M3 review from Road and Track

[Tattedtwice]

I didn't see where this has been posted, so pardon if it's a repost.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6283

Data panel:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/d..._datapanel.pdf

Killer numbers, IMO.

[ILC32]

Thanks for the links. Really great results!

[///M3]

I haven't seen this article either. Thanks for posting it!

4.8s to 60. Hah!

[Epacy]

Wow, 4.1s 0-60 and 12.5 in the 1/4 mile is nice. That 0-60 time should be recorded in the log we have as well.

$1700 GG sounds about right.

[Voltigeur]

Amazing: 4.1s 0-60 is a massive difference!

Pulling near 1g skid pan is a bigger plus for me The author also makes a good point re 18s: "Although 19-in. wheels are available, the 18s are likely the optimum choice to keep weight down." I also suspect the 18s will be best for track.

$70k - hmmmm.....

[swamp2]

Nice review, really impressive numbers. Although some new problems with the steering that have not been noted to date. Highlights IMO:

• Totally comfortable at 161 mph
• "...although from the performance numbers and driver's seat it would be hard to tell the M3 is heavy."
• "For those who think the M3 is getting fat and happy with age, this version will reassure you that BMW hasn't forgotten what the M stands for."
• Like a proper race car, it inspires driver confidence everywhere.
• On/off change in steering effort at 70mph causing slight inaccuracies in steering
• "[one can change] the M3 from a date-friendly cruiser that will impress passengers to a track car that will likely scare them."
• They are predicting a BASE price of $65k. Not good news compared to the foregone conclusion by most here of base = $60k +/- $2k.

0-60: 4.1 (man if they can get M-DCT to really launch someone should be able to knock off a sub 4 sec 0-60.
0-100: 9.4. That is ridiculous

Comments about these numbers vs. some simulation below in another post. I will update the database of performance figures.

[JEllis]

A guess of 65K MSRP based on its position in the line up had to be my only gripe with that article. The economic blunder in that statement alone frustrates me. Oh well....

[swamp2]

These performance numbers are in line with observations that C&D often gets substantially better numbers than other publications. Using CarTest performance simulation I can not get very close to these particular numbers with default-"out of the box" parameters. To get a very good match it requires the total drivetrain loss to be a full 10% lower than default parameters. This drivetrain loss is consistent with the single Swiss dyno result we have seen that showed a mere 8% total drivetrain loss (quite unlikely IMHO). However, KSAs drivetrain loss works out to be 17% which is almost exactly what the CarTest default is (total loss for clutch, transmisson, axles, diff, etc). Many sims showing M3 results using default losses have shown to be generally consistent with the range of reported reuslts less this outlier.

With an 8% total drivetrain loss my prediction is:

0-60: 4.2
0-100: 9.6
1/4 mi: 12.5

vs. default losses 4.4/10.5/12.9

Keep in mind that an unknown or under-estimated drivetrain loss is PERFECTLY equivalent to a unknown hp or hp under-rating. These can not be distunguished by acceleration simulation. A rolling deceleration/hill equilibrium/non-engine dyno test with in and out of gear results could help quite a lot.

So what is it here a bit of a sleeper, under-rated, phenomenal drivetrain, phenomenal driver, simply an outlier? It is probably some combination of these that we will never pin down exactly. Also, I wouldn't get very optimistic about getting such results yourself!



P.S. Thanks to ruff for past criticisms that helped me offer a more objective review of such fantastic performance figures. There are outliers and reasons for them every time.

[mhutchins14]

Thanks for the post....awesome performance numbers!!!!

[swamp2]

Hey, great 1st post as well. Welcome to the forum.

[aerisolphaln]

65K base = total disaster for the US launch.

Too far up-market.

Too much for owners of the previous M3 to shell out.

Too much for a 3 series in the US.

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

65K base = total disaster for the US launch.

Too far up-market.

Too much for owners of the previous M3 to shell out.

Too much for a 3 series in the US.

Agreed, Road and Track is not taking into account the amount of new M3's BMW plans to supply. The M Coupe at 51K is built in relatively small numbers which justify's its higher price. This is not the case with the M3 so simply guessing a price based on its M counterparts is franky, stupid.

Jason

[JEllis]

Originally Posted by swamp2

These performance numbers are in line with observations that C&D often gets substantially better numbers than other publications. Using CarTest performance simulation I can not get very close to these particular numbers with default-"out of the box" parameters. To get a very good match it requires the total drivetrain loss to be a full 10% lower than default parameters. This drivetrain loss is consistent with the single Swiss dyno result we have seen that showed a mere 8% total drivetrain loss (quite unlikely IMHO). However, KSAs drivetrain loss works out to be 17% which is almost exactly what the CarTest default is (total loss for clutch, transmisson, axles, diff, etc). Many sims showing M3 results using default losses have shown to be generally consistent with the range of reported reuslts less this outlier.

With an 8% total drivetrain loss my prediction is:

0-60: 4.2
0-100: 9.6
1/4 mi: 12.5

vs. default losses 4.4/10.5/12.9

Keep in mind that an unknown or under-estimated drivetrain loss is PERFECTLY equivalent to a unknown hp or hp under-rating. These can not be distunguished by acceleration simulation. A rolling deceleration/hill/dyno test to with in and out of gear could help quite a lot.

So what is it here a bit of a sleeper, under-rated, phenomenal drivetrain, phenomenal driver, simply an outlier. It is probably some combination of these that we will never pin down exactly. Also I wouldn't get very optimistic about getting such results yourself!

Does the use of 19" vs 18" wheels make a difference, rotational mass?

Jason

[RandyB]

Nice numbers! Those are C5 Z06 type numbers. Impressive.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by JEllis

Does the use of 19" vs 18" wheels make a difference, rotational mass?

Jason

Mass is important and rotating mass even more so. That being said it is not really that big of a factor in raw acceleration numbers with cars in this power to weight regime. CarTest does include an option for wheel and tire weight. The default parameter is for total weight of rim+tire and it at 45 lb. By the way, becuase it is so difficult to obtain I simply always just use the deafault number. Adjusting it to 30 lb (33% decrease) makes time differences to 60/100/150 of .02/.1/.3 sec respectively. Quite insignificant. That being said wheel weight does also affect braking and handling as well but again the numbers are probably similarly small. This is only really for the racers and total track junkies to worry about.

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by swamp2

These performance numbers are in line with observations that C&D often gets substantially better numbers than other publications.

That may be true, but we're talking about R&T here, not C&D. It looks like the post with all the performance data compiled states C&D incorrectly as well.

[footie]

These figures are more an just impressive, they are bloody brilliant. Never in a million years would I have thought an M3 would reach 100mph in less than nine and a half seconds.

Does anyone know what was so special about the surface used compared to other results elsewhere.

[dechoong]

0-60 in 4.1s & 0-100 in 9.4s are barely believable. These numbers are in the 997 GT3's territory... and we've seen in a previous thread the GT3 smokes the M3.

[gblansten]

65K gets me to 75K with options and add in gas guzzler and sales tax and you getr to 80K. That's silly for an M3.

[lucid]

What's this all about? Have they spoken to someone from BMW, or do they just feel like shooting some crap? If it is indeed an estimate, the logic is very weak.

"If you were hoping the M3 would have a price in the U.S. close to the last generation's, you're in for a shock. It's going to be more, a lot more. The M3 slots between the M Coupe at an MSRP of $50,100 and the M5's MSRP of $82,900. For now, we'll guess it will come in at $65,000 but the comparable Audi RS 4 is more, so don't say we didn't warn you."

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ILC32

That may be true, but we're talking about R&T here, not C&D. It looks like the post with all the performance data compiled states C&D incorrectly as well.

Ugh, your right on bout counts. Time to learn to read just a bit better....I will correct the typos on the "database" thread. Thanks.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by lucid

What's this all about? Have they spoken to someone from BMW, or do they just feel like shooting some crap? If it is indeed an estimate, the logic is very weak.

"If you were hoping the M3 would have a price in the U.S. close to the last generation's, you're in for a shock. It's going to be more, a lot more. The M3 slots between the M Coupe at an MSRP of $50,100 and the M5's MSRP of $82,900. For now, we'll guess it will come in at $65,000 but the comparable Audi RS 4 is more, so don't say we didn't warn you."

+1. Although this car (and even more so the E90 M3) is a classic competitor with the RS4 that logic of the price being close to or based on the RS4 does not really make sense. The RS4 was such a low production volume and this certainky contributed to its relatively high price. Only comming loaded in the US contributed as well.

I would not acrgue that the price must be somewhere between the M Coupe and M5 but that tells us squat.