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....
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-14-2008, 02:19 PM   #67
gbb357
Captain
24
Rep
707
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by malter2.0 View Post
All C&D and road and track tests are corrected for humidity, temperature and other variables, so you are actually wrong. Reading is fundamental.

Neither you or Bruce have addressed why is corvette posting same performance numbers, longer braking distance, lower skidpad numbers, slower slalom numbers, in comparison to 400lb heavier M3, with less power and rubber.

Can you or you can not address this?
In regards to the M3 being as fast or faster than the Vette, could it be possible that the M3 is slightly under-rating? Now granted, even if and that's a big "if", the M3 is making as much hp as the Vette, it's still amazing that it is putting the same numbers as the Vette with 400lbs more to carry. In terms of skidpad, slalom, and braking, i guess it's safe to say that the M3 has better engineering when it comes to those performance attributes. I'm speculating, so don't take it the wrong way.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 03:35 PM   #68
malter2.0
Banned
United_States
21
Rep
908
Posts

 
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1.8t View Post
"Corrected" LMAO. If you had ever done anything in life other than run your mouth, you would see how "corrected" numbers are about as accurate as a tabloid magazine. I have said it before and I will say it again, keep living in the dream land of bench racing magazine data....it helps display your snobby attitude so well.

Experience is all that matters and its obvious you have none.
So now you shifted your story. First you said tests are "hell no" calibrated to new story that they are calibrated, but aren't good enough.

What is your experience with professional g-techs so-to-speak? Have you ever used one? Ever looked at the calibration certificate for one?

My experience is limited to g-tech pro, which is highly inaccurate, but somewhat informative.

What is your experience? Did you work closely with this kind of equipment when you can make blunt statements about its inaccurary? Why are you ignoring my question from previous post?

You have 13 posts all related to C6 vs M3 topic, drive a chevy and post on BMW forums. Troll much?
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 03:44 PM   #69
malter2.0
Banned
United_States
21
Rep
908
Posts

 
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbb357 View Post
In regards to the M3 being as fast or faster than the Vette, could it be possible that the M3 is slightly under-rating? Now granted, even if and that's a big "if", the M3 is making as much hp as the Vette, it's still amazing that it is putting the same numbers as the Vette with 400lbs more to carry. In terms of skidpad, slalom, and braking, i guess it's safe to say that the M3 has better engineering when it comes to those performance attributes. I'm speculating, so don't take it the wrong way.
To my knowledge only one guy so far posted a dyno - in Saudi Arabia. He dynoed 375ish whp I think, but it was measured at the hub (you could see wheels were off), which should give you a value lower than crank, but higher than at the wheel. All M3s (from E36 and E46) typically have 15-20% loss..on average 18%. E36 200ish whp, E46 270ish whp.

Looking at the hub value take....375/414=~ 10% loss at the hub, which makes sense. Judging by this, new M3 is right around 414, unlike, say 335i which dyno higher stock and are probably underrated.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 03:58 PM   #70
spearfisher
Lieutenant
spearfisher's Avatar
6
Rep
409
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by malter2.0 View Post
All C&D and road and track tests are corrected for humidity, temperature and other variables, so you are actually wrong. Reading is fundamental.

Neither you or Bruce have addressed why is corvette posting same performance numbers, longer braking distance, lower skidpad numbers, slower slalom numbers, in comparison to 400lb heavier M3, with less power and rubber.

Can you or you can not address this?
I say the proof is the real world, I don't see much hard faqs on this site yet, no time slips posted.

I still say real proof is running cars against each other on the track or the 1/4 mile, and post. Until then, people can argue back and forth.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 04:27 PM   #71
malter2.0
Banned
United_States
21
Rep
908
Posts

 
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by spearfisher View Post
I say the proof is the real world, I don't see much hard faqs on this site yet, no time slips posted.

I still say real proof is running cars against each other on the track or the 1/4 mile, and post. Until then, people can argue back and forth.
Car is still new. People are still taking deliveries. If you look at dragtimes.com, magazine times match quite closely actual customer times for previous models...E46 M3, C5...etc.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 04:48 PM   #72
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 malter2.0 View Post
To my knowledge only one guy so far posted a dyno - in Saudi Arabia. He dynoed 375ish whp I think, but it was measured at the hub (you could see wheels were off), which should give you a value lower than crank, but higher than at the wheel. All M3s (from E36 and E46) typically have 15-20% loss..on average 18%. E36 200ish whp, E46 270ish whp.
There have been multiple E9X M3 dynos posted. Getting drivetrain loss from a dyno is a bit of a oxymoron. Drivetrain loss figures are required as an input to extrapolate from tire or hub dyno numbers to crank numbers. Call it under-rating, call it dyno inconsistency, call it unknown loss - it is all basically the same thing. If I have to put money on the M3 drivetrain loss though I would guess <15%.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 04:49 PM   #73
1.8t
Enlisted Member
0
Rep
31
Posts

 
Drives: 08 C6
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by malter2.0 View Post
So now you shifted your story. First you said tests are "hell no" calibrated to new story that they are calibrated, but aren't good enough.
Reading is fundamental. You are grasping for a weakness that isn't there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malter2.0 View Post
What is your experience with professional g-techs so-to-speak? Have you ever used one? Ever looked at the calibration certificate for one?

My experience is limited to g-tech pro, which is highly inaccurate, but somewhat informative.

What is your experience? Did you work closely with this kind of equipment when you can make blunt statements about its inaccurary? Why are you ignoring my question from previous post?

You have 13 posts all related to C6 vs M3 topic, drive a chevy and post on BMW forums. Troll much?
Expain to me why I ran a 12.0@120mph on a -75' DA day and then ran a 11.998@121 on a 1500' DA day with a marginally better 60' when the the corrected time should have been a ~12.2? Tell me why dyno numbers routinely vary 10, 20, even 30whp based off of conditions even though they are being corrected to SAE standards?

Raw data is the only data that is ever comparable...hence same cars same day. The only "correcting" car mags try to do is for accel numbers...in which case they attempt to correct the same why dynojets do. Let me tell you, its real accurate. They do not and cannot correct for asphault temp, tire temp, brake temp., etc. All of which can have a significant impact on your precious numbers.
__________________
08 C6 Z06 - intake/thermostat - 11.67@125.10
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 05:54 PM   #74
malter2.0
Banned
United_States
21
Rep
908
Posts

 
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1.8t View Post
Expain to me why I ran a 12.0@120mph on a -75' DA day and then ran a 11.998@121 on a 1500' DA day with a marginally better 60' when the the corrected time should have been a ~12.2? Tell me why dyno numbers routinely vary 10, 20, even 30whp based off of conditions even though they are being corrected to SAE standards?

You still haven't answered my questions. Second, anecdotal evidence is meaningless. There are countless of cases where particular car ran slower and faster than it was suppose to run. You car is modded according to your signature, and as such your numbers are even more meaningless in the scope of this discussion. If you are a regular at your local drag strip and familiar with corvettes it is not surprising that your numbers would be better than that of someone who just got into the car (e.g. car mag editor, car tester who is testing C6 for the first time).

10hp on 436hp is 2% variance. Unless you are tunning a turbo car on a dyno 30hp difference is very unlikely on the same day on the n/a car. Different dynos report different values. Both of my previous cars ('95 m3 and 20th ann. GTI) have been dynoed on mustang dyno and results were withing 1% on numerous pulls. Even that variance could be attributed to coolant/oil temperatures as the car heats up on later runs. Just about the only thing to throw off a dyno is if you are dynoing in the gear thats not closest to 1:1 ratio. I was not talking about dyno corrections, but about speed/time measurement equipment. Do you have any experience with that equipment that you can confidently say it is inaccurate?


Quote:
Raw data is the only data that is ever comparable...hence same cars same day. The only "correcting" car mags try to do is for accel numbers...in which case they attempt to correct the same why dynojets do. Let me tell you, its real accurate. They do not and cannot correct for asphault temp, tire temp, brake temp., etc. All of which can have a significant impact on your precious numbers.
Bottom line is that hordes of magazine testers have reported nearly identical numbers for C6 and M3. Whats your point? That results are less accurate for C6 and more accurate for M3? That there is conspiracy about C6 underperforming and M3 overperforming? Thats a joke.

Again for millionth time how are you attributing 400lbs EVEN if your STOCK C6 ran 120mph traps all day long without tune/headers/exhaust? More power, way more torque, way less weight and way more rubber.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 06:05 PM   #75
malter2.0
Banned
United_States
21
Rep
908
Posts

 
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
There have been multiple E9X M3 dynos posted. Getting drivetrain loss from a dyno is a bit of a oxymoron. Drivetrain loss figures are required as an input to extrapolate from tire or hub dyno numbers to crank numbers. Call it under-rating, call it dyno inconsistency, call it unknown loss - it is all basically the same thing. If I have to put money on the M3 drivetrain loss though I would guess <15%.
So what do they put down? I only saw a thread by that saudi dude a few months back.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 06:30 PM   #76
1.8t
Enlisted Member
0
Rep
31
Posts

 
Drives: 08 C6
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta

iTrader: (0)

There is no point with you. Comman sense means comparing dyno runs on the same dyno on different days. Why would I compare back to back runs on the same dyno?!?! How is that correction factor doing anything but correcting for the exact same conditions as the previous run???

It doesn't matter what I say, your just going to try to argue it even with no point in mind. I could write "no" on a rock and you would argue it. Just continue your neverending trip with the mag's. Your going to be pissed when people start posting actual times.
__________________
08 C6 Z06 - intake/thermostat - 11.67@125.10
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 06:54 PM   #77
malter2.0
Banned
United_States
21
Rep
908
Posts

 
Drives: em-funf
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SF Bay Area

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1.8t View Post
There is no point with you. Comman sense means comparing dyno runs on the same dyno on different days. Why would I compare back to back runs on the same dyno?!?! How is that correction factor doing anything but correcting for the exact same conditions as the previous run???

It doesn't matter what I say, your just going to try to argue it even with no point in mind. I could write "no" on a rock and you would argue it. Just continue your neverending trip with the mag's. Your going to be pissed when people start posting actual times.
Your rebuttal is on the level of a 12-year old. Get back when you actually have something smart to say. I have answered every sub-topic you initiated. Keep up with trolling.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 08:05 PM   #78
1.8t
Enlisted Member
0
Rep
31
Posts

 
Drives: 08 C6
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta

iTrader: (0)

Good boy, keep arguing . The 12yr old comment was nice.
__________________
08 C6 Z06 - intake/thermostat - 11.67@125.10
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 08:15 PM   #79
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
116
Rep
8,034
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

I have no intention to fuel the not so pleasant back and forth on this thread, but I would like someone to directly address Malter’s question on how come the two cars (stock) are posting rather similar performance numbers on a variety of tests despite the weight difference, and what kind of an implication that might have for the quality of engineering embodied in the two designs.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 11:06 PM   #80
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 lucid View Post
I have no intention to fuel the not so pleasant back and forth on this thread, but I would like someone to directly address Malter’s question on how come the two cars (stock) are posting rather similar performance numbers on a variety of tests despite the weight difference, and what kind of an implication that might have for the quality of engineering embodied in the two designs.
In spite of the histrionics, you should pay closer attention, as this has been addressed at least twice by me, and once by Swamp, I believe.

The new M3 engine has the flattest and broadest torque curve I have ever seen on a normally aspirated street engine. Much broader and flatter than the LS3, and it's significantly better in that regard than even the better Japanese offerings - which previously set that mark of goodness, as far as I know. The last M3 engine was no slouch either, but can't come close to this one.

Edit: Other issues have been addressed in regard to tire differences and their effect on traction. I.E. - wide tires tend to have a positive effect on ultimate cornering traction, and none on braking. If those wide tires provide less cornering traction due to construction and materials, it's very likely they won't generate as much traction in hard starts and stops.

Frankly, the Vette engineering decision made many years ago in regard to runflats was a very bad one. Fast forward to now, and you can read about dozens of cases where a 335 owner has reached joy and salvation through a simple change of sneakers, so runflats still have problems.

The GT-R gives me my first hope for runflats, because even though I think those tires must be very special indeed, at least the technology is coming of age.

Bruce

Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 04-14-2008 at 11:31 PM.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 11:23 PM   #81
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 malter2.0 View Post
So what do they put down? I only saw a thread by that saudi dude a few months back.
Four results I am aware of. Again as you probably know you can not compare results across different equipment.

hp/tq (ft lb)/link
373/270 E92
371/270 E90
351/259 Saudi Owner
360/266 Magazine Result

Last edited by swamp2; 04-14-2008 at 11:39 PM.
Appreciate 0
      04-14-2008, 11:28 PM   #82
KAVLA
Of all the things iv lost, I miss my M the most!!!
KAVLA's Avatar
United_States
0
Rep
31
Posts

 
Drives: e92 m3 SG/ext red interior
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CT USA

iTrader: (0)

hmm...
Appreciate 0
      04-15-2008, 06:45 AM   #83
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
116
Rep
8,034
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
In spite of the histrionics, you should pay closer attention, as this has been addressed at least twice by me, and once by Swamp, I believe.
So much of what has been posted has been sour that I tuned out and missed the useful info it seems. Thanks for reiterating your view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
The new M3 engine has the flattest and broadest torque curve I have ever seen on a normally aspirated street engine. Much broader and flatter than the LS3, and it's significantly better in that regard than even the better Japanese offerings - which previously set that mark of goodness, as far as I know. The last M3 engine was no slouch either, but can't come close to this one.
So, it does sound like you agree that the the new M3 engine is superior in design in this respect?

P.S. I should also add that I wish my car was about 300lbs lighter every time I sit in it. The strange thing is that it really performs like a beast when you push it (not necessarily redline performance, just need to give it close to WOT if you recall our previous discussion) as the numbers indicate. Very agile and precise in all respects. It does feel a bit like a cruiser when you don't push it though, and you kind of go, "damn, I wish this thing was 300lbs lighter" despite the fact that you know it's a performer. It is kind of a strange feeling... I'm not sure if I am exactly okay with that or not, but I know its utility was a big factor in my decision to buy it. It really is two cars in one.

On that line of thinking, if I were to ever mod this car, I would try to find drastic ways of reducing weight rather than adding more power (maybe replacing the front seats at some point for instance). Less weight would surely have a much more significant impact on driving enjoyment than more power in this case. The engine is definitely the car's highpoint anyway, and I would refrain from messing with it too much.
__________________

Last edited by lucid; 04-15-2008 at 07:02 AM.
Appreciate 0
      04-15-2008, 09:27 AM   #84
spearfisher
Lieutenant
spearfisher's Avatar
6
Rep
409
Posts

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

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
I have no intention to fuel the not so pleasant back and forth on this thread, but I would like someone to directly address Malter’s question on how come the two cars (stock) are posting rather similar performance numbers on a variety of tests despite the weight difference, and what kind of an implication that might have for the quality of engineering embodied in the two designs.
Well my opinion is that the C6 suffers from traction problems. If you read the reviews between the 911, GTR, Z06, the ZO6 is not the fastest off the line or in the qtr mile, but the trap speeds are faster in the quarter than both and the 0-120 mph, it is faster than both, and once rolling niether can stay with it.

I for one cannot put the power down on my C6, even when I was stock, there is a fine line between feathering the throttle properly and roasting the tires going down the road sideways. Even at the track, I cannot get better than a 2.0-2.1 60 foot time. If traction was not such a big problem, the C6 would post better times. The tires are mostly to blame, many with the C6 that have changed from the run flats, have put down 1.7-1.86 consistent 60 foot times.

Last edited by spearfisher; 04-15-2008 at 03:23 PM.
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2008, 09:00 PM   #85
th3Stig
Private
0
Rep
50
Posts

 
Drives: 2010 GT500 Eleanor
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SWFL

iTrader: (0)

Chevy Small Block power FTW. Gettin' power down in first is a shitshow. I just laugh with my vette, granted I barely have tread left right now but still.

lucid, you are on the right track. In all honesty, I'd like to see this motor in the old CSL... ooh ooh...
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2008, 10:41 PM   #86
sayemthree
Brigadier General
sayemthree's Avatar
128
Rep
4,845
Posts

 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by spearfisher View Post
that's funny I saw a fat bald dude in a M3 on south beach the other day, I guess they like M3's also
yes, but they replace the gold chains with a Rolex!

Vettes are fast but they dont blow the doors off M3's.

BMW M3 (E92) 1:14.3 07 420 / 1619 sportauto
42. BMW M6 1:14.4 05 507 / 1710 "Sport Auto"
43. Porsche 993 Turbo (3.6) 1:14.4 95 408 / 1502 Sportauto
44. Lamborghini Diablo GT 1:14.4 99 570 / 1530 Sport Auto
45. Mercedes SLK 55 AMG Black Series 1:14.4 06 400 / 1506 Sport Auto
46. Honda NSX-R 1:14.6 02 280 / 1270 Sportauto
47. Porsche 996 Turbo 1:14.6 00 420 / 1540 Sport Auto
48. Ferrari 575 Maranello 1:14.7 02 540 / 1730 "Sport Auto"
49. Chevrolet Corvette C6 1:14.8 04 400 / 1470 "Sport Auto"
Appreciate 0
      04-16-2008, 10:48 PM   #87
sayemthree
Brigadier General
sayemthree's Avatar
128
Rep
4,845
Posts

 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

top gear
36. BMW Z4 M Roadster 1:26.0 06 343 / 1485 The Stig
37. BMW M5 1:26.2 05 507 / 1830 The Stig
38. Porsche 997 Carrera S 1:26.20 (damp track) 04 355 / 1420 The Stig
39. Lotus Exige 1:26.4 04 192 / 875 The Stig
40. Porsche Cayman S 1:26.7 05 295 / 1340 The Stig
41. Ferrari 575 Maranello 1:26.8 02 540 / 1730 The Stig
42. Chevrolet Corvette C6 1:26.8 04 400 / 1470 The Stig
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 03:59 PM.




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