|
|
04-14-2008, 02:19 PM | #67 | |
Captain
68
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 03:35 PM | #68 | |
Banned
60
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
What is your experience with professional g-techs so-to-speak? Have you ever used one? Ever looked at the calibration certificate for one? My experience is limited to g-tech pro, which is highly inaccurate, but somewhat informative. What is your experience? Did you work closely with this kind of equipment when you can make blunt statements about its inaccurary? Why are you ignoring my question from previous post? You have 13 posts all related to C6 vs M3 topic, drive a chevy and post on BMW forums. Troll much? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 03:44 PM | #69 | |
Banned
60
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
Looking at the hub value take....375/414=~ 10% loss at the hub, which makes sense. Judging by this, new M3 is right around 414, unlike, say 335i which dyno higher stock and are probably underrated. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 03:58 PM | #70 | |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
I still say real proof is running cars against each other on the track or the 1/4 mile, and post. Until then, people can argue back and forth. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 04:27 PM | #71 |
Banned
60
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Car is still new. People are still taking deliveries. If you look at dragtimes.com, magazine times match quite closely actual customer times for previous models...E46 M3, C5...etc.
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 04:48 PM | #72 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 04:49 PM | #73 | ||
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 36
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Raw data is the only data that is ever comparable...hence same cars same day. The only "correcting" car mags try to do is for accel numbers...in which case they attempt to correct the same why dynojets do. Let me tell you, its real accurate. They do not and cannot correct for asphault temp, tire temp, brake temp., etc. All of which can have a significant impact on your precious numbers.
__________________
2014 Viper TA - Stock - 11.43@132.37mph, 1.95 60'
08 ISF - headers/exhaust - 12.25@117.78mph, 1.96 60' |
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 05:54 PM | #74 | ||
Banned
60
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
You still haven't answered my questions. Second, anecdotal evidence is meaningless. There are countless of cases where particular car ran slower and faster than it was suppose to run. You car is modded according to your signature, and as such your numbers are even more meaningless in the scope of this discussion. If you are a regular at your local drag strip and familiar with corvettes it is not surprising that your numbers would be better than that of someone who just got into the car (e.g. car mag editor, car tester who is testing C6 for the first time). 10hp on 436hp is 2% variance. Unless you are tunning a turbo car on a dyno 30hp difference is very unlikely on the same day on the n/a car. Different dynos report different values. Both of my previous cars ('95 m3 and 20th ann. GTI) have been dynoed on mustang dyno and results were withing 1% on numerous pulls. Even that variance could be attributed to coolant/oil temperatures as the car heats up on later runs. Just about the only thing to throw off a dyno is if you are dynoing in the gear thats not closest to 1:1 ratio. I was not talking about dyno corrections, but about speed/time measurement equipment. Do you have any experience with that equipment that you can confidently say it is inaccurate? Quote:
Again for millionth time how are you attributing 400lbs EVEN if your STOCK C6 ran 120mph traps all day long without tune/headers/exhaust? More power, way more torque, way less weight and way more rubber. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 06:05 PM | #75 | |
Banned
60
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 06:30 PM | #76 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 36
Posts |
There is no point with you. Comman sense means comparing dyno runs on the same dyno on different days. Why would I compare back to back runs on the same dyno?!?! How is that correction factor doing anything but correcting for the exact same conditions as the previous run???
It doesn't matter what I say, your just going to try to argue it even with no point in mind. I could write "no" on a rock and you would argue it. Just continue your neverending trip with the mag's. Your going to be pissed when people start posting actual times.
__________________
2014 Viper TA - Stock - 11.43@132.37mph, 1.95 60'
08 ISF - headers/exhaust - 12.25@117.78mph, 1.96 60' |
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 06:54 PM | #77 | |
Banned
60
Rep 908
Posts
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
iTrader: (0)
Garage List 2000 E39 M5 - current [0.00]
2007 E92 335i - SOLD [0.00] 1996 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] 2000 E39 M5-SOLD [0.00] 2001 E46 M3-SOLD [0.00] 1995 E36 M3-SOLD [0.00] |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 08:05 PM | #78 |
Enlisted Member
0
Rep 36
Posts |
Good boy, keep arguing . The 12yr old comment was nice.
__________________
2014 Viper TA - Stock - 11.43@132.37mph, 1.95 60'
08 ISF - headers/exhaust - 12.25@117.78mph, 1.96 60' |
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 08:15 PM | #79 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
I have no intention to fuel the not so pleasant back and forth on this thread, but I would like someone to directly address Malter’s question on how come the two cars (stock) are posting rather similar performance numbers on a variety of tests despite the weight difference, and what kind of an implication that might have for the quality of engineering embodied in the two designs.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 11:06 PM | #80 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
The new M3 engine has the flattest and broadest torque curve I have ever seen on a normally aspirated street engine. Much broader and flatter than the LS3, and it's significantly better in that regard than even the better Japanese offerings - which previously set that mark of goodness, as far as I know. The last M3 engine was no slouch either, but can't come close to this one. Edit: Other issues have been addressed in regard to tire differences and their effect on traction. I.E. - wide tires tend to have a positive effect on ultimate cornering traction, and none on braking. If those wide tires provide less cornering traction due to construction and materials, it's very likely they won't generate as much traction in hard starts and stops. Frankly, the Vette engineering decision made many years ago in regard to runflats was a very bad one. Fast forward to now, and you can read about dozens of cases where a 335 owner has reached joy and salvation through a simple change of sneakers, so runflats still have problems. The GT-R gives me my first hope for runflats, because even though I think those tires must be very special indeed, at least the technology is coming of age. Bruce Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 04-14-2008 at 11:31 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-14-2008, 11:23 PM | #81 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
hp/tq (ft lb)/link 373/270 E92 371/270 E90 351/259 Saudi Owner 360/266 Magazine Result Last edited by swamp2; 04-14-2008 at 11:39 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-15-2008, 06:45 AM | #83 | ||
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
P.S. I should also add that I wish my car was about 300lbs lighter every time I sit in it. The strange thing is that it really performs like a beast when you push it (not necessarily redline performance, just need to give it close to WOT if you recall our previous discussion) as the numbers indicate. Very agile and precise in all respects. It does feel a bit like a cruiser when you don't push it though, and you kind of go, "damn, I wish this thing was 300lbs lighter" despite the fact that you know it's a performer. It is kind of a strange feeling... I'm not sure if I am exactly okay with that or not, but I know its utility was a big factor in my decision to buy it. It really is two cars in one. On that line of thinking, if I were to ever mod this car, I would try to find drastic ways of reducing weight rather than adding more power (maybe replacing the front seats at some point for instance). Less weight would surely have a much more significant impact on driving enjoyment than more power in this case. The engine is definitely the car's highpoint anyway, and I would refrain from messing with it too much.
__________________
Last edited by lucid; 04-15-2008 at 07:02 AM.. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
04-15-2008, 09:27 AM | #84 | |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
I for one cannot put the power down on my C6, even when I was stock, there is a fine line between feathering the throttle properly and roasting the tires going down the road sideways. Even at the track, I cannot get better than a 2.0-2.1 60 foot time. If traction was not such a big problem, the C6 would post better times. The tires are mostly to blame, many with the C6 that have changed from the run flats, have put down 1.7-1.86 consistent 60 foot times. Last edited by spearfisher; 04-15-2008 at 03:23 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2008, 09:00 PM | #85 |
Private
0
Rep 50
Posts |
Chevy Small Block power FTW. Gettin' power down in first is a shitshow. I just laugh with my vette, granted I barely have tread left right now but still.
lucid, you are on the right track. In all honesty, I'd like to see this motor in the old CSL... ooh ooh... |
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2008, 10:41 PM | #86 | |
Major General
594
Rep 5,448
Posts |
Quote:
Vettes are fast but they dont blow the doors off M3's. BMW M3 (E92) 1:14.3 ´07 420 / 1619 sportauto 42. BMW M6 1:14.4 ´05 507 / 1710 "Sport Auto" 43. Porsche 993 Turbo (3.6) 1:14.4 ´95 408 / 1502 Sportauto 44. Lamborghini Diablo GT 1:14.4 ´99 570 / 1530 Sport Auto 45. Mercedes SLK 55 AMG Black Series 1:14.4 ´06 400 / 1506 Sport Auto 46. Honda NSX-R 1:14.6 ´02 280 / 1270 Sportauto 47. Porsche 996 Turbo 1:14.6 ´00 420 / 1540 Sport Auto 48. Ferrari 575 Maranello 1:14.7 ´02 540 / 1730 "Sport Auto" 49. Chevrolet Corvette C6 1:14.8 ´04 400 / 1470 "Sport Auto"
__________________
Fore Sale Rare 6 speed manual X3 3.oi silver over grey. PM me
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
04-16-2008, 10:48 PM | #87 |
Major General
594
Rep 5,448
Posts |
top gear
36. BMW Z4 M Roadster 1:26.0 ´06 343 / 1485 The Stig 37. BMW M5 1:26.2 ´05 507 / 1830 The Stig 38. Porsche 997 Carrera S 1:26.20 (damp track) ´04 355 / 1420 The Stig 39. Lotus Exige 1:26.4 ´04 192 / 875 The Stig 40. Porsche Cayman S 1:26.7 ´05 295 / 1340 The Stig 41. Ferrari 575 Maranello 1:26.8 ´02 540 / 1730 The Stig 42. Chevrolet Corvette C6 1:26.8 ´04 400 / 1470 The Stig
__________________
Fore Sale Rare 6 speed manual X3 3.oi silver over grey. PM me
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|