Car & Driver Review - 0 to 60 in 4.4s

[RandyB]

Originally Posted by lucid

Not really. If I don't like how the car compares to the RS4 (not that I would buy the RS4) when I go on a real test drive, or if BMW prices it too high, I'm not buying.

I was being sarcastic.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by RandyB

I was being sarcastic.

Okay then I am a BMW fanboy blinded by the M badge!

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

Well Mr. I Drive a Maxima and am Internet Forums Warlord, let me tell you a little something about actually owning and driving a high performance sport coupe versus a nice, functional sedan.

First of all, the 0 to 60 numbers we read in the reviews are the absolute BEST times accomplished after multiple runs by professional or realtively professional car drivers/auto magazine testers who drive for a living. And these times are being accomplished on a closed-course track. So when C/D says 0 to 60 of 4.4 seconds, that is THE BEST this car is capable of.

Am I excited about 4.4, absolutely. Do I think I could get 4.4 out of the M3, probably not. Also, I think most owners of the new M3 will also not be able to get 4.4 out of this car and would be LUCKY to get 5 flat out of it, which is what I was agreeing with. 0.6 seconds is esentially the differance between the perfect launch and a good launch.

Because I doubt you know, when you launch one of these cars, its not just revving to redline and dumping/popping the clutch. You need to find the best rev range for the engine at launch and modulate the clutch and throttle while initially accelerating to put maximum power to the rear wheels without excessive wheel spin, on one end of the spectrum, or power lull on the other end of the spectrum from having everything hooked up below your maximum power band.

Going 0 to 60 in one of these cars is NOTHING like stomping on the gas in your Maxima.

1st: Thanks for proving my point on attacking other members.

Are you hating on what I drive? Talk about childish. What does that have to do with anything this thread is about?
Hating on what I drive? Ohh, wait, you drive a Nissan too.

Thanks for explaining how to take off in a car. Why would you doubt that I would know that? What do you base that comment on?

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

Now, I plan on owning an e92 M3 a year from now. I'm an anesthesiologist and have worked my ass off my whole life to have the wherewithal to buy this car. I have serious doubts over your ability to ever purchase the car based on your immature posts. Perhaps your parents will buy it for you, but until then have fun in your parents' basement at your computer and with your Maxima.

My immature posts? Are you serious? What would you call this comment you just made?
I see you removed this little gem from your OP. Why is that?
Your rhetoric about my parents basement and my lack of ability to purchase this car is something you would see on a Neon forum. Thanks for bringing this forum down.
Where do you get this high-and-mighty attitude from? How are you such a better person than me?
I really didn't even have to respond to this for people to see your true colors.
You have proven yourself to be a materialistic snob.

[NewhouseEnt]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Wow, how pathetic is this?
Now, once the good performance reviews are coming in, members of this board resort to attacking other members. Well played. Go back to your Audi/Infiniti boards, no need for you being here with that kind of attitude.

No shit. Agree there 100% WTF!!!? Owner after owner of totally stock 335i's have posted drag reciepts and photos of the clock face times at 4.8 and 4.9 seconds in 12.99 and 13.01 quarters.

A car with 120 more hp at the same weight and owners are going to have a hard time at high 4's? Yea, and Granny Mullet head I can assure you in the real world, will be toasting out 4.6's and 4.7's in this M3 in her Sunday dress.

FKN Idiots...

I also find the 12" test method dubious and total BS. I hope someone from the mag comes on here to straighten that comment out.

[NewhouseEnt]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

So when C/D says 0 to 60 of 4.4 seconds, that is THE BEST this car is capable of.

.....I think most owners of the new M3 will also not be able to get 4.4 out of this car and would be LUCKY to get 5 flat out of it...

Any more of the "scientific" opinions and I'd please like someone to stab me in the face enough times, until you get tired and have to take a smoke break...

Jeezzuus... Did someone open the main doors to the Ozarks?

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by Epacy

1st: Thanks for proving my point on attacking other members.

Are you hating on what I drive? Talk about childish. What does that have to do with anything this thread is about?
Hating on what I drive? Ohh, wait, you drive a Nissan too.

Epacy has a point there, i guess there goes your credibility/reputation.

Your a cool guy Epacy, just try not to be a forum nazi so much...

[Keto]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

Now, I plan on owning an e92 M3 a year from now. I'm an anesthesiologist and have worked my ass off my whole life to have the wherewithal to buy this car.

This means you pass gas for a living.

[fusionchicken]

performance is elevated...but holy shit for that price this car better cook for me on weekends too.

[swamp2]

OK maybe it isn't all that neeeded to toot your own horn but damn it is fun!

I predicted 4.2 here back in November. Sure we don't have a 4.2 yet but we did not have an ideal track surface nor DCT! The 4.4 news was excellent. I also predicted a 12.6 1/4 mi here which still looks like a definite possibility. I always had confidence.

On the fighting: Guys let's try to keep it civil. We have enough to do to deal with haters, unjustified/unrealistic fan boys for other brands and crap mag. articles. I disagree with folks here all the time but I really try (don't succeed 100%) to keep the insults and personal attacks off the board. Just use real evidence, good references, your own opinions and experience and let the readers be the "judge". I guess we are probably all old enought that we don't need a lecture but at the same time it is getting a bit out of hand.

[The CSL]

One of the reasons why it costs nearly $7k more is mostly due to the engine being based on a bespoke M V10 as opposed to the regular straight-6, so there's less economies of scale there and despite this not being the case in the States, here in the UK, we get leather and Sat Nav as standard, which the previous model didn't get here.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

Am I excited about 4.4, absolutely. Do I think I could get 4.4 out of the M3, probably not. Also, I think most owners of the new M3 will also not be able to get 4.4 out of this car and would be LUCKY to get 5 flat out of it, which is what I was agreeing with. 0.6 seconds is esentially the differance between the perfect launch and a good launch.

what exactly is your point here? this is true of every car, ranging from the civic to the F430. the point is that these "best times" are used as benchmarks to compare against other cars. while a 4.4 second 0-60 car might not hit 60 in 4.4 seconds everytime, we know that it will beat a 4.7 second car on average. no one expects to get 4.4 out of their M3 everytime, and those that do expect it, are probably well versed enough in racing and tracking to know how to extract that performance.

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

Because I doubt you know, when you launch one of these cars, its not just revving to redline and dumping/popping the clutch. You need to find the best rev range for the engine at launch and modulate the clutch and throttle while initially accelerating to put maximum power to the rear wheels without excessive wheel spin, on one end of the spectrum, or power lull on the other end of the spectrum from having everything hooked up below your maximum power band.

Going 0 to 60 in one of these cars is NOTHING like stomping on the gas in your Maxima.

well, actually when M-DCT is released, it will pretty much be exactly that simple. food for thought.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Epacy

1st: Thanks for proving my point on attacking other members.

epacy, you need to take a hard look at what it is about the way you act on this forum that encourages people to react to you in the way that they do.

you'll get defensive about this comment, i predict. but if you're capable of abstracting yourself, and being objective, the question will answer itself.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by esquire

epacy, you need to take a hard look at what it is about the way you act on this forum that encourages people to react to you in the way that they do.

you'll get defensive about this comment, i predict. but if you're capable of abstracting yourself, and being objective, the question will answer itself.

Are you saying I am not the darling of this board??


Perhaps you are right, but I have never posted anything close to what aerisolphaln posted.

[T Bone]

See this simulation that I ran a few months ago.....pretty accurate


http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...81&postcount=1



BTW, car rags don't use averages, they take the best time. To get an average of 4.4, this would mean they had a bunch of 4.1s, 4.2s to offset the 4.8, 5.0 launches they turfed.... 4.4 is the best time.

[lucid]

Every forum could use a few people who have the tone epacy has chosen to write with, but not many. He's allright as long as one takes his "forum norm" comments lightly. I never saw him project onto or get personal with anyone (without being provoked)--he speaks to what is posted.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by T Bone

See this simulation that I ran a few months ago.....pretty accurate

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...81&postcount=1

This is cool. Thanks. Does the software only take max hp and tq numbers, or can you feed it more specific data on hp and tq over the rpm range?

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by lucid

This is cool. Thanks. Does the software only take max hp and tq numbers, or can you feed it more specific data on hp and tq over the rpm range?

It also asks for peak torque RPM, peak HP RPM and engine type (atmospheric, turbo, twin turbo)....the engine type influences the torque curve.

Not ideal for new engines like the S65 which is atmospheric but has the torque curve of a turbo.

The SW is limited this way. This limitation shows itself in a slightly slower 0-60 time and a nuts accurate 1/4 mile time & trapspeed.....the SW couldn't compensate for the flat torque curve of the M3 engine which affects 0-60 but once on full song, the 1/4 mile & trapspeed are accurate.

[ruff]

Originally Posted by esquire

epacy, you need to take a hard look at what it is about the way you act on this forum that encourages people to react to you in the way that they do.

you'll get defensive about this comment, i predict. but if you're capable of abstracting yourself, and being objective, the question will answer itself.

Esquire, my guess is Mr. Epacy quite enjoys the reactions he gets from others. No need to worry about him. He seems to be having a fine time.

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by ruff

Esquire, my guess is Mr. Epacy quite enjoys the reactions he gets from others. No need to worry about him. He seems to be having a fine time.

+1, like i said, i have nothing against the guy but he talks at times like he owns the place. If that turns him on then so be it, im not going to argue and raise my blood pressure to prove my e-penis is bigger than everyone else.

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by ruff

Esquire, my guess is Mr. Epacy quite enjoys the reactions he gets from others. No need to worry about him. He seems to be having a fine time.

Neg. Not looking for reactions. People don't seem to like being called out when they are being contradictory. I bring it up cause I like things to be factual and for people to be reasonable.

It appears that comes at some cost to me, but if people didn't say one thing, then do another, I wouldn't have a rep. I would just be a E92 M3 fanatic that hurts with every passing moment I am not in the car.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by FifthStreetz

my e-penis

Not taking sides in this one but "e-penis" if f-ing hilarious!

[M3shogun]

Originally Posted by mintenasi

0-60 in 4.4 s is not a bad time at all. Too bad another magazine got 4.9.
If we are going by the best time, than you should all agree the RS4 is faster, with 4.3s in the same test. Rear Roar And Track, Aug-06.
If you don't like that 4.3sec, maybe you wanna settle down for an 4.5 s from Motor Trend Magazine?

I am not trying to start a stupid war, I am just happy enough the Audi finally got the edge over the M3 to post here. 2 years ago, actually. From what I read, the new C63 AMG will kill the RS4 with the M3 altogether, for good.

4.9 = driver wit ABSOLUTELY NO skills. I read the RS4 vs 911 C4S article which both cars got 4.3 and i have to say those are very generous times. if the M3 was in that test im pretty sure it would of done the same. I dont know bout that C63, sometimes mb can be a lil generous with there times but with 450 hp well just have to see. with a bit of a tune the C63 can jump to another league imo. truthfully you guys dont know how FAST a sub 4.5 0-60 times feel like. u guys are bench racing right now. once u guys drive the M3 the complaining is gonna stop.