Updated E92 M3 Performance Simulation

[T Bone]

Did this on Cartest 2000 software....Awesome software see the attached JPEGs for the results. The computer did some simulations and determined that a 1600 rpm clutch dump yielded the fastest acceleration time.

You know what guys, this data looks credible versus M5 / M6 / RS4

What do you guys think?

[monsta]

Wow first off I want to say thats is a cool ass software...now to the good part:

0-60 in 4.59...I hope this is true, some serious head whip lash is going to occur w/ this beast (hope your gf doesn't get mad)

1/4 mile in 12.88 that's is just about tied for the fastest M5 at dragtimes & member of M5board...wow this looking great on paper, i can't wait but now I must go practice my heal-toeing to match this simulation...are you going to do one w/ DSG?

Thanks for posting

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by monsta

Wow first off I want to say thats is a cool ass software...now to the good part:

0-60 in 4.59...I hope this is true, some serious head whip lash is going to occur w/ this beast (hope your gf doesn't get mad)

1/4 mile in 12.88 that's is just about tied for the fastest M5 at dragtimes & member of M5board...wow this looking great on paper, i can't wait but now I must go practice my heal-toeing to match this simulation...are you going to do one w/ DSG?

Thanks for posting

This is a manual with a shift time of 0.4 seconds so the DSG will be even faster.

The key number for me was the 0-100 mph number, it is over 10 seconds. So this will be very similar to the RS4.

In airfield runs, the M5 / M6 will obviously walk the M3 but the M3 will certainly beat the RS4.


EDIT *** Just to be open, there is no drag on this simulation but the software doesn't allow for wheelspin so these things are pretty good at negating each other..... Mark this post, I think this will be close to what the rags get.

[ruff]

T Bone,
One of the most informative posts I have see in some time. I am still a bit confused about horsepower ratings 414 vs 420. I haven't seen different horsepower ratings on the RS4 or GT3. I heard it is rated by different measurements. Car and Driver stated 414. Please explain. Thanks.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by ruff

T Bone,
One of the most informative posts I have see in some time. I am still a bit confused about horsepower ratings 414 vs 420. I haven't seen different horsepower ratings on the RS4 or GT3. I heard it is rated by different measurements. Car and Driver stated 414. Please explain. Thanks.

420 is PS (another standard)
414 is SAE HP

I actually entered 309 KW into the software and it converted to SAE.....all the same.

From Wikipedia: PS is defined as 0.73549875 kW, or roughly 98.6% of SAE horsepower

[skierman64]

Seems pretty accurate based on all we know so far. Especially since BMW is claiming 0-100km in 4.8.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by T Bone

420 is PS (another standard)
414 is SAE HP

I actually entered 309 KW into the software and it converted to SAE.....all the same.

From Wikipedia: PS is defined as 0.73549875 kW, or roughly 98.6% of SAE horsepower

Thanks T Bone,
so the RS4 has 414 SAE HP as well?

[RandyB]

Wow, very cool simulation! I hope the numbers are spot on, or conservative.

Good work plugging in all of the data and parameters.

[ksfrogman]

It will be interesting to see how this compares with the real McCoy.

[skierman64]

I'm sure the DSG tranny will knock a few tenths off the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times.

[Epacy]

Nery nice post. I have seen a Car & Driver issue that states 0-60 in under 4.5.

[Mii]

Good analysis. Can't wait to see the DCT version.

[Robert]

Originally Posted by T Bone

EDIT *** Just to be open, there is no drag on this simulation but the software doesn't allow for wheelspin so these things are pretty good at negating each other..... Mark this post, I think this will be close to what the rags get.

Tbone can you explain this negating effect? I thought no wheel spin means perfect launch which means faster acceleration. No drag means a faster acceleration because the resistance force is gone. These two effect should be additive?

[e36jakeo]

Is the E92 M3 6-speed really geared that tall (73 MPH in 2nd gear, 111 in 3rd!!??). That is tall for a high-revving engine and does not take advantage of the revs. Maybe they are doing that for gas mileage.

The answer to how fast it will accelerate lies in the new Motor Trend magazine:

Porsche 997 Carrera S: HP 355, torque 295 lb ft, weight 3275, 9.23 lbs/HP
0-60 in 4.4, 1/4 mile in 13.0 @109.5

Porsche 997 GT3: HP 415, torque 300 lb ft, weight 3235, 7.80 lbs/HP, 0-60 in 3.8, 1/4 mile in 12.1 @ 118 MPH

BMW E92 M3:414 HP, torque 295 lb ft, weight 3483, 8.39 lbs/HP. The power to weight ratio is 9% better than the Carrera S and 7% worse than the GT3. With similar gearing to a GT3 (kinda tall in the 1st three gears), I see no reason the M3 will not fall smack in the middle of these. It will not be able to launch as hard for 0-60 due to less weight in the back, but I think 0-60 in 4.2 -4.3 seconds and 1/4 mile in 12.5 @ 114 is the best guess based upon the Porsche comparison.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by bobbo

Tbone can you explain this negating effect? I thought no wheel spin means perfect launch which means faster acceleration. No drag means a faster acceleration because the resistance force is gone. These two effect should be additive?

Just a comment on the software itself. It doesn't simulate wheel spin (or launch control) very well. But drag is pretty important.

If I were to add 0.32 into the drag variable for the M3, it would give a 13.05 second 1/4 mile run, which we all guess to be too slow.

So just "hacking" the software, you don't enter drag to compensate for the lack of "Launch control" / wheelspin modelling.

[T Bone]

Disregarding the scale, the software does an excellent job at approximating BMW's posted power curve for the S65. This gives the performance simulation a bit more credibility.

[esquire]

great post. all seems very plausible given bmw's penchant for understating performance. seeing this though does one thing and one thing only for me... wets my lips in anticipation of the dsg tranny.

[swamp2]

Tools such as this can do 30-60, 60-100 etc much more accurately than 0-X, the reason is is that wheelspin is required for the best time but of course just enough to get the momentum going and not so much to be loosing accelerative forces. This is extremely difficult to model and requires a myriad of factors such as weight distribution, suspension geometry, tire and pavement properties, etc., etc.

Air resistance scales with the square of velocity so at low speeds it is not so significant (even in 0-60) but for top speed it is one of the dominant factors. Leaving drag off because the software does not handle wheelsping is a fairly poor approximation that seems to give reasonable numbers but you are certainly "tuning" the software a bit to get an expected result. Here is the real question with similar aprroximations how close can you get to M5 or 335i times (I would not bother with Rs4 or Porsche times beacuse of the 4WD and rear engine effects which are quite large)?

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Tools such as this can do 30-60, 60-100 etc much more accurately than 0-X, the reason is is that wheelspin is required for the best time but of course just enough to get the momentum going and not so much to be loosing accelerative forces. This is extremely difficult to model and requires a myriad of factors such as weight distribution, suspension geometry, tire and pavement properties, etc., etc.

Air resistance scales with the square of velocity so at low speeds it is not so significant (even in 0-60) but for top speed it is one of the dominant factors. Leaving drag off because the software does not handle wheelsping is a fairly poor approximation that seems to give reasonable numbers but you are certainly "tuning" the software a bit to get an expected result. Here is the real question with similar aprroximations how close can you get to M5 or 335i times (I would not bother with Rs4 or Porsche times beacuse of the 4WD and rear engine effects which are quite large)?

Agreed.

For the M6, the model is pretty close after you plug in the data for SMG shift times, in fact, they look very much like the Car and Driver test. But as the time increases, the margin of error also increases.

For the M3, I left out drag simply because I couldn't find data, so if someone has the drag coefficient and front area, please post.

Here is a simulation of the M6 and a PDF of the M6 review from C&D....very close...



Aero forces really come into play after 70 mph, so while I left off drag for the M3, I think for the 1/4 mile this data is a good estimation since the software cannot model wheelspin.

If I left in drag with no wheelspin, the M3 would have done a 13.15 second quartermile and that would be heresy on this board and quite frankly would be wrong.

Wheel spin is big.

[M3]

Let's remember now BMW claimed the E46 M3 can do 100 km in 5.2 and 60 in 4.8, so the diffrence is .4, estimately just take .4 out of 4.8 and you got 4.4. Plus the new DSG will be faster than the SMGIII. Who knows we might be getting high 3's with the DSG.

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by M3

Let's remember now BMW claimed the E46 M3 can do 100 km in 5.2 and 60 in 4.8, so the diffrence is .4, estimately just take .4 out of 4.8 and you got 4.4. Plus the new DSG will be faster than the SMGIII. Who knows we might be getting high 3's with the DSG.

Snowball's chance in hell the M3 dips in the the 3's...... It is all about traction. 265 street tires don't get you there.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Snowball's chance in hell the M3 dips in the the 3's...... It is all about traction. 265 street tires don't get you there.

i don't know about that t-bone. i think low 2's , maybe even 1's might be possible here.