Car & Driver Review - 0 to 60 in 4.4s

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by M3shogun

u guys are bench racing right now. once u guys drive the M3 the complaining is gonna stop.

I know what sub 3 second 0-60 times feels like...but you are right bench racing is all e92 M3 enthusiasts have right now.

[nusevad]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

I know what sub 3 second 0-60 times feels like...but you are right bench racing is all e92 M3 enthusiasts have right now.

I know what sub 3 seconds feel like too! That Badman and Robin ride at 6-flags is mighty fast!

[M3onTwomps]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

I completely agree.

Also Car and Driver run their instrumented tests such that the 0 to 60 time doesn't start until after the front tires have moved 12 inches!!
You may say, 12 inches is nothing, but I can tell you that the first 12 inches in my G35 is definitely the slowest when pulling from a dead stop with the traction control off for a maximum accel hole run.

Wow....you trolls are seriously reaching now.

[BruceWain]

What are you Audi people actually doing here.
Don't tell me you are car buffs because all you said since you started to post is RS4 is better then M3. It sounds like you're trying to convince yourselves as well as the members of this board.

[13eastie]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

the first 12 inches in my G35 is definitely the slowest when pulling from a dead stop with the traction control off for a maximum accel hole run.

err... well what else did you expect?

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

You may say, 12 inches is nothing...

12" IS nothing. Get over it. (What are we talking about here?)

[goldminer]

Originally Posted by 13eastie

I hope they try to - my dealer persuaded me to add "M Gonad Protektor" to my order for £500. The joke will be on them

Is that available in carbon fibre?

[Caravello]

An Audi will always be an Audi. I am old enough to remember when their reputation was solidly mediocre, then maybe 10 years ago they actually improved their reputation. I suppose their products are good too, but they are still an Audi. And their exterior design is bland is most cases, not all. A few of their cars are handsome. And for the record my wife and I did consider buying an Audi station wagon.

But I think they are great for BMW because they keep pushing and competing, and so I value the brand for that.

May the best man win, as they say.

[BMWCali]

Originally Posted by Joe Bimmer

Gas Guzzler Tax is gay. They penalize you with a tax for buying a car that uses more gas, and then you get to purchase more gas than others & pay more gas tax as you pump it....BRILLIANT.

I hope it gets at least 16.5 MPG, because that gas guzzler tax starts getting really annoying:

GAS GUZZLER TAX
Unadjusted MPG (combined)* Tax
at least 22.5 No tax
at least 21.5, but less than 22.5 $1000
at least 20.5, but less than 21.5 $1300
at least 19.5, but less than 20.5 $1700
at least 18.5, but less than 19.5 $2100
at least 17.5, but less than 18.5 $2600
at least 16.5, but less than 17.5 $3000
at least 15.5, but less than 16.5 $3700
at least 14.5, but less than 15.5 $4500
at least 13.5, but less than 14.5 $5400
at least 12.5, but less than 13.5 $6400
less than 12.5 $7700

Gas guzzler tax is like income tax. Total horse crap. I can't believe a 21.5MPG car is considered a gas guzzler.

[Keto]

Originally Posted by BMWCali

Gas guzzler tax is like income tax. Total horse crap. I can't believe a 21.5MPG car is considered a gas guzzler.

Ze post is back from ze dead!

The real injustice is that all those huge-ass SUV's don't pay gas guzzler tax AT ALL.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Keto

The real injustice is that all those huge-ass SUV's don't pay gas guzzler tax AT ALL.

Trucks, right? What a scam.

[Keto]

Originally Posted by lucid

Trucks, right? What a scam.

Remember the farm equipment tax deduction you could take for your >6000 lbs gross weight SUV? People were bubbling with glee buying a $50k H2 and taking a $50k deduction = ~$17k off their taxes, depending on rates. Nice coupon there.

[lucid]

Originally Posted by Keto

Remember the farm equipment tax deduction you could take for your >6000 lbs gross weight SUV? People were bubbling with glee buying a $50k H2 and taking a $50k deduction = ~$17k off their taxes, depending on rates. Nice coupon there.

Yep, and it took them how many years to close that loophole?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by aerisolphaln

...Also Car and Driver run their instrumented tests such that the 0 to 60 time doesn't start until after the front tires have moved 12 inches!!
You may say, 12 inches is nothing, but I can tell you that the first 12 inches in my G35 is definitely the slowest when pulling from a dead stop with the traction control off for a maximum accel hole run.

Wow!

As I type this, there are 80 notes in this string, which is a remarkable amount of interest in a topic that is very close to meaningless.

The guy who invented the 0-60 test as a standard procedure was Tom McCahill, writing for Popular Mechanics (or maybe it was Popular Science) way back in the 40s, I think - and I sure wish he hadn't.

My reasoning is:

A) There isn't any "true" 0-60 time, and B) It wouldn't matter if there was a true 0-60 time, because it doesn't equate to anything out here on the actual planet that we can relate to.

In regard to A), test conditions vary, driving styles vary, and test procedures vary. Car & Driver, as a for instance, doesn't start the clocks on any zero-to run until the vehicle has rolled a foot. They do this (as do many other testers) to try and duplicate the timing procedures at your favorite drag strip. Every sanctioned drag strip lines you up via having your front tire break a light beam, and the timing clocks start when your tire has rolled through (and out of) that beam of light. For an average street car, the beam remains blocked until your front tire has rolled about a foot. How long does that take? Typically around four tenths of a second or more if you're running on street tires. C & D also runs an algorithm which adjusts their observed numbers to a standard set of weather conditions which closely resembles the old "SAE Gross" Standard Day. If memory serves, the Standard Day was 60 degrees, 29.92" observed barometer and dry air.

So, if you're at 90 humid degrees ambient and testing with trusty stopwatch in hand at sea level (and assuming that speedometer needle lag just makes up for BMW's traditional three mph optimism), you're going to be about a second slower than Car and Driver's 4.4 time, testing the same car under the same conditions - providing you are very good with clutch, shifter and launch techniques.

Car and Driver is fairly aggressive in terms of their test procedures and correction factors, but they don't power shift, so it's possible that you may get a 4.3 if you use their procedures and don't bother to lift on the one-two. Would that be a "true" 0-60 time? Or, how about using BMW's published time when that is available for U.S. spec cars. Is that a true time?

You see the issue, I hope.

In regard to B), there isn't any way to relate an 0-60 time to something concrete out here on the mean streets (or tracks). Although the "faster" car has a better than 50% probability of being ahead of the slower car at 60, it's far from a done deal. Time to speed has essentially nothing to do with time to distance, so a car that reaches 60 before another car may very well be behind in a drag race at the time. The only thing that you can say with complete confidence is that the car with the quicker 0-60 time will be going faster than the car with the slower 0-60 time - at either car’s 60. It may be behind (and catching up), even with (and about to pull away), or ahead and widening its lead.

By way of example, and as a guess, if you can get your E92 M3 to 60 in 4.3 seconds (thereby matching a published number for the RS4), you will be behind the RS4 at that time because he can launch at 7000 rpm by sidestepping the clutch. As the battle progresses, you will reel him in and pull ahead due to a power to weight advantage, perhaps by the quarter mile point or perhaps not.

As a final observation in regard to this hallowed test, pretty much all of these current hot cars are really just starting to get going at 60, so if we're bound to work with zero to speed times, then zero to 100 or 120 would tend to tell you a bit more about how the runs out on the open road.

Bruce

[lucid]

Thanks for articulating your point A. I made a similar comment about the lack of normalization of the Ring times that are being quoted, especially ones obtained by different magazines.

I was not familiar with how cars are timed at the drag strip, so that's news to me. If C&D indeed goes to such difficulty in normalizing their 0-60 runs, then wouldn't their published results on different cars for the same test act as a solid basis for performance comparison though? (This is without going into the discussion about the relevance of such a test.)

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by lucid

Thanks for articulating your point A. I made a similar comment about the lack of normalization of the Ring times that are being quoted, especially ones obtained by different magazines.

I was not familiar with how cars are timed at the drag strip, so that's news to me. If C&D indeed goes to such difficulty in normalizing their 0-60 runs, then wouldn't their published results on different cars for the same test act as a solid basis for performance comparison though? (This is without going into the discussion about the relevance of such a test.)

C & D has more credibility for me than some of the other publications that don't bother trying as much as possible to compare apples with apples.

Having said that, I personally would like to know more about C & D's correction factors, as I believe it's a tricky business.

It's pretty easy to adjust power using the SAE Standard J1349, and quarter mile performance will tend to vary by the cube root of the power to weight delta*, so just using those two items gets you to a much better place than no correction at all.

*Don't ask me any more than this about power to weight effects, as I'm out of gas other than to type those words with some confidence. I read it in a book somewhere, and a guy once wrote out the math for me. I attempted to make sense of it, but I found it's hard to read when your eyes glaze over.

The thing is, ambient temperature seems to affect cars (at least normally aspirated cars) less than barometer and humidity. My theory is that as the temperature falls, power increases tend to be largely offset by increased rolling resistance and driveline power losses brought about by thicker lubricants.

OK, sorry. More than you wanted to know.

Bruce

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Wow!

By way of example, and as a guess, if you can get your E92 M3 to 60 in 4.3 seconds (thereby matching a published number for the RS4), you will be behind the RS4 at that time because he can launch at 7000 rpm by sidestepping the clutch.
Bruce

And why cannot you do the same with the M3?

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

And why cannot you do the same with the M3?

Uh. Because you'd disappear in a cloud of tire smoke and go nowhere?

Bruce

[ILC32]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Uh. Because you'd disappear in a cloud of tire smoke and go nowhere?

Bruce

And in your RS4 you would be going nowhere sitting in a cloud of smoke also, but the smoke would be from your clutch.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by ILC32

And in your RS4 you would be going nowhere sitting in a cloud of smoke also, but the smoke would be from your clutch.

Quite true if done repeatedly, as it adds considerable wear and tear. However, I've personally watched a guy make three passes (admittedly not all in a row, but more like the better part of an hour apart) at the drag strip, all done using the technique mentioned. He ran a best of 12.60something at just a hair over 111 mph, with the other two passes showing 12.70s at 110+.

When I inquired, he said that 7000 rpm seemed to be the best rpm for launching, and also said he had done 12.5s during previous outings.

Hey, this kind of stuff is admittedly very hard on clutches and drivelines, but while an Audi may not be a BMW, it sure as hell ain't no Mitsubishi, either. Remember those awd VR4s? Maybe two passes and the clutch was gone.

Bruce

[mkoesel]

Speaking of dragstrips, if you have never taken your car to one, then I highly recommend it. Nothing is more humbling than getting smoked by a slower car (and you will). But you will learn how to launch this car well, and the numbers on your timeslip will help.

Now, this won't teach you a damn thing about how to go fast around corners, but at least you won't be loosing your pride in those inevitable stoplight dog fights. And for anyone who says they are above that - just wait until someone pulls next to you in a S4 or 911 or C55 or whatever else. Everyone on the road will have your number for at least the first 12 months you own this car.

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

C & D has more credibility for me than some of the other publications that don't bother trying as much as possible to compare apples with apples.

Having said that, I personally would like to know more about C & D's correction factors, as I believe it's a tricky business.

It's pretty easy to adjust power using the SAE Standard J1349, and quarter mile performance will tend to vary by the cube root of the power to weight delta*, so just using those two items gets you to a much better place than no correction at all.

*Don't ask me any more than this about power to weight effects, as I'm out of gas other than to type those words with some confidence. I read it in a book somewhere, and a guy once wrote out the math for me. I attempted to make sense of it, but I found it's hard to read when your eyes glaze over.

The thing is, ambient temperature seems to affect cars (at least normally aspirated cars) less than barometer and humidity. My theory is that as the temperature falls, power increases tend to be largely offset by increased rolling resistance and driveline power losses brought about by thicker lubricants.

OK, sorry. More than you wanted to know.

Bruce

Great couple of posts...


I'd rather see a 7mph ~ 70mph observations.

To me, that would be more of a test of the said car's performance. Followed up by a 60 ~ 85mph time.






-Garrett

[NewhouseEnt]

Originally Posted by bryce86

Aww didums...

Its gonna be $101,000 (USD) here in the UK before toys!

Think how us guys feel

bryce

That's what you get for not taking the initiative and the heat, by blowing Iraq off the face of the map... and then making Iran a glowing white ember seen all the way from outter space.