M3 accelerates as fast as the GT40 Le Mans Winner

[Montoya]

Just amazing. I'm reading "Phil Hill- A driving life", a great book which compiles some of the best road tests Phil Hill did over the years for Road & Track. One chapter is on a road test done on the 1969 winning GT40 (serial no. 1075), twenty years after the Le Mans victory (article was from 1989). The GT40 was exactly as it was taken off the track at Le Mans, so gearing was not optimized for quarter mile acceleration. When tested it did a quarter in 12.5 seconds at 115 mph- sounds familiar?

I got a kick out of that. It's amazing how much technology has advanced.

[duk]

not that impressive 41 years later?

[Serious]

tires tires tires... a real 427 gt40 would chew up and spit out an m3, even today.

they are 220+mph monsters, a modern day supercar would still have trouble hanging with one riding on modern tires/suspension/brakes. Their power:weight ratio is still better then just about every supercar available today, except maybe a koenigsegg.

[Montoya]

Originally Posted by seriousm3

tires tires tires... a real 427 gt40 would chew up and spit out an m3, even today.

they are 220+mph monsters, a modern day supercar would still have trouble hanging with one riding on modern tires/suspension/brakes. Their power:weight ratio is still better then just about every supercar available today, except maybe a koenigsegg.

Agree that the tires make a difference, but the real difference is probably gearing. The test was conducted with fresh tires at the time, although reproduction racing rubber so who knows how much traction.

Anyways, this post isn't meant to compare the M3 to a GT40- just a fun observation about how things change over the years.

[captainaudio]

A 328 will out accelerate many of the legendary muscle cars of the same era.

CA

[AMOCHOSTO]

Originally Posted by seriousm3

tires tires tires... a real 427 gt40 would chew up and spit out an m3, even today.

they are 220+mph monsters, a modern day supercar would still have trouble hanging with one riding on modern tires/suspension/brakes. Their power:weight ratio is still better then just about every supercar available today, except maybe a koenigsegg.

Still, a family car that can stay in the same race as a late '60's Le Mans dominating race car, any early 90's Ferrari or Lambo, most Porsche 911s built up to 5 years ago is pretty good.

Notwithstanding the fact that a current Mustang 5.0 is just as fast.

[Green///Hell]

Whatever I'll still have a Gt40 over an M3 any day

[footie]

OK, we all feel great about ourselves and the car choice we made.


But my I put things into perspective, the lowest of tge lows in single seater racer, the Formula Ford with it's 150hp 1600cc engine will whip the M3's butt and just about anything else this side of a supercar.

[u2b]pQirdJpd48M&feature=youtube_gdata[/u2b]

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by footie

OK, we all feel great about ourselves and the car choice we made.

I don't think that was spirit of the OP's post at all. He's not "comparing" the two cars as equals or competitors, just one stat against 40 years of time. Besides, Phil Hill is a badass, and a Formula Ford doesn't have bluetooth, although the sunroof is standard.

[MaxL]

Originally Posted by AMOCHOSTO

Still, a family car that can stay in the same race as a late '60's Le Mans dominating race car, any early 90's Ferrari or Lambo, most Porsche 911s built up to 5 years ago is pretty good.

And the best part that this car needs very little service while doing so, while the Le Mans cars would be lucky to finish the race and would need engine rebuild or transplant about as often as we have to change brake pads (and older Ferraries are not that much better in this respect).

[Serious]

Originally Posted by MaxL

And the best part that this car needs very little service while doing so, while the Le Mans cars would be lucky to finish the race and would need engine rebuild or transplant about as often as we have to change brake pads (and older Ferraries are not that much better in this respect).

I dare you to run an e9x m3 flat out for 24 hours straight. Hell I've seen e9x m3's not last 2 20 minute HPDE sessions. (this isn't a knock on the m3, just using it as a relevant example). You aren't taking any modern street car and running it at race speeds for long before it WILL break.

[FruitCake]

i would trade my M3 for the GT40, sell the GT40, buy M3 again and buy lots of blow with the left over money

yes im smarter than all of you

[ooowowizstev]

^lol.

[MaxL]

Originally Posted by seriousm3

I dare you to run an e9x m3 flat out for 24 hours straight. Hell I've seen e9x m3's not last 2 20 minute HPDE sessions. (this isn't a knock on the m3, just using it as a relevant example). You aren't taking any modern street car and running it at race speeds for long before it WILL break.

The thing is, in endurance races they never run cars flat-out. It is driver's responsibility to make the car last the entire race, and guys who kill their cars in 20 minutes are just not doing a good job. Even in F1 they do not run "flat out" much of the time, and pilots constantly get messages from the team to cool brakes, engine or tires. And still a lot of race cars do not survive one race, and most are designed not to last more than one race (why bother and add extra weight and cost?)

Lowly 335i won 12-hour Bathurst race twice with just moderate cooling mods (stock engine required by rules) and it was pushing more than stock boost at lower revs. And M3s used by performance driving schools go through tens of thousands of miles without engine or transmission problems. Yes, M3 stock brakes will not handle everything you through at them, but the drivetrain has much more longevity than virtually any high-level race car and most street cars from 20+ years ago.

[dhoggm3]

And a crotch rocket will blow them all into the weeds. So?

I think makes an interesting observation of how far tire and suspension (and comfort) technology have come.

[FruitCake]

i think the greatest improvement is EFFICIENCY