Test drove a 1M.. WOW.

[GotM]

Originally Posted by shift@red

How about 60-130 mph?
How about 0-100?
0-80?
100-150?

With the modeling I have created that compares the 1M to a M3(6Mt), assuming best gear for acceleration is being used:
60-130 ->M3 wins ~0.4s delta
0-100 -> ~tie
0-80 ->1M wins ~0.1s delta
100-150 - >M3 wins ~0.6s delta

The model is not perfect by any means, but a way to compare using torque, weight and gearing.

[pbonsalb]

Or you could use the Automobile Magazine test of the M3 versus 1M. The 1M was faster to 60 and faster to 110 (though only by about one tenth). That covers it for most daily driving and street encounters.

We will soon be reading that the M3 driver would have won "if the race had continued from 100 to 160 mph" just like we have often read that the M3 would have won "in the twisties."

If BMW had put the DCT in the 1M, the performance would have been even better.

[MaxL]

Originally Posted by nonagon

Fine, then we'll just say faster, instead of much faster.


BMW 1M
30-50mph in 3rd/4th 2.4 / 3.3 sec
40-60mph in 4th/5th 3.2 / 3.8 sec
50-70mph in 5th 4.0 sec

BMW M3 4.0 V8
30-50mph in 3rd/4th 3.1 / 4.3 sec
40-60mph in 4th/5th 4.1 / 5.2 sec
50-70mph in 5th 5.0 sec

Stupid comparison (and I almost never use such strong words on a public forum), but that's what it is. Why would anyone who even remotely cares about speed do 30-50 in 3rd or 4th gear in M3? Second goes to 71MPH, so why not use it for all ranges in the test? 40-60 in 5th in M3 is not just pointless - if someone ever does that hoping to go fast, they seriously need driving school. Comparing cars in neutral would be about as smart as this...

[Nine]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Ok...Im not talking about models or simulations. Lets look at the real data we have.

My info here is based on these two sources.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...e4ae092da7.pdf

http://www.**************.com/1-seri...st-bmw-1m.html

60-130 - 1m= 15.9 sec M3= ~12 sec (60-120 was 9.5 sec)
0-60 - 1m= 4.6 sec M3=4.1
0-100 - 1M= 11.3 M3=9.4 (typically ~10 seconds)
0-80 - 1M=7.5 sec M3=6.6 sec
100-150 not sure on, but the m3 will be significantly faster

So it appears real world data doesnt confirm what your model is spitting out. The M3 is faster in all these metrics, and by good margin. The higher the speeds, the m3 gets stronger and the 1m falls off.

Exactly. Thank you.

Originally Posted by MaxL

Stupid comparison (and I almost never use such strong words on a public forum), but that's what it is. Why would anyone who even remotely cares about speed do 30-50 in 3rd or 4th gear in M3? Second goes to 71MPH, so why not use it for all ranges in the test? 40-60 in 5th in M3 is not just pointless - if someone ever does that hoping to go fast, they seriously need driving school. Comparing cars in neutral would be about as smart as this...

Exactly. Thank you.

[ssabripo]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Ok...Im not talking about models or simulations. Lets look at the real data we have.

My info here is based on these two sources.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...e4ae092da7.pdf

http://www.**************.com/1-seri...st-bmw-1m.html

60-130 - 1m= 15.9 sec M3= ~12 sec (60-120 was 9.5 sec)
0-60 - 1m= 4.6 sec M3=4.1
0-100 - 1M= 11.3 M3=9.4 (typically ~10 seconds)
0-80 - 1M=7.5 sec M3=6.6 sec
100-150 not sure on, but the m3 will be significantly faster

So it appears real world data doesnt confirm what your model is spitting out. The M3 is faster in all these metrics, and by good margin. The higher the speeds, the m3 gets stronger and the 1m falls off.

Originally Posted by MaxL

Stupid comparison (and I almost never use such strong words on a public forum), but that's what it is. Why would anyone who even remotely cares about speed do 30-50 in 3rd or 4th gear in M3? Second goes to 71MPH, so why not use it for all ranges in the test? 40-60 in 5th in M3 is not just pointless - if someone ever does that hoping to go fast, they seriously need driving school. Comparing cars in neutral would be about as smart as this...

THANK YOU!!

/thread

[MAERD TEW]

I'm a huge fan of forced induction cars, got a 335i. Let us really make this simple with 2 simple facts my dad taught me:

1) Longer wheelbase, better handling, easier to correct driving line, better power to tires (M3 Wins)

2) There is no replacement for displacement. (M3 Wins)

1M is just to get people into the feel of an M car (M=most powerful letter in the English language). The M3 is the proven car time and time again.

[EuroTrip]

You guys are absolutely ridiculous.

Stop comparing 0-60, 0-100, 30-100 nonsense...you sound like a bunch of MBZ fanboys and need to stfu.

These two cars are built to turn. Go assess how they handle at the track if you have something to say, otherwise don't say anything at all.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by MaxL

Stupid comparison (and I almost never use such strong words on a public forum), but that's what it is. Why would anyone who even remotely cares about speed do 30-50 in 3rd or 4th gear in M3? Second goes to 71MPH, so why not use it for all ranges in the test? 40-60 in 5th in M3 is not just pointless - if someone ever does that hoping to go fast, they seriously need driving school. Comparing cars in neutral would be about as smart as this...

Not at all stupid, as carefully explained in note 40. Use your head. Even for track junkies (as I used to be), well over 90% of driving is not on track - and you're not going for the red line all the time on the street without eventually paying the piper.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Ok...Im not talking about models or simulations. Lets look at the real data we have.

My info here is based on these two sources.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...e4ae092da7.pdf

http://www.**************.com/1-seri...st-bmw-1m.html

60-130 - 1m= 15.9 sec M3= ~12 sec (60-120 was 9.5 sec)
0-60 - 1m= 4.6 sec M3=4.1
0-100 - 1M= 11.3 M3=9.4 (typically ~10 seconds)
0-80 - 1M=7.5 sec M3=6.6 sec
100-150 not sure on, but the m3 will be significantly faster

So it appears real world data doesnt confirm what your model is spitting out. The M3 is faster in all these metrics, and by good margin. The higher the speeds, the m3 gets stronger and the 1m falls off.

That is a stupid comparison. Two totally different publications, different methods and equipment in which the metrics you are spouting of were obtained. One uses a 1ft rollout the other does not. etc. etc.

Here is the CARandDriver data. Different days but at least same testing methods. It shows the cars perform is almost identical when pushed to there respective limits. But there is no denying the 1M has 'more useable' power. The 'in gear' numbers reflect that. It is a meaningful test because 99.9% of the time when you are driving your car, you are in the 2-6k RPM range.


1M
0-30: 1.8
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 10.9
1/4mile: 13sec@109
30-50: 6.6sec
50-60: 5.6sec
05-60: 5sec
M3
0-30: 1.7
0-60: 4.4
0-100: 10.3
1/4mile: 12.9sec@111
30-50: 7.7sec
50-70: 7.1sec
05-60: 5.1sec


Just look at the dyno graph below. From 2k-6.4k the 1M has more hp and tq, the M3 obviously comes alive at that point and has more from 6.4-8.4k. One car has more power over 4,400rpm range the other over a 2,000rpm range, plain and simple!

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by shift@red

....but can you personally confirm that both cars has the same amount of tread...?......I could even go as far as to say one might have even had more downhill slope helping one car over the other.

I don't know if you are joking or not...?

Anyways, I just read this in the recent Automobile's Full test and M3zcp Comparo Same day, same driver, same testing methods, same "slope"...

The results:
0-60
1M: 4.5s
M3: 4.7s
0-100
1M: 10.8s
M3: 10.8s
1/4 mile
1M: 13.1s @ 110
M3: 13.2s @ 110

Like I said, both VERY similar results.

[Cars are the new horse]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

That is a stupid comparison. Two totally different publications, different methods and equipment in which the metrics you are spouting of were obtained. One uses a 1ft rollout the other does not. etc. etc.

Here is the CARandDriver data. Different days but at least same testing methods. It shows the cars perform is almost identical when pushed to there respective limits. But there is no denying the 1M has 'more useable' power. The 'in gear' numbers reflect that. It is a meaningful test because 99.9% of the time when you are driving your car, you are in the 2-6k RPM range.


1M
0-30: 1.8
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 10.9
1/4mile: 13sec@109
30-50: 6.6sec
50-60: 5.6sec
05-60: 5sec
M3
0-30: 1.7
0-60: 4.4
0-100: 10.3
1/4mile: 12.9sec@111
30-50: 7.7sec
50-70: 7.1sec
05-60: 5.1sec


Just look at the dyno graph below. From 2k-6.4k the 1M has more hp and tq, the M3 obviously comes alive at that point and has more from 6.4-8.4k. One car has more power over 4,400rpm range the other over a 2,000rpm range, plain and simple!

Why not use the Car and Driver that got a 3.9s 0-60 and 1/4 mile time of 12.4? See attached. Unless you just don't want to make the 1M people feel bad?

[quads]

I was able to replicate 3.9s 0-60 with launch control in my 2011 ZCP with DCT. I have traqmate data to prove it.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by nirvanayoda

Why not use the Car and Driver that got a 3.9s 0-60 and 1/4 mile time of 12.4? See attached. Unless you just don't want to make the 1M people feel bad?

I don't bring out the 'sigh' sign for just any reason, but this is deserving of it. I don't care if it hurts the 1M owners feeling or M3 owners for that matter. Facts are facts. I used the car and driver data they got from the 6MT test. Your test was done with the 7DCT. So if you want an apples to apples comparison that is what you need to use. So, how do you like them apples?

[Cars are the new horse]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

I don't bring out the 'sigh' sign for just any reason, but this is deserving of it. I don't care if it hurts the 1M owners feeling or M3 owners for that matter. Facts are facts. I used the car and driver data they got from the 6MT test. Your test was done with the 7DCT. So if you want an apples to apples comparison that is what you need to use. So, how do you like them apples?

But why is comparing a 1M to a DCT M3 apples to oranges? We are comparing the 1M to the M3, regardless of transmission. The DCT M3 is the much faster car according to the attachment I provided. Just because the 1M is crippled and does not have a DCT does not mean you get to take that advantage away from the M3.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

Anyone else notice you are comparing a WHP graph on the m3 to a crank hp graph on the 1m? The 1m does not have 340 whp-this is engine HP at 330 and torque a bit higher.

WRONG, both are WHP!
Original dyno graph of the 1M:

VIDEO of the dyno:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRKrp...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

...(look)only the powerbands of each. For an m3 you look at 5.5-8.3.

1m you can look at 2-5k. Those are the comparisons.

The range I stated is correct.
Advantage: 2-6.4K for the 1M and 6.4-8.4k for the M3

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

....its not an opinion or certain tastes, its a mathmatical certainty that the m3 is faster when each car is driven in the powerband.

Obviously not so certain, when you can find several tests that show the 1M is faster and several tests in which the M3 is faster. This would indicate that the performance is very similar.

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

The 1m is quicker and has more HP for "city" driving in the 1-5k range, no questions about it. So I will not lie if you are not willing to drive the car hard, an 1m is much much much easier to extract the power out of but it is much less rewarding and much less capable if the m3 is driven properly.

much less rewarding? getting into that 'opinion' territory and away from the mathematical certainty.

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

There is a reason it is 10k more in cost guys. BMW is not stupid. The s65 engine is EAISLY worth 10k alone.

So now you're saying the S65 is worth $10k more than the 1M's N54 engine?

Originally Posted by Wall$treet

its easily answered which is faster. We have the weight, gearing and dyno graphs of each! No need to argue

When people make statements that are not true about the above dyno chart and inject their own 'opinions', that's what spawns the disagreements...

[mPlasticDesign]

Actually....

See graph in previous post.

[ssabripo]

Originally Posted by ///Metak

That is a stupid comparison. Two totally different publications, different methods and equipment in which the metrics you are spouting of were obtained. One uses a 1ft rollout the other does not. etc. etc.

Here is the CARandDriver data. Different days but at least same testing methods. It shows the cars perform is almost identical when pushed to there respective limits. But there is no denying the 1M has 'more useable' power. The 'in gear' numbers reflect that. It is a meaningful test because 99.9% of the time when you are driving your car, you are in the 2-6k RPM range.

1M
0-30: 1.8
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 10.9
1/4mile: 13sec@109
30-50: 6.6sec
50-60: 5.6sec
05-60: 5sec
M3
0-30: 1.7
0-60: 4.4
0-100: 10.3
1/4mile: 12.9sec@111
30-50: 7.7sec
50-70: 7.1sec
05-60: 5.1sec


Just look at the dyno graph below. From 2k-6.4k the 1M has more hp and tq, the M3 obviously comes alive at that point and has more from 6.4-8.4k. One car has more power over 4,400rpm range the other over a 2,000rpm range, plain and simple!

why are you using an old M3 number, and not the latest one:
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...e8c595c4b5.pdf

I updated your numbers with it:

1M
0-30: 1.8
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 10.9
1/4mile: 13sec@109
30-50: 6.6sec
50-60: 5.6sec
05-60: 5sec

M3
0-30: 1.5
0-60: 3.9
0-100: 9.4
1/4mile: 12.4sec @ 114
30-50: 2.5sec
50-70: 3.4sec
05-60: 4.4sec

I'm pretty sure this is a much more accurate relation, given that I've only had my M3 for a month or so, 1800miles, and on just my very 1st LC attempt I was able to get around 4.1 0-60, and 12.7 @111....

bottom line, we are debating something that is stupid: Both cars are outstanding for what they are, and it will be a driver's race for the most part!

ps- please stop with the strawman's argument of "M3 had DCT blah blah blah", because it is just that, a dumb attempt to cripple the M3 on your part to make your point a bit more "believable". The M-DCT is on the M3, it is NOT on the 1M....no need to take it out of the equation just because it doesn't suit your point. It is akin to saying don't use the "power" button on the M3 because the 1M comes with only a 6 cylinder engine with less HP, etc.

Originally Posted by nirvanayoda

Why not use the Car and Driver that got a 3.9s 0-60 and 1/4 mile time of 12.4? See attached. Unless you just don't want to make the 1M people feel bad?

[1MOREMOD]

do we really care?

[quads]

Left: 1M
Right: M3

[ss134]

Originally Posted by IAA-C63

Just a quick note that Evo magazine (July 2011) has tracked both the 1M and M3 and got essentially identical times. They also like the 1M better overall, while still regarding the M3 as a great car. One of the points they emphasize is that the flatter torque curve of the 1M is more usable on public roads.

Agree that the 1M is a great car but definately not more usable on all public roads..............here in Germany on the autobahn the S65 is insane at higher speeds - i have no doubt the 1M wouldn't stand a chance above 100mph. Would definately like to test drive one though and yes in most daily driving you can probably enjoy more of its motor more of the time.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by ss134

Agree that the 1M is a great car but definately not more usable on all public roads..............here in Germany on the autobahn the S65 is insane at higher speeds - i have no doubt the 1M wouldn't stand a chance above 100mph. Would definately like to test drive one though and yes in most daily driving you can probably enjoy more of its motor more of the time.

I still don't see how you can enjoy the motor more when daily driving. If I want to enjoy the S65 I just don't shift as early. If I'm in gear and need to move quickly, it only takes a second to downshift 1-2 gears and I'm in the power band. And personally, I consider that fun. So I guess we should correct the statement:

The N54 provides a more usable power band for the lazy driver.

[DoorKicker]

Going to be honest, I went from a wicked boxer rumble (STi) and the M3s V8 is sublimely refined to me. I've always admired F1 cars and having a V8 rev that high to me is priceless. The M3s motor is why I am an owner today. The 1M got a hand-me-down drivetrain. Not to say its not an excellent car but it doesn't have the unique design the M3 does. Maybe I'm too new but if the 1M was that close to the M3 they'd have never made it. There's a reason it costs +20,000 less.