwith. Then after the time is official, no more R tire option. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[devo]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Look, wasn't I accurate enough to say UNOFFICIAL in the title of my post? I agree I could have been slightly more accurate and said RUMORED, I guess. Calling such statements from journalists hype is a bit too harsh IMO. Also what is your basis for saying this particular journalist doesn't know shit? I don't suppose you have any evidence of his bad automotive journalism? He obviously knows enough to drive the car WELL before you!

Last but not least the straight line performance of the car and the sheer number of unofficially reported times are all leaning toward a consensus of a damn fast time. All we will have is rumors and unofficial times until the Sportauto test. I find it useful and insighful to report rumors and unofficial times until that point. What fun would this entire board be without some rumors and unofficial information.

I don't a problem with your post. It's the "source(s)" that I have a problem with. It's all speculation.

So relax Swamp; it's not a personal attack. I must say though, the part about the journalist being "smart" enough to drive the car before me is really stretching your point. Too rebut that, would be fruitless.

I find these journalists to be just that...journalists/salesmen, who have an aggenda. There are many great road car writers, but some are ill equipped and/or inexperienced to render an unbiased accurate account of a car's performance and many have an aggenda which compels them to offer exciting-yet unconfirmed-results.

[devo]

Originally Posted by Phoenix 21st

Swamp,

do i remember you posting a comparison of bhp / weight of the E46 M3 csl v the E92 M3 and that the E92 M3 had a better ratio?

If this is the case, with R compound tyres the E92 should be sub 7.50. Simplistic i know but logical.

So, if there is some correlation between cars with and without R compound tyres, we may have another insight to the time by applying this equation to the sub 7.50 time.

Words wouldn't do your post justice.

[Phoenix 21st]

Originally Posted by devo

Words wouldn't do your post justice.

As we know R comps reduce time significantly. Yes? Therefore if the csl recorded a time of 7.50 with R comps but would for arguments sake achieve a time of say 8.08. Then if the E92 M3 had a better power / weight ratio it would be fairly logical to say that the E92 would achieve less than 8mins 8sec.

Do we know a time for csl with stock (ps1) tyres?

[devo]

Originally Posted by Phoenix 21st

As we know R comps reduce time significantly. Yes? Therefore if the csl recorded a time of 7.50 with R comps but would for arguments sake achieve a time of say 8.08. Then if the E92 M3 had a better power / weight ratio it would be fairly logical to say that the E92 would achieve less than 8mins 8sec.

Do we know a time for csl with stock (ps1) tyres?

I am sorry but I do not understand your point.

A 7:50 run is utterly ridiculous, an 8:08 quite possible.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Phoenix 21st

Swamp,

do i remember you posting a comparison of bhp / weight of the E46 M3 csl v the E92 M3 and that the E92 M3 had a better ratio?

If this is the case, with R compound tyres the E92 should be sub 7.50. Simplistic i know but logical.

So, if there is some correlation between cars with and without R compound tyres, we may have another insight to the time by applying this equation to the sub 7.50 time.

I give it a stab...

E46 M3 CSL is 3050/360 = 8.47
E92 M3 is 3649/420 = 8.69

About a 2.5% difference in favor of the CSL. Furthermore the details of the CSL that give it phenomenal lap times are raw weight, suspension and tires. Power to weight is more important for acceleration whereas weight directly impacts handling and quickness in corners and transistions. Next the CSL has a highly and aggressively tuned suspension and big brakes, both help appreciably with track times. Last variable is the tires - it used a form of street legal racing tires. Far stickier than the new Michelins on the new M3. Of all the variables I would guess the tires are the largest contributor to the difference between the two cars laptimes.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by devo

I don't a problem with your post. It's the "source(s)" that I have a problem with. It's all speculation.

So relax Swamp; it's not a personal attack. I must say though, the part about the journalist being "smart" enough to drive the car before me is really stretching your point. Too rebut that, would be fruitless.

I find these journalists to be just that...journalists/salesmen, who have an aggenda. There are many great road car writers, but some are ill equipped and/or inexperienced to render an unbiased accurate account of a car's performance and many have an aggenda which compels them to offer exciting-yet unconfirmed-results.

Agreed, I mostly concur with your points above. Journalists can be very "salesy". However, to acccuse them of complete fabrication of hearsay is a bit too much.

[Wally330]

From what I have read in Sport Auto reviews and from other sources on the net sport tires in general cut times around the Nordschleife with 10 seconds. Sport tires on the new E92 M3 might not give a 10 second gain compared to the standard set. Assuming they would a time of 8:00 minutes around the ring would be achievable if we were to assume that Gerhard Richter's comment on the E92 M3 being capable of a 8:10 lap without raising a sweat is correct and assuming that he was talking about the new car doing so on standard tires. For every second the new M3 is quicker than 8:10 around the ring on standard tyres my admiration will grow given the price of the car. The Ferrari 599 GTB made the Sport Auto Supertest lap around the Nordschleife in 7:47 minutes.

[Phoenix 21st]

Originally Posted by devo

I am sorry but I do not understand your point.

A 7:50 run is utterly ridiculous, an 8:08 quite possible.

the 7.50 time was from the csl. My mistake was in thinking that the power to weight ratio was in favour of the e92 M3 (my bad)

Should the ratio have been the same or better the e92 might have had a chance at a similar 7.50 if it was fitted with R comps.

My guess has always been 8.05 with stocks but always smile when new info such as swamps 8.02 possible time is achieved.

[jworms]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I give it a stab...

E46 M3 CSL is 3050/360 = 8.47
E92 M3 is 3649/420 = 8.69

About a 2.5% difference in favor of the CSL. Furthermore the details of the CSL that give it phenomenal lap times are raw weight, suspension and tires. Power to weight is more important for acceleration whereas weight directly impacts handling and quickness in corners and transistions. Next the CSL has a highly and aggressively tuned suspension and big brakes, both help appreciably with track times. Last variable is the tires - it used a form of street legal racing tires. Far stickier than the new Michelins on the new M3. Of all the variables I would guess the tires are the largest contributor to the difference between the two cars laptimes.

i'm pretty sure the e92 M3 isn't 3649lbs. all i know is that the e92 M3 CSL has to beat the e46 M3 CSL's time of 7:50 around the 'ring. by beating 7:50 and getting into the 7:40s we're talking about hanging with some pretty hard hitters:

7:40 --- 161.217 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 07/04)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.868 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.519 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h – Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02)
7:42.9 - 160.207 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05), http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street, 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,000 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44 --- 159.828 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.484 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- McLaren F1, *estimated lap time from a video available at www.pistonheads.tv
7:45*-- 159.484 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/ 1424 kg, worls driver Walter Roehrl, *mfr.
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT2, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/01)
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Jaguar XJ220, John Walton (EVO magzine 07/00), www.jwhubbers.nl/ring/docs/evo-0007-7.jpg
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- SHK Porsche 993 GT2, 652 PS (sport auto 99)
7:47 --- 158.801 km/h –- Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, 620 PS/1805 kg (sport auto 01/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=134701
7:47 --- 158.801 km/h –- Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1748 kg (sport auto 08/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=111663
7:47* -- 158.801 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/ 1440 kg, works driver Walter Roehrl, *mfr.
7:48 --- 158.463 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1424 kg (sport auto 03/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=120285
7:48 --- 158.463 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1440kg (sport auto 07/06) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...ID=2&tID=91836
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 512 PS/1440 kg (sport auto 06/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=0&tID=129099
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h –- BMW X5 Le Mans, 700 PS/~2000 kg, Hans-Joachim Stuck
7.49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3, 392 PS (AutoBild 2004)
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 Cup, 360 PS/1207 kg (sport auto 02/99)
7:50 --- 157.787 km/h -- BMW E46 M3 CSL, 360 PS/1421 kg (sport auto 08/03)

i just hope the e92 M3 CSL doesn't run over $100k

[Just_me]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

Well what on earth does "close to" mean?



You have no evidence for your claims re. E92 M3's performance, yet you believe that you can dispute more than one source's report by rattling off meaningless stats about unrelated cars

im being realistic, if you think M3 V8 is going to make it below 8.00 min thats fine but remember who told it wont, his name was/is Just_me.

PS sportauto times is the only thing that matters to me.

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by Just_me

im being realistic, if you think M3 V8 is going to make it below 8.00 min thats fine but remember who told it wont, his name was/is Just_me.

PS sportauto times is the only thing that matters to me.

I think the M3 will be pretty close to the 8min mark. And if not this version, the MY2009!

[m_bazeepaymon]

Originally Posted by Just_me

im being realistic, if you think M3 V8 is going to make it below 8.00 min thats fine but remember who told it wont, his name was/is Just_me.

PS sportauto times is the only thing that matters to me.

I think that was a sick ass return quote lol

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by Just_me

im being realistic, if you think M3 V8 is going to make it below 8.00 min thats fine but remember who told it wont, his name was/is Just_me.

PS sportauto times is the only thing that matters to me.

Unfortunately I have never claimed any such thing - it was not me who made an absolute, but completely unfounded claim about the M3. If it makes you happy I will try and remember your name though

[The CSL]

Wow, the CSL managed to get within five seconds of the estimated time of the McLaren F1, using effectively half of its engine. 7:45 seems too slow, I imagine Sport Auto could get that to less than 7:40 if they tried, as with the Veyron.