M3 Beats Out RS5 and CTS-V Coupe in C&D Shootout

[kaykay]

Impressive #'s for the M3, without a doubt.

We'll see when the magazine comes out, but I'm pretty sure they used a ZCP coupe and the lower center of gravity, wider wheels, modified LC and modified throttle response *could* have something to do with this 0-60 time.

Originally Posted by quality_sound

Why are you wasting money on 100 Octane??? It doesn't come close to hot enough for even 91 Octane to not be high enough. Are you running a really high compression ratio or something?

I remember a post by Pencilgeek, who claimed that 100 octane gave him 28 hp more to the wheels. Bone stock car.

Yes, 28 bhp.

[quality_sound]

^^^Seriously???? Oh, I need to read that. I would be tempted to do it for 28 ponies.

[kaykay]

Check this out Quality, 28 horsepower dyno gain from 100 octane. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

As soon as I'm done with my break-in it's 100 octane time...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=19

[devo]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I'm fairly sure they run with any and all settings to just get the best time possible, i.e. no set standard.



Well the obvious answer is that it does so when C&D test the new M3 ZCP model. What do you think - they used bum equipment, they lied? Have a look at the database I referred to earlier. These numbers are only ever so slightly better than the best non ZCP cars tested to date. It really sucks how much bang for the buck you can get from an M3 vs. Porsche, huh?

I made my statements because I feel the M3's times, especially the 9.4, 0-100, are a bit exaggerated. Are you really that insecure about your BMW that you need to make this something about a Porsche. I realize the bang for the buck an M provides, however, am not going to make this a Porsche vs BMW M thread.

Isn't there some data that you can over-analyze to support your bang for buck theory? I'm sure it's coming... Maybe then you can go into an overly long and exaggerated dissertation into how you arrived at your conclusion. Please, I haven't been bored in awhile.

[devo]

Originally Posted by kaykay

Impressive #'s for the M3, without a doubt.

We'll see when the magazine comes out, but I'm pretty sure they used a ZCP coupe and the lower center of gravity, wider wheels, modified LC and modified throttle response *could* have something to do with this 0-60 time.



I remember a post by Pencilgeek, who claimed that 100 octane gave him 28 hp more to the wheels. Bone stock car.

Yes, 28 bhp.

The lower CG (minimal in this case) and modifed throttle response will have nothing to do with the improved acceleration. The throttle response is more front loaded hence no gain at full throttle. Improved LC can obviously make some difference. I wouldn't expect much as it was only modified and others cars had LC.

[BMW269]

M owners are insecure in about their M. They know that they are the "best" cars, but it is hard to prove without letting the person try it.

[devo]

Originally Posted by Levi

M owners are insecure in about their M. They know that they are the "best" cars, but it is hard to prove without letting the person try it.

I have come to realize this and have decided to trade in my gt3 for FIVE and a half M3s. We all know you can buy that many for the price of a Porsche and the M is faster.

[quality_sound]

Originally Posted by kaykay

Check this out Quality, 28 horsepower dyno gain from 100 octane. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

As soon as I'm done with my break-in it's 100 octane time...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=19

Wow...that's pretty impressive. I've NEVER seen a car do that before, especially if not specifically set up for high octane gas.

[graider]

Originally Posted by devo

I made my statements because I feel the M3's times, especially the 9.4, 0-100, are a bit exaggerated. Are you really that insecure about your BMW that you need to make this something about a Porsche. I realize the bang for the buck an M provides, however, am not going to make this a Porsche vs BMW M thread.

Isn't there some data that you can over-analyze to support your bang for buck theory? I'm sure it's coming... Maybe then you can go into an overly long and exaggerated dissertation into how you arrived at your conclusion. Please, I haven't been bored in awhile.

it was clearly indicated by some members that it was a roll out start 5-60mph, not standing start from 0-60mph.

i noticed you seem to trash/doubt bmw anywhere you can in every posts. i guess this is how porsche owners mindset are. I can clearly see lot of similarity from you and shift@red in 99.9% of the posts. I think everybody know that gt3 is better than the m3 in performance, so don't need to justify your purchase every time here. it just getting too funny.

[devo]

Originally Posted by graider

it was clearly indicated by some members that it was a roll out start 5-60mph, not standing start from 0-60mph.

i noticed you seem to trash bmw anywhere you can in every posts. i guess this is how porsche owners mindset are. I can clearly see lot of similarity from you and shift@red in 99.9% of the posts. we all know that gt3 is better than the m3 in performance, so don't need to justify your purchase every time here.

Didn't see that it was a confirmed roll out which would make a bunch more sense. Shift@red, myself and some others just don't like M hype for the sake of it. Many M owners believe their car IS either faster or so close to Porsches, Lambos and any other exotic, that it becomes comical. Countless posts of mine praise the M; even parts of the aformentioned ones in this very thread. I'm not justifying my purchase; admittantly not fond of Swamp's statement hence my responses.

Again, I plan to trade my 335 for a M or GTR as my dd so I have everything to gain knowing the performance is there. Anyway, did not realize it was a roll out.

[erio]

Originally Posted by graider

it was clearly indicated by some members that it was a roll out start 5-60mph, not standing start from 0-60mph.

i noticed you seem to trash/doubt bmw anywhere you can in every posts. i guess this is how porsche owners mindset are. I can clearly see lot of similarity from you and shift@red in 99.9% of the posts. I think everybody know that gt3 is better than the m3 in performance, so don't need to justify your purchase every time here. it just getting too funny.

C+D always uses a roll out 5-60 time and a 0-60. Both numbers are posted in the original thread.Therefore, I beleive the 0-60 is indeed 0-60 without rollout. Maybe I'm missing something here? Rolling 5-60 is 4.4 sec. Maybe they used launch control, but that would not explain why all the other cars did better in their 0-60 runs. The 0-60 is ususally faster if you go back and look at other reviews on the M3 or any other car.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by devo

I made my statements because I feel the M3's times, especially the 9.4, 0-100, are a bit exaggerated.

You should clarify "exaggerated". The choices are not that many. Let's cover all of them.

-This car was an intentionally under rated "press only" car
-All ZCP M3s are underrated
-Their instruments are bad or miscalibrated
-The outright lied

Or of course the most obvious one is:

-The M3 ZCP has numerous performance enhancements, each minor but when combined and combined with good conditions (road surface and weather) yielded some results just outside the best non ZCP times seen thus far.

So what does exaggerated mean exactly?

Originally Posted by devo

Are you really that insecure about your BMW that you need to make this something about a Porsche. I realize the bang for the buck an M provides, however, am not going to make this a Porsche vs BMW M thread.

Sorry buddy this is not about me. It is you who spends way too much time in BMW forums talking about the superiority of Porsche. Regardless of the nice things you say about BMW the time spent doing the former is really quite odd. Pot, kettle, black. I'm totally secure about my own automotive decisions and understand where the cars sits in any sort of heirarchies, performance, prestige, etc., etc. And I still love 997s...

Originally Posted by devo

Isn't there some data that you can over-analyze to support your bang for buck theory? I'm sure it's coming... Maybe then you can go into an overly long and exaggerated dissertation into how you arrived at your conclusion. Please, I haven't been bored in awhile.

Ugh, read the thread. In post #32 I provide the link to an extensive database of performance results. I think that alone goes a very long way toward showing the legitimacy of the numbers from C&D. Now granted those are just about the performance side. I think we've beat to death the question of "bang for the buck" with the M3. The obvious comparison is indeed vs the 997 S.

Of course we will all recall your strong defense of outlier type of numbers for the 997 S when the debate was M3 vs. 997 S performance. You can't have it both ways.

[M3_WC]

Good review of stock cars. We all know that there is gobs of cheap hp/tq just hiding under that CTS-V hood.

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by PunjabiM3

The M3 tested in this article must have been a factory freak. Was the test done in Europe? If so the better times could be explained by the higher quality/grade fuel available in Europe. I remember the first ever driving test I read about the e92 M3 (I think it was R&T); it was a melbourne red 6MT tested in Germany that did 0-60 in 4.1s and 0-100 in 9.4s. Every test of the M3 (esp the 6MT) I have seen since then had been considerably slower, with the 6MT 0-60 times of 4.4-4.5s and 0-100 times of around 10.2-10.6s.

Road and Track ran a 4.1 0-60 and a 1/4 mile in 12.5@114.8mph with a 6MT car back in 08.

Here is the data panel..

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...88724e04c1.pdf


Also, Edmunds shows the base starting price of the RS5 at $80k, I mean with options this thing could easily be knocking on the door of a $100k. Are they correct?

Dave

[graider]

I didn't have a chance to watch the short video by c&d until now. damn the m3 looks the best and sounds the best out of the three. the m3 is showing how much effort bmw put into the engineering of the m3 and it shows even against competitors that are 2 years newer such as the rs5 and cts-v. I'm impressed. e9x m3 is clearly the replacement for my e46 m3.

m3 has all the right curves in the right places. something that is not easy to do to a boxy style saloon.

[Dave07997S]

Originally Posted by kaykay

Check this out Quality, 28 horsepower dyno gain from 100 octane. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

As soon as I'm done with my break-in it's 100 octane time...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=19

After 95 (R+m/2) octane there is a point of diminishing return. You could probably get similar results with 95 octane and save yourself a bunch of money per tankful.

Dave

[srt8/bmw]

it seems odd to me to compare the CTS-V to the M3. I always felt like the M5 was the better comparison in terms of size/wheelbase/interior room etc...

Also--those are substantially better numbers for the M3 acceleration and braking than C and D had posted before for the M3. Was more like;

4.1 0-60
12.6 @113 for the 1/4
161 ft for the 60-0 braking

the V did:
3.9 0-60
12.2 @119
154 ft 60-0 braking.

and a faster Ring lap as well...

Maybe its a style thing??? The V wins across the board in perfromance.
the rest is subjective I guess. But when I bought my V i Compared it to the M5, and will look again when the new M5 comes out,

[graider]

Originally Posted by swamp2

You should clarify "exaggerated". The choices are not that many. Let's cover all of them.

-This car was an intentionally under rated "press only" car
-All ZCP M3s are underrated
-Their instruments are bad or miscalibrated
-The outright lied

Or of course the most obvious one is:

-The M3 ZCP has numerous performance enhancements, each minor but when combined and combined with good conditions (road surface and weather) yielded some results just outside the best non ZCP times seen thus far.

So what does exaggerated mean exactly?



Sorry buddy this is not about me. It is you who spends way too much time in BMW forums talking about the superiority of Porsche. Regardless of the nice things you say about BMW the time spent doing the former is really quite odd. Pot, kettle, black. I'm totally secure about my own automotive decisions and understand where the cars sits in any sort of heirarchies, performance, prestige, etc., etc. And I still love 997s...



Ugh, read the thread. In post #32 I provide the link to an extensive database of performance results. I think that alone goes a very long way toward showing the legitimacy of the numbers from C&D. Now granted those are just about the performance side. I think we've beat to death the question of "bang for the buck" with the M3. The obvious comparison is indeed vs the 997 S.

Of course we will all recall your strong defense of outlier type of numbers for the 997 S when the debate was M3 vs. 997 S performance. You can't have it both ways.

spot on. i'm sure when c&d posts outrageous number of a porsche 911 or cayman, these guys will take them as true numbers because they are porches. LOL

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I know there is still some debate about whether DSC and or EDC software is actually revised. I think there is some evidence here to indicate that DSC has been revised.

As far as I know, swamp, it is considered official that for ZCP cars the EDC Sport Mode was revised to be active instead of fixed, and MDM DSC mode is revised to allow more slippage/yaw before intervening. The details of the EDC change have been discussed with specifics but I don't remember the numbers. I am not sure if anything specific is known about the MDM changes as far as quantitative figures go.

Other than this, there are no other changes. So, assuming this acceleration test and prior such tests were run with launch control on, the DSC change would not be a factor (LC requires DSC off, and can not be used in MDM mode). Not sure if that was the case though. EDC changes may or may not have been a factor either - depends on whether this test and previous tests were done in Sport mode or not (my guess is that previously they were typically done in normal mode).

Recent changes to the M-DCT software could in theory also play a role in acceleration times, though there's nothing to suggest that this is necessarily the case, and no way to know for certain.

[ORIGIN M.]

Nice, the M3's mighty grip, allows it to almost nail a full G... Outstanding!

[erio]

I bet the cts is a blast to drive. However, I agree that it should be more fair to compare it with the m5 given it's brute power, but it's performance numbers don't match up. We are talking a 142hp and 253 lb torque difference with the m3. A supercharged M3 with proper suspension changes would likely far outperform the caddi.

[Golgothar]

I think it's fair to say that both C & D and R & T have it BAD for BMW in general.

That being said GO M3!!