M3 Nurburgring Time = 7:57

[enigma]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

Great..I agree.. your point?

You were the one to claim the RS4 was faster in gear. I was just pointing out your data was useless since it was "wrong gear" acceleration. No one in their right mind is going to be pulling out of a 50mph turn in 4th on the track.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

Sorry Swamp, but you are getting a bit wild..

The 'performance figures' thread you refer to shows the RS4 to have a faster 0-60, 1/4mi times..

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...t=70737&page=9

"Our nice thread tracking performance figures places the M3 quite a bit ahead of the RS4" just sounds a tad fanboy-ish since its not correct at all.. And putting "quite a bit" in there just puts the cherry on the heap

Sorry.. just had to point that out.

Yes, my contribution to the performance figures that is totally open to the best times from all competitors is really fanboy-ish. Ugh . You can read as well as I can - the M3 bests the RS4 in 2 of 3 0-X times, one of the braking contests and both N'ring and Hockenheim times. The RS4 bests the M3 ever so slightly in 3 or so of 11 categores. So as I see it I stand by my original statement. No one ever said the M3 trounces the RS4 at the drag stripm and I certainly never said the RS4 was not a fantastic car...

Furthermore the C&D 0-60 time of 4.4s as well as their 1/4 mi time was on a surface with traction problems. They noted this explicitly and said they expect better times in the future. Last but not least is the the M-DCT which is going to really improve numbers across the board, strip and track.

Thanks for your advice anyway. I am now going to: "settle down", stop being "fanboy-ish", stop "going nuts" and of course stop making "false statements".

[absoluteis350]

Again, Swamp, you are blowing things out of proportion based on that threads facts:

When you say the RS4 beats the M3 "in only" 3 of 11 categories you are heavily implying the M3 wins the rest. Here are the facts, please get them straight:
RS4 has no entry in 3 categories (no official M3 nurburgring times also)
M3 beats the RS4 in 4 categories
RS4 beats the M3 in 3 categories

So I guess you can say that the M3 beats the RS4 in "only" 4 of 11 categories.

I guess we have a different view of what "quite a bit ahead" means. Its more like have basically the same performance, except for braking.

Again, I dont really care in which car is better, I just hate when people misquote facts. Your contribution to the performance thread is great. I am just shocked that you are misquoting the information !

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

Again, Swamp, you are blowing things out of proportion based on that threads facts:

When you say the RS4 beats the M3 "in only" 3 of 11 categories you are heavily implying the M3 wins the rest. Here are the facts, please get them straight:
RS4 has no entry in 3 categories (no official M3 nurburgring times also)
M3 beats the RS4 in 4 categories
RS4 beats the M3 in 3 categories

So I guess you can say that the M3 beats the RS4 in "only" 4 of 11 categories.

I guess we have a different view of what "quite a bit ahead" means. Its more like have basically the same performance, except for braking.

Again, I dont really care in which car is better, I just hate when people misquote facts. Your contribution to the performance thread is great. I am just shocked that you are misquoting the information !

Well at least we can agree on the facts. Your summary is just about identical to mine stated slightly differently. Would you really expect a connotative view point favoring the RS4 on m3post.com?

There is more to the numbers than can be gleaned from a literal view of them as well. Sure maybe the numbers are not available yet or are unofficial in one instance, but to me (and most reasonable folks) it is pretty clear that:

-With good traction C&D will match or best the RS4 0-60
-RS4 has NO CHANCE against the M3 0-1000m
-1/4 mi - see bullet point 1 above
-M3 has and will continue to best the RS4 in the most important category - all around performance as inidicated by track times
-Last, I just can't say this one often enough, M-DCT will make a huge difference offering 1/4 - 1/3 second gains PER SHIFT.

I will continue to tell you I really like and appreciate the RS4. It was a more revolutionary car than the M3 and has features the M3 absolutely should have but doesn't (most notably DI). You do not need to defend the car you drive so vehemently here. Most of us really like the car. It is simply that AWD and its weight make it a lot less track/twisties capable.

Sorry to continue to distort the facts so blatantly...

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by enigma

Umm, how are "in the wrong gear" acceleration numbers usefull? If you are starting at 49mph, put the car in 2nd, not 4th.

Torque is the single most overrated car stat, ever.

As long as you narrow your statement to include only flat out top speed or on a relatively quick road course, you are completely correct. Otherwise, torque tends to be more important than horsepower - or at least *as* important. That is to say, even for track nuts like me, torque tends to be a bit more important than horsepower for at least 95% of my driving.

As for your question "Umm, how are "in the wrong gear" acceleration numbers usefull?"

They're very useful in anything but flat out racing. These numbers will give you a good idea of how flexible the engine/power train is in everyday driving. I personally don't know many folks who think measuring top gear acceleration is worth a damn (think Car & Driver 30-50 and 50-70 mph times), but *everybody* appreciates a car that gives you a nice, quiet shove in the back in top gear when you need it and use it.

Torque is your absolute friend.

Bruce

[enigma]

Originally Posted by swamp2

-Last, I just can't say this one often enough, M-DCT will make a huge difference offering 1/4 - 1/3 second gains PER SHIFT.

The part that people usually miss about DCT is its likely to have diffrent gear ratios. The new manual car like the old E46 has fairly widely spaced gears. Thats nice with a manual because you are not so busy while driving and it has a wide enough power band its not a big issue. However, with the DCT busy isn't an issue and close spacing of the gears would give the car a further edge in acceleration.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Otherwise, torque tends to be more important than horsepower - or at least *as* important. That is to say, even for track nuts like me, torque tends to be a bit more important than horsepower for at least 95% of my driving.

As for your question "Umm, how are "in the wrong gear" acceleration numbers usefull?"

They're very useful in anything but flat out racing. These numbers will give you a good idea of how flexible the engine/power train is in everyday driving.

Sorry but this is flat out wrong. You like so many are doing two things wrong.

1: Confusing torque with usable power band. If you took the old I6 out of the E46 and put a 330hp chevy V8 in, would it be faster? Nope. The reason is the I6 has a very wide power band just like the V8. Everything happens at higher RPM but the drivetranin multiplies that through gearing so the acceleration is the same. If torque were more important than HP we would all be racing 100hp disel engines.

2: All these cars are more than flexible enough in day to day driving. People here act like having to downshift is a huge burden on the highway. The new M3 will pull better in gear than the old M3 and no normal person complained about it. If you are really in that big of a hury, just put the car in the right freaking gear and go.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by enigma

Sorry but this is flat out wrong. You like so many are doing two things wrong.

1: Confusing torque with usable power band. If you took the old I6 out of the E46 and put a 330hp chevy V8 in, would it be faster? Nope. The reason is the I6 has a very wide power band just like the V8. Everything happens at higher RPM but the drivetranin multiplies that through gearing so the acceleration is the same. If torque were more important than HP we would all be racing 100hp disel engines.

Not to be condescending (or maybe just a little), what part of "They're very useful in anything but flat out racing. These numbers will give you a good idea of how flexible the engine/power train is in everyday driving." didn't you get?

As I've already said, I pretty much agree with you about torque being fairly unimportant in a race. It still tends to matter a little bit, but not a bunch. (Power being equal, the engine with more torque will pull harder just after each shift, because it's obviously making more power at that point. However, that's small potatoes.)

In everyday driving, the Chevy V8 will be a bunch quicker than the M3 motor, because it's making a bunch more power at low and medium rpm than the M3 motor is.

Originally Posted by enigma

2: All these cars are more than flexible enough in day to day driving. People here act like having to downshift is a huge burden on the highway. The new M3 will pull better in gear than the old M3 and no normal person complained about it. If you are really in that big of a hury, just put the car in the right freaking gear and go.

OK, that's just plain silly. What you are apparently attempting to do in this paragraph is to say that having a more responsive car when you tickle the gas out on the highway is *not* better than having a less responsive car.

That's ridiculous.

One of the nicest surprises we've ever had with our E36 M3 was how much more responsive it was out on the highway than our recently traded '93 Vette LT-1 6-speed. Granted, once in the right gear, the Vette would absolutely blow the doors off the M3 from any speed to any other speed, but if you wanted to make a move in traffic, you needed a downshift. That wasn't a burden, but it costs you time. Under similar circumstances, the M3 was a delight.

Our E46 M3 is a little quicker than the E36 was in top gear, but even so, I wish it had more punch under those circumstances.

The fact is, if you want to go fast in the E46 M3, you're going to have to rev the hell out of it, and you and I and everybody else would agree that if it had 50 more pound feet of torque, it would simply be a better car. Edit: This would give the car that effortlessly fast feeling that feels so good, even thought it wouldn't be much quicker in a flat out race.

Of course, you could say that about almost any car.

The new M3 looks as if it will be quite flexible in any gear (BMW having apparently sacrificed the max torque number in favor of a very wide torque curve), but never tell me more ain't better.

Bruce

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by enigma

The part that people usually miss about DCT is its likely to have diffrent gear ratios. The new manual car like the old E46 has fairly widely spaced gears. Thats nice with a manual because you are not so busy while driving and it has a wide enough power band its not a big issue. However, with the DCT busy isn't an issue and close spacing of the gears would give the car a further edge in acceleration.

Absolutely right. The time saved per shift is a lower limit on the total improvements which almost for sure include closer spaced gears and lower gears for better acceleration.

[jworms]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

Again, Swamp, you are blowing things out of proportion based on that threads facts:

When you say the RS4 beats the M3 "in only" 3 of 11 categories you are heavily implying the M3 wins the rest. Here are the facts, please get them straight:
RS4 has no entry in 3 categories (no official M3 nurburgring times also)
M3 beats the RS4 in 4 categories
RS4 beats the M3 in 3 categories

So I guess you can say that the M3 beats the RS4 in "only" 4 of 11 categories.

I guess we have a different view of what "quite a bit ahead" means. Its more like have basically the same performance, except for braking.

Again, I dont really care in which car is better, I just hate when people misquote facts. Your contribution to the performance thread is great. I am just shocked that you are misquoting the information !

doesn't the US spec RS4 weigh around 4000lbs? i'm almost certain i've seen this quoted in numerous places including Audi USA's website and 3rd party magazines (i'd dig up the links, but i'm too lazy right now). so if you live in the US the RS4 is not gonna be competition for the M3 by any means. like i've said in the past, the M3 is more competition for the R8 as far as raw performance goes.

[enigma]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

In everyday driving, the Chevy V8 will be a bunch quicker than the M3 motor, because it's making a bunch more power at low and medium rpm than the M3 motor is.

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

One of the nicest surprises we've ever had with our E36 M3 was how much more responsive it was out on the highway than our recently traded '93 Vette LT-1 6-speed.

I think you just proved me right... All that "torque" in the Lt-1 isn't doing you any good. HP + Gearing is what you want. Is a car with an overdrive less responsive because you choose to use it? Thats what you are saying. The extra tall gears in the chevy allow you to select a "more wrong" gear, then you complain you are in the wrong gear.

Its not the car makers fault they give you a gearbox that allows you to pick a wrong gear. Do that in any car, and its not going to go. On the other hand a car with decent power and a nice wide power band will always be fun to drive in the right gear.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by enigma

I think you just proved me right... All that "torque" in the Lt-1 isn't doing you any good. HP + Gearing is what you want. Is a car with an overdrive less responsive because you choose to use it? Thats what you are saying. The extra tall gears in the chevy allow you to select a "more wrong" gear, then you complain you are in the wrong gear.

Its not the car makers fault they give you a gearbox that allows you to pick a wrong gear. Do that in any car, and its not going to go. On the other hand a car with decent power and a nice wide power band will always be fun to drive in the right gear.

So let me get this straight. You're saying a Chevy V8 installed in an M3 won't be quicker in everyday driving?

I more or less agree on parity during a race (except for the extra torque giving you a momentary advatage after each shift), but on the street in everyday driving?

Lord save us. Shouldn't there be some kind of basic entrance exam for this file?

Bruce

[enigma]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

So let me get this straight. You're saying a Chevy V8 installed in an M3 won't be quicker in everyday driving?

I more or less agree on parity during a race (except for the extra torque giving you a momentary advatage after each shift), but on the street in everyday driving?

Lord save us. Shouldn't there be some kind of basic entrance exam for this file?

Bruce

In your own freaking quote you said "One of the nicest surprises we've ever had with our E36 M3 was how much more responsive it was out on the highway than our recently traded '93 Vette LT-1 6-speed."

So which is it? Were you planning on hooking up the V8 to the M3 gearbox? Then you would be right because you would be forced to keep in a numerically higher gear ratio. See my point? Its not engine torque that determines acceleration. Its rear wheel torque which is engine torque multiplied by gearing. A lower torque engine producing the same HP will run at a higher RPM, multiplied by similar different gears resulting in the same RWTQ and acceleration.

Yes this is basic math, did you fail your own test?

Are you one of these guys that drives ever car at the same RPM all the time? No that cannot be it or your experience with the Lt-1 wouldn't have happened. Basically smaller engines run at higher RPM, make less TQ, and provide the same power and acceleration. Its that simple.

Now if you are uncomfortable with running the smaller engine at higer RPM, then yes it will in fact feel sluggish. However, that does not change the fact its simply because you are driving it wrong.

Of course you overlook the cost of a high TQ engine. That would be weight. TQ requires heavier parts to sustain the load. Strong clutch, stronger gearbox, possibly stronger diff depending on the gearbox ratios. That means heavier.

[13eastie]

Back on topic:

H. Richter is quoted here stating that the M3 laps the Nordschleife precisely 3.54s sooner than the M5.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

Back on topic:

H. Richter is quoted here stating that the M3 laps the Nordschleife precisely 3.54s sooner than the M5.

The SA time for the M5 is 8:13, IIRC.

[Keto]

Methinks that was the "8:10 without breaking a sweat" comment. Seriously, doing math these times gets a bit silly, as we don't know all the reference points. Personally, I interpret "8:10 without breaking a sweat" as a statement that implies the "best" time will be significantly faster, ie, when you break a sweat. That's all just speculation though.

<- Waiting on published times now.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

Back on topic:

H. Richter is quoted here stating that the M3 laps the Nordschleife precisely 3.54s sooner than the M5.

This is much older than the quote I opened this thread with. Very old news in fact. Furthermore, I detect some serious sarcasm in saying a car is "3.54" seconds faster than another. Lap times are quotes in seconds, not 1/10th of seconds...

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by enigma

In your own freaking quote you said "One of the nicest surprises we've ever had with our E36 M3 was how much more responsive it was out on the highway than our recently traded '93 Vette LT-1 6-speed."

So which is it? Were you planning on hooking up the V8 to the M3 gearbox? Then you would be right because you would be forced to keep in a numerically higher gear ratio. See my point? Its not engine torque that determines acceleration. Its rear wheel torque which is engine torque multiplied by gearing. A lower torque engine producing the same HP will run at a higher RPM, multiplied by similar different gears resulting in the same RWTQ and acceleration.

Yes this is basic math, did you fail your own test?

Are you one of these guys that drives ever car at the same RPM all the time? No that cannot be it or your experience with the Lt-1 wouldn't have happened. Basically smaller engines run at higher RPM, make less TQ, and provide the same power and acceleration. Its that simple.

Now if you are uncomfortable with running the smaller engine at higer RPM, then yes it will in fact feel sluggish. However, that does not change the fact its simply because you are driving it wrong.

Of course you overlook the cost of a high TQ engine. That would be weight. TQ requires heavier parts to sustain the load. Strong clutch, stronger gearbox, possibly stronger diff depending on the gearbox ratios. That means heavier.

Hmmm.

We seem to be discussing similar issues with varying viewpoints and perhaps similar knowledge, and it's become an argument.

Truce, please.

OK, first off, your point that torque at the drive wheels (which is synonymous with horsepower) is what actually accelerates the car - that's irrefutable. A smaller engine wound tighter will give you theoretically similar acceleration as a larger engine with longer gears will at the same speed. Point taken.

This began with your assertion that "Torque is the single most overrated car stat, ever." I took issue with that, saying that your assertion was (nearly) true in a race environment, but that having more torque in an everyday driving environment is definitely useful.

That's irrefutable, also. My point about having 50 more pound feet of torque available in an otherwise similar I6-powered M3 would make for a more fun drive on the street is also true, and when we got to the part about swapping a Chevy V8 with similar power in an E46 M3, I thought that my "street" point was obvious.

Still, I can't argue that a smaller, similarly powerful engine will work about as well when you're whipping it.

Your point that more torque leads to heavier driveline components is also true, although in the narrow case of the Chevy V8 vs E46 M3 I6, it's pretty much a tossup, since what drivelines really care about is torque per cylinder.

Still, the basic point is true.

Another point is that gearing is not necessarily a panacea, since you have to pay a toll at the rotational inertia booth.

Finally, and on your initial point, I might just as well say that "horsepower is the single most overrated car stat, ever", and can make just as strong a case as for torque.

Personally, what I might actually say is that zero to 60 times are the single most overrated car stat, ever.

Bruce

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

This is much older than the quote I opened this thread with. Very old news in fact. Furthermore, I detect some serious sarcasm in saying a car is "3.54" seconds faster than another. Lap times are quotes in seconds, not 1/10th of seconds...

My apologies - you can all go back to your argument about Chevrolets now...

[DakarE36]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Yes they did it. Straight from the mouth of M boss, Richter. He claims the car is 25 seconds faster than the last M3. The Sportauto (which is "official" in most folks books) time for the E46 M3 was 8:22 so 8:22 - 0:25 = 7:57.

Link to the original Richter video here (from the launch in Australia).

Way to go BMW breaking the 8 minute barrier. It is a supercar!

Comments:

• I predicted this exact number about a year ago here
• The M-DCT should get about a 5 second better time (very rough estimate) but it WILL lap faster. By the way 7:52 is soooo !
• The tires for this time are not yet cofirmed and may be Pilot Sport Cups which ARE NOT standard on all EU cars with 19s

Wait im super confused, i just need this to be clarified. If the m3 did lap the ring in 7 57, how come it hasnt been acknowledged as the fastest sedan (over the CTS-V)?

[Aro1]

Man thats outruns the new CTS-V that everyone is bragging about: 7:59.32.

[DakarE36]

Originally Posted by DakarE36

Wait im super confused, i just need this to be clarified. If the m3 did lap the ring in 7 57, how come it hasnt been acknowledged as the fastest sedan (over the CTS-V)?

Is that an official time, by a stock m3!? if so im assuming e92, or else the m3 forum would be full of, we own the cts-v threads. Or more flooded then it already is.