BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > M3 Photos/Video/Media Gallery
 
GT Haus
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      12-25-2007, 03:56 PM   #1
Tattedtwice
Private
2
Rep
56
Posts

Drives: 2 doors, 4 wheels
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Where the sun always shines

iTrader: (0)

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.
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 04:46 PM   #2
ILC32
Lieutenant
ILC32's Avatar
20
Rep
580
Posts

Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

iTrader: (0)

Thanks for the links. Really great results!
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 04:49 PM   #3
///M3
///M Power
///M3's Avatar
United_States
4
Rep
111
Posts

Drives: M3
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

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

4.8s to 60. Hah!
__________________
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 04:53 PM   #4
Epacy
Reincarnated
Epacy's Avatar
93
Rep
4,227
Posts

Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
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, 05:20 PM   #5
Voltigeur
MacroRisk
Voltigeur's Avatar
Australia
35
Rep
2,519
Posts

Drives: M3 E92 ED'09 / 335d Sport DD
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: TX

iTrader: (0)

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, 06:06 PM   #6
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
235
Rep
10,255
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

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.
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 06:23 PM   #7
JEllis
Brigadier General
JEllis's Avatar
96
Rep
4,952
Posts

Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SD CA/Yuma

iTrader: (4)

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....
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 06:23 PM   #8
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
235
Rep
10,255
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

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 04:26 PM.
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 06:30 PM   #9
mhutchins14
First Lieutenant
mhutchins14's Avatar
United_States
4
Rep
379
Posts

Drives: Jet Black w/Beige 2008 e92 M3
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Houston, TX, United States

iTrader: (0)

Thanks for the post....awesome performance numbers!!!!
__________________
HUTCH
2008 BMW e92 M3, Jet Black w/Bamboo 6sp M
2012 Aston Martin V12 Vantage Tungsten w/Chestnut
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 06:55 PM   #10
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
235
Rep
10,255
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Hey, great 1st post as well. Welcome to the forum.
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 08:43 PM   #11
aerisolphaln
First Lieutenant
United_States
4
Rep
396
Posts

Drives: '05 G35 coupe 6MT
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Iowa City, IA

iTrader: (0)

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, 08:52 PM   #12
JEllis
Brigadier General
JEllis's Avatar
96
Rep
4,952
Posts

Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SD CA/Yuma

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aerisolphaln View Post
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
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 08:54 PM   #13
JEllis
Brigadier General
JEllis's Avatar
96
Rep
4,952
Posts

Drives: E36 M3, E92 M3
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SD CA/Yuma

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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
__________________
http://www.m3post.com/forums/signaturepics/sigpic14547_7.gif
Appreciate 0
      12-25-2007, 10:49 PM   #14
RandyB
Lieutenant Colonel
RandyB's Avatar
United_States
15
Rep
1,504
Posts

Drives: '03 330i, '09 M3 Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas

iTrader: (0)

Thumbs up

Nice numbers! Those are C5 Z06 type numbers. Impressive.
Appreciate 0
      12-26-2007, 02:36 AM   #15
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
235
Rep
10,255
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEllis View Post
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.
Appreciate 0
      12-26-2007, 11:10 AM   #16
ILC32
Lieutenant
ILC32's Avatar
20
Rep
580
Posts

Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
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.
Appreciate 0
      12-26-2007, 01:12 PM   #17
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
166
Rep
7,507
Posts

Drives: ????????????
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BMW M3 will get a V6TT

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 E92 M3  [0.00]
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, 02:00 PM   #18
dechoong
First Lieutenant
11
Rep
359
Posts

Drives: E60 530 Sport
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: KL

iTrader: (0)

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, 02:30 PM   #19
gblansten
Beandoc
gblansten's Avatar
United_States
71
Rep
2,387
Posts

Drives: 2014 BMW M5 SG/SS
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Thick ascending limb

iTrader: (0)

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.
Appreciate 0
      12-26-2007, 03:13 PM   #20
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
117
Rep
8,034
Posts

Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

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, 04:04 PM   #21
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
235
Rep
10,255
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILC32 View Post
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.
Appreciate 0
      12-26-2007, 04:07 PM   #22
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
235
Rep
10,255
Posts

Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
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.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:07 PM.




m3post
m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST