|
|
12-25-2007, 01:56 PM | #1 |
Private
11
Rep 61
Posts |
M3 review from Road and Track
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. |
12-25-2007, 02:53 PM | #4 |
Reincarnated
245
Rep 4,227
Posts |
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.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2007, 03:20 PM | #5 |
MacroRisk
109
Rep 2,523
Posts |
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.....
__________________
Just thinking of something not so witty ///M3 E92 '09 Jerez Black | 6MT | Ext Fox Red | Tech | Prem | 19s |Heated Seats | iPod |Smartphone | Euro Deliv June 09 Sold: 540iT / 530i / 323i |
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2007, 04:06 PM | #6 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Nice review, really impressive numbers. Although some new problems with the steering that have not been noted to date. Highlights IMO:
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2007, 04:23 PM | #7 |
Major General
531
Rep 5,498
Posts |
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....
__________________
Instagram: jellismotorwerks |
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2007, 04:23 PM | #8 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
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. Last edited by swamp2; 12-26-2007 at 02:26 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2007, 06:43 PM | #11 |
First Lieutenant
10
Rep 396
Posts |
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.
__________________
Now:'05 G35 6MT\Laser Red\Beige\Sport\Premium
06/2008: M3, 335+Dinan, or ... |
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2007, 06:52 PM | #12 | |
Major General
531
Rep 5,498
Posts |
Quote:
Jason
__________________
Instagram: jellismotorwerks |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-25-2007, 06:54 PM | #13 | |
Major General
531
Rep 5,498
Posts |
Quote:
Jason
__________________
Instagram: jellismotorwerks |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2007, 12:36 AM | #15 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2007, 09:10 AM | #16 |
Lieutenant
26
Rep 580
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2007, 11:12 AM | #17 |
Major General
1094
Rep 8,013
Posts
Drives: i4M50
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: No where fast
|
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2007, 12:00 PM | #18 |
First Lieutenant
26
Rep 359
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2007, 01:13 PM | #20 |
Major General
374
Rep 8,033
Posts |
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." |
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2007, 02:04 PM | #21 |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-26-2007, 02:07 PM | #22 | |
Lieutenant General
609
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
I would not acrgue that the price must be somewhere between the M Coupe and M5 but that tells us squat. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|