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 vs....
 
European Auto Source
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      01-06-2008, 01:47 PM   #1
SS32
Major
SS32's Avatar
57
Rep
1,431
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 M3
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC

iTrader: (0)

M3 faster than a C6?

Stock v. stock, what would the outcome be?
Appreciate 0
      01-06-2008, 02:12 PM   #2
Epacy
Reincarnated
Epacy's Avatar
88
Rep
4,227
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
M3 wins by 90 car lengths.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      01-06-2008, 02:30 PM   #3
southlight
Moderator / European Editor
southlight's Avatar
609
Rep
6,748
Posts

 
Drives: BMW
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Germany

iTrader: (0)

Judging by Sportauto numbers the M3 is a half second faster on Hockenheimring aswell as 10 seconds faster on Nürburgring.


Best regards, south
Appreciate 0
      01-06-2008, 02:40 PM   #4
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)

Road and Track also has better numbers for the M3 vs. the C6.

0-60 4.1 vs. 4.3
0-100 9.4 vs.9.5
1/4 mi. 12.5 @114.8 mph vs. 12.6@115.7 mph

That's pretty impressive considering the weight disparity and the similar hp.
Appreciate 0
      01-06-2008, 05:12 PM   #5
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyB View Post
Road and Track also has better numbers for the M3 vs. the C6.
To be clear shouldn't that be "C6 vs M3"?
Appreciate 0
      01-06-2008, 08:42 PM   #6
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
To be clear shouldn't that be "C6 vs M3"?
M3 data is on the left and C6 to the right. Is that what you mean?
Appreciate 0
      01-06-2008, 10:42 PM   #7
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
10
Rep
489
Posts

 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

iTrader: (0)

Which c6 are we talking about? The LS2 or LS3???
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 01:31 AM   #8
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyB View Post
M3 data is on the left and C6 to the right. Is that what you mean?
Yes, thanks I had it backwards as I just saw the new R&T 0-60 of 4.1.
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 04:31 AM   #9
OzCarfreak
Private First Class
OzCarfreak's Avatar
Australia
1
Rep
132
Posts

 
Drives: Merc / BMW /Audi
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sydney

iTrader: (0)

lol 4,1 my ass
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 06:17 AM   #10
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownM3 View Post
Which c6 are we talking about? The LS2 or LS3???
436hp LS3.
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 11:33 AM   #11
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,908
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cowmoo32 View Post
Stock v. stock, what would the outcome be?
The current C6 would prevail, pretty much ten times out of ten, in whatever kind of race - but the margin is very, very small.

The wonder is how fast the new M3 actually is when you consider its excess poundage. Furthermore, factoring in the new automatic gearbox when that becomes available, I'm betting it'll be pretty close to a tossup.

Don't get too fixated on the numbers you've just read, however. The figures generated by Road & Track in the current issue are just too quick to be true. I'm not doubting R & T, but since they don't factor weather into their results (and the weather conditions at the time looked to be very good), that's part of the issue. It's not enough to actually explain the results, however. When I run the quarter mile numbers, I can't match the R & T results without at least 440 HP, and that's only by stacking the traction and weather conditions way far in the M3's favor. In fact, if Swamp didn't dissolve into a mass of adoring protoplasm every time he even thought about the new M3, he'd have already written a new string entitled "New M3 Massively under-rated" or somesuch - but he'd leave out the commentary that it was nothing special given its componentry.

I personally believe that the new car really is something special given its componentry. That 8:05 at the 'Ring is a terrific time, even assuming very sticky optional rubber available in Europe and don't-even-try-to-stop-when-they're-cold brake pads.

It doesn't match the 7:59 generated by Dave Hill in a stock Z51 coupe, however, and with a nine percent power gain, I assume that Swamp and lucid would agree that the '08 Vette will be several seconds faster than that. The 8:15 generated by "I'm not fast, but I have a steady job" Horst? Dunno. I can only assume that he ran a car without the Z51 ("sport") package, and even though the Z51 has moderately crappy runflat sneakers, they're far better than the runflats in the standard car - as are the brakes, suspension, etc.

Be content that although the M3 isn't as quick as a Vette in whatever venue, it's already something of an over achiever, and with the optional gearbox, it'll be closer together than half past six.

Bruce

Edit: PS - The numbers so far generated by publications other than R & T seem to support the notion that although the M3 is an over achiever, it's probably rated correctly in terms of power.
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 12:07 PM   #12
footie
Major General
footie's Avatar
No_Country
159
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]
Bruce,

How are R&T getting the figures they are getting without telling wee white lies. I love the idea that my next car is able to get to 60 and 100 in 4.1s and 9.2s respectively but I personally have far more faith in AUTOCAR's figures of 4.5s and 10.2s.
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 02:27 PM   #13
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce
Don't get too fixated on the numbers you've just read, however. The figures generated by Road & Track in the current issue are just too quick to be true. I'm not doubting R & T, but since they don't factor weather into their results (and the weather conditions at the time looked to be very good), that's part of the issue. It's not enough to actually explain the results, however. When I run the quarter mile numbers, I can't match the R & T results without at least 440 HP, and that's only by stacking the traction and weather conditions way far in the M3's favor. In fact, if Swamp didn't dissolve into a mass of adoring protoplasm every time he even thought about the new M3, he'd have already written a new string entitled "New M3 Massively under-rated" or somesuch - but he'd leave out the commentary that it was nothing special given its componentry
That could explain the 385hp dyno results the e92 M3 got in one of the threads, which gives it about 12% powertrain loss. That's still very good.
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 02:41 PM   #14
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

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

iTrader: (1)

My analyses as well indicate that the 4.1/9.4 (footie: they got 9.4 to 100 not 9.2) times are outliers and are not consistent with the quoted specifications of the car. However, most other reported numbers and their averages are consistent with specifications. As Bruce stated (or hinted at) weather alone can not explain the amount that this is an outlier. My simulations with the exact temp and humidity of the R&T test showed a .1s gain to 60 and .2s gain to 100 comapred to standard temp and humidty. Since simulation only works with a reasonable accuracy for flat out straight line accelerations the Ring time sanity checks should be made based on: power to weight, driver, tires, similar vehicles and presense of automated manual. Lastly the 8:05 Ring time is EXACTLY as predicted by lucid's regression analysis. Given that many cars in that regression were not run with Cup/Cup+ quality of tires (as the M3 was) that may mean the car is a slight underperformer on the Ring relative to others.

Last but not least, even though these numbers are not so meaningful. If M-DCT launch control works well, I think we will be seeing a sub 4 second 0-60 run in that car.

P.S. Bruce: if you read a bit more of my posts you would find my praise of the M3 is nicely balanced by my criticisms of both BMW (M and NA) and the car itself. Try as you might, you can not pigeon hole me as a fan boy. Nice try though.
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 03:14 PM   #15
NavNurs
First Lieutenant
NavNurs's Avatar
United_States
4
Rep
308
Posts

 
Drives: E92 / S2000 beater
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego

iTrader: (0)

Which one would get 3 bitches and a keg of beer to the beach the fastest?


P.S. This includes both bikini's and keg accessories!
Appreciate 0
      01-07-2008, 10:25 PM   #16
spearfisher
Lieutenant
spearfisher's Avatar
6
Rep
409
Posts

 
Drives: C6 ZO6
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: FL

iTrader: (0)

check out http://corvetteforum.com/

and you'll find some good data on 1/4 mile times
Appreciate 0
      01-08-2008, 11:18 AM   #17
SS32
Major
SS32's Avatar
57
Rep
1,431
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 M3
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Raleigh, NC

iTrader: (0)

So it's all number racing still. I wasn't sure if anyone who already has one has raced a C6. I don't normally care about stuff like this, but the C6 is going to be my biggest competitor on the streets around here.
Appreciate 0
      01-08-2008, 11:29 AM   #18
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
10
Rep
489
Posts

 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cowmoo32 View Post
So it's all number racing still. I wasn't sure if anyone who already has one has raced a C6. I don't normally care about stuff like this, but the C6 is going to be my biggest competitor on the streets around here.
Same here. I'm in a racing club in the suburbs of Chicago, it's rather small, about 12 members but there are currently 8 Corvettes in the club, I just hope I can hang with the most of them. Most of them are running in the 11s already, but some of them are still close enough to stock where I think I can hang with them on the highway. Corvette = best performance for the money. You can get a brand new 08 Corvette for around 43-44k, that is ridiculous.
Appreciate 0
      01-08-2008, 03:01 PM   #19
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

 
Drives: IS300
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New York

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChitownM3 View Post
Same here. I'm in a racing club in the suburbs of Chicago, it's rather small, about 12 members but there are currently 8 Corvettes in the club, I just hope I can hang with the most of them. Most of them are running in the 11s already, but some of them are still close enough to stock where I think I can hang with them on the highway. Corvette = best performance for the money. You can get a brand new 08 Corvette for around 43-44k, that is ridiculous.
My friend's SS Camaro ran high 11's with stock tires. Other than custom exhaust and headers, i'm not sure what other mods he has done. I'm almost sure he has no SC's or turbos.

Last edited by gbb357; 01-08-2008 at 03:55 PM.
Appreciate 0
      01-08-2008, 04:03 PM   #20
ChitownM3
Lieutenant
10
Rep
489
Posts

 
Drives: 2001 SS Camaro
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Burbs of Chicago

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
My friend's SS Camaro ran high 11's with stock tires. Other than custom exhaust and headers, i'm not sure what other mods he has done. I'm almost sure he has no SC's or turbos.

Had to have had quite a bit to run 11s with stock tires. at least 400rwhp.
Appreciate 0
      01-08-2008, 04:17 PM   #21
NavNurs
First Lieutenant
NavNurs's Avatar
United_States
4
Rep
308
Posts

 
Drives: E92 / S2000 beater
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego

iTrader: (0)

Maybe no FI, but what about a little ?250? shot N2O?

I bet if we put one of them fogger things on a 335 we could outrun an M3 for much, much cheaper than the unknown cost of the M?
Appreciate 0
      01-08-2008, 04:46 PM   #22
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,908
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by footie View Post
Bruce,

How are R&T getting the figures they are getting without telling wee white lies. I love the idea that my next car is able to get to 60 and 100 in 4.1s and 9.2s respectively but I personally have far more faith in AUTOCAR's figures of 4.5s and 10.2s.
I have no idea how those numbers came about, but unless the new car is a bunch lighter than early indications suggest (in which case I may lose $100 to another noter), they don't add up.

Bruce
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 -5. The time now is 12:58 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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