Any other 1m dynos around?

[Moo]

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

Agree. What other affordable, racy, high-revving V8 this side of an old Ferrari / Maso can one get? The sound is also unique, nothing like other V8's.

Absolutely, getting OT but....

Not counting the somewhat big deal of cross plane vs. flat plane crank and what that does for sound, the similarities between the F430 engine and S65 are abound. They compare in terms of all aluminum block/heads, 90° cylinder bank layout, DOHC/4V, continuously variable valve timing, displacement, bore, redline, overall power and torque curve shapes (that's a key one for engine character), a relatively high power/low torque result, compression ratio, individual throttle butterflys, non direct injected, etc. Sure you can come up with a vast list of differences as well such but these engines are pretty close in many key respects.

I think the S65 engine is about $20-25k, I bet the F430 is 3X that. Is the engine 3X "better". Hardly IMO.

[swamp2]

The 1M seems to be an over performer overall based on stated power and weight. Sport Auto data is somewhat suspect as not being entirely apples to apples. Different day, different conditions, different break in state etc. All can add up quite a lot. The M-DCT M3 has knocked off a 15.2 sec 0-200km/h and a 12.5s 1/4 mi. I've also seen 0-200 times just shy of 18 seconds for the 1M. Now granted that is more of a best/worse comparison. In an apples to apples test, with equivalent drivers, and well broken in stock cars, I think only a fool would bet on the 1M in either a 0-200 or 1/4 mi contest. Power to weight is superior in the M3 and the DCT is equivalent to a lot of power based on the shift speed advantage.

[Moo]

Originally Posted by atlanta2004m3

Yawn. Numbers. Don't care so much, as that car isn't fast enough to outrun it's own sheer ugliness.

It could be twice as fast as an M3 and I still wouldn't part with my cash for it. The car has to appeal visually and emotionally, to me at least, and performance is but a single part of it.....

Well the OP topic is about numbers

I agree with you on the emotional piece, and going along in the same line of thought, if you take a look at the 1er/1M board, there are no less enthusiasts there compared to the 3/M3 crowd.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

Not really, go check timeslips. People have gone faster than 114 stock...

Omar

Sorry. Meant magazine times under controlled conditions, including weather. On a freshly sprayed drag strip with a sky-high barometer, one could do better.

Bruce

[Echo M3]

Originally Posted by shift@red

I think we all need to realize the car isnt making just 335 hp. Its probably closer to the 360-370 hp range, and once you look at that, it doesnt seem to be such an overachiever.
In the motortrend best driver's car, it couldnt touch either of its 2 closest competitors in the Cayman R and Lotus on the track (significantly so) and proved to be slower than the Cayman R in the drag race too.

Well, I don't think it's fair to compare this car to a Lotus or a Cayman R, based on price. The Cayman R and the Lotus (base price) are both more expensive than an E92 M3 (base price).

They're also vehicles built for different purposes. The Cayman is a purpose-built sports car, and while it is somewhat practical as a one or two-seater, it is ultimately a true performance car.

The 1M, as impressive as the numbers might be, is still a modified sports/luxury entry level car, that is more practical and far more compromised in nature than the Cayman.

Having said all that, I would take the Cayman R over the 1M, if I were disregarding price.

[DiscoZ]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Sorry. Meant magazine times under controlled conditions, including weather. On a freshly sprayed drag strip with a sky-high barometer, one could do better.

Bruce

Oh so sorry, so you have data-logged all mag times on borrowed cars? Impressive!

[DiscoZ]

Originally Posted by pman10

Having said all that, I would take the Cayman R over the 1M, if I were disregarding price.

Agree.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by DiscoZ

Oh so sorry, so you have data-logged all mag times on borrowed cars? Impressive!

I haven't, but others on this forum have, and there's a published list somewhere in here that documents all the results. Bottom line: That 12.4 time by Car & Driver is as good as it gets under controlled conditions.

And hey, tough guy, what's with the attitude.

[Moo]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

I haven't, but others on this forum have, and there's a published list somewhere in here that documents all the results. Bottom line: That 12.4 time by Car & Driver is as good as it gets under controlled conditions.

And hey, tough guy, what's with the attitude.

Oh he's such an internet tough guy