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) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
Strasse Wheels
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-26-2010, 02:54 AM   #45
kaykay
Lieutenant Colonel
kaykay's Avatar
United_States
34
Rep
1,770
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E92 M3 ZCP
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Impressive #'s for the M3, without a doubt.

We'll see when the magazine comes out, but I'm pretty sure they used a ZCP coupe and the lower center of gravity, wider wheels, modified LC and modified throttle response *could* have something to do with this 0-60 time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quality_sound View Post
Why are you wasting money on 100 Octane??? It doesn't come close to hot enough for even 91 Octane to not be high enough. Are you running a really high compression ratio or something?
I remember a post by Pencilgeek, who claimed that 100 octane gave him 28 hp more to the wheels. Bone stock car.

Yes, 28 bhp.
__________________
'12 CLS550 Palladium Silver - loaded
'11 E92 M3 ZCP - SG/B-EXT/CF, M-DCT, loaded
'11 E93 328i, BSM over Saddle Brown, sport, loaded
'08 550i M-Sport, Carbon Black (Gone but not forgotten), '06 W211 E55 AMG (Gone, miss this animal),'01 E39 540i Sport
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 03:37 AM   #46
quality_sound
8 tracks of madness
United_States
31
Rep
2,731
Posts

 
Drives: Slowly
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: At home

iTrader: (1)

^^^Seriously???? Oh, I need to read that. I would be tempted to do it for 28 ponies.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 04:47 AM   #47
kaykay
Lieutenant Colonel
kaykay's Avatar
United_States
34
Rep
1,770
Posts

 
Drives: 2011 E92 M3 ZCP
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
Check this out Quality, 28 horsepower dyno gain from 100 octane. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

As soon as I'm done with my break-in it's 100 octane time...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=19
__________________
'12 CLS550 Palladium Silver - loaded
'11 E92 M3 ZCP - SG/B-EXT/CF, M-DCT, loaded
'11 E93 328i, BSM over Saddle Brown, sport, loaded
'08 550i M-Sport, Carbon Black (Gone but not forgotten), '06 W211 E55 AMG (Gone, miss this animal),'01 E39 540i Sport
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 06:28 AM   #48
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
28
Rep
1,942
Posts

 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I'm fairly sure they run with any and all settings to just get the best time possible, i.e. no set standard.



Well the obvious answer is that it does so when C&D test the new M3 ZCP model. What do you think - they used bum equipment, they lied? Have a look at the database I referred to earlier. These numbers are only ever so slightly better than the best non ZCP cars tested to date. It really sucks how much bang for the buck you can get from an M3 vs. Porsche, huh?
I made my statements because I feel the M3's times, especially the 9.4, 0-100, are a bit exaggerated. Are you really that insecure about your BMW that you need to make this something about a Porsche. I realize the bang for the buck an M provides, however, am not going to make this a Porsche vs BMW M thread.

Isn't there some data that you can over-analyze to support your bang for buck theory? I'm sure it's coming... Maybe then you can go into an overly long and exaggerated dissertation into how you arrived at your conclusion. Please, I haven't been bored in awhile.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 06:43 AM   #49
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
28
Rep
1,942
Posts

 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay View Post
Impressive #'s for the M3, without a doubt.

We'll see when the magazine comes out, but I'm pretty sure they used a ZCP coupe and the lower center of gravity, wider wheels, modified LC and modified throttle response *could* have something to do with this 0-60 time.



I remember a post by Pencilgeek, who claimed that 100 octane gave him 28 hp more to the wheels. Bone stock car.

Yes, 28 bhp.

The lower CG (minimal in this case) and modifed throttle response will have nothing to do with the improved acceleration. The throttle response is more front loaded hence no gain at full throttle. Improved LC can obviously make some difference. I wouldn't expect much as it was only modified and others cars had LC.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 06:46 AM   #50
Levi
Brigadier General
Levi's Avatar
Czech_Republic
124
Rep
3,452
Posts

 
Drives: Alfa Romeo
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Prague

iTrader: (0)

M owners are insecure in about their M. They know that they are the "best" cars, but it is hard to prove without letting the person try it.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 06:52 AM   #51
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
28
Rep
1,942
Posts

 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Levi View Post
M owners are insecure in about their M. They know that they are the "best" cars, but it is hard to prove without letting the person try it.
I have come to realize this and have decided to trade in my gt3 for FIVE and a half M3s. We all know you can buy that many for the price of a Porsche and the M is faster.

Last edited by devo; 07-26-2010 at 07:03 AM.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 08:16 AM   #52
quality_sound
8 tracks of madness
United_States
31
Rep
2,731
Posts

 
Drives: Slowly
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: At home

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay View Post
Check this out Quality, 28 horsepower dyno gain from 100 octane. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

As soon as I'm done with my break-in it's 100 octane time...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=19
Wow...that's pretty impressive. I've NEVER seen a car do that before, especially if not specifically set up for high octane gas.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 08:41 AM   #53
graider
Colonel
graider's Avatar
26
Rep
2,408
Posts

 
Drives: py/kiwi e46 m3
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
I made my statements because I feel the M3's times, especially the 9.4, 0-100, are a bit exaggerated. Are you really that insecure about your BMW that you need to make this something about a Porsche. I realize the bang for the buck an M provides, however, am not going to make this a Porsche vs BMW M thread.

Isn't there some data that you can over-analyze to support your bang for buck theory? I'm sure it's coming... Maybe then you can go into an overly long and exaggerated dissertation into how you arrived at your conclusion. Please, I haven't been bored in awhile.
it was clearly indicated by some members that it was a roll out start 5-60mph, not standing start from 0-60mph.

i noticed you seem to trash/doubt bmw anywhere you can in every posts. i guess this is how porsche owners mindset are. I can clearly see lot of similarity from you and shift@red in 99.9% of the posts. I think everybody know that gt3 is better than the m3 in performance, so don't need to justify your purchase every time here. it just getting too funny.

Last edited by graider; 07-26-2010 at 08:50 AM.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 08:53 AM   #54
devo
Lieutenant Colonel
28
Rep
1,942
Posts

 
Drives: .2GT3/335Cpe/991 GT3 coming
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: thinking about cars, girls and money, not necessarily in that order.

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by graider View Post
it was clearly indicated by some members that it was a roll out start 5-60mph, not standing start from 0-60mph.

i noticed you seem to trash bmw anywhere you can in every posts. i guess this is how porsche owners mindset are. I can clearly see lot of similarity from you and shift@red in 99.9% of the posts. we all know that gt3 is better than the m3 in performance, so don't need to justify your purchase every time here.
Didn't see that it was a confirmed roll out which would make a bunch more sense. Shift@red, myself and some others just don't like M hype for the sake of it. Many M owners believe their car IS either faster or so close to Porsches, Lambos and any other exotic, that it becomes comical. Countless posts of mine praise the M; even parts of the aformentioned ones in this very thread. I'm not justifying my purchase; admittantly not fond of Swamp's statement hence my responses.

Again, I plan to trade my 335 for a M or GTR as my dd so I have everything to gain knowing the performance is there. Anyway, did not realize it was a roll out.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 10:56 AM   #55
erio
Captain
erio's Avatar
United_States
22
Rep
801
Posts

 
Drives: e92 JB M3, 2012 GTR
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: GA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by graider View Post
it was clearly indicated by some members that it was a roll out start 5-60mph, not standing start from 0-60mph.

i noticed you seem to trash/doubt bmw anywhere you can in every posts. i guess this is how porsche owners mindset are. I can clearly see lot of similarity from you and shift@red in 99.9% of the posts. I think everybody know that gt3 is better than the m3 in performance, so don't need to justify your purchase every time here. it just getting too funny.

C+D always uses a roll out 5-60 time and a 0-60. Both numbers are posted in the original thread.Therefore, I beleive the 0-60 is indeed 0-60 without rollout. Maybe I'm missing something here? Rolling 5-60 is 4.4 sec. Maybe they used launch control, but that would not explain why all the other cars did better in their 0-60 runs. The 0-60 is ususally faster if you go back and look at other reviews on the M3 or any other car.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 01:30 PM   #56
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 devo View Post
I made my statements because I feel the M3's times, especially the 9.4, 0-100, are a bit exaggerated.
You should clarify "exaggerated". The choices are not that many. Let's cover all of them.

-This car was an intentionally under rated "press only" car
-All ZCP M3s are underrated
-Their instruments are bad or miscalibrated
-The outright lied

Or of course the most obvious one is:

-The M3 ZCP has numerous performance enhancements, each minor but when combined and combined with good conditions (road surface and weather) yielded some results just outside the best non ZCP times seen thus far.

So what does exaggerated mean exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
Are you really that insecure about your BMW that you need to make this something about a Porsche. I realize the bang for the buck an M provides, however, am not going to make this a Porsche vs BMW M thread.
Sorry buddy this is not about me. It is you who spends way too much time in BMW forums talking about the superiority of Porsche. Regardless of the nice things you say about BMW the time spent doing the former is really quite odd. Pot, kettle, black. I'm totally secure about my own automotive decisions and understand where the cars sits in any sort of heirarchies, performance, prestige, etc., etc. And I still love 997s...

Quote:
Originally Posted by devo View Post
Isn't there some data that you can over-analyze to support your bang for buck theory? I'm sure it's coming... Maybe then you can go into an overly long and exaggerated dissertation into how you arrived at your conclusion. Please, I haven't been bored in awhile.
Ugh, read the thread. In post #32 I provide the link to an extensive database of performance results. I think that alone goes a very long way toward showing the legitimacy of the numbers from C&D. Now granted those are just about the performance side. I think we've beat to death the question of "bang for the buck" with the M3. The obvious comparison is indeed vs the 997 S.

Of course we will all recall your strong defense of outlier type of numbers for the 997 S when the debate was M3 vs. 997 S performance. You can't have it both ways.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 02:36 PM   #57
M3_WC
Colonel
29
Rep
2,242
Posts

 
Drives: M3
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CA

iTrader: (0)

Good review of stock cars. We all know that there is gobs of cheap hp/tq just hiding under that CTS-V hood.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 02:37 PM   #58
Dave07997S
Colonel
38
Rep
2,556
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 BMW M3 ZCP Coupe
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Playa del Rey, CA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PunjabiM3 View Post
The M3 tested in this article must have been a factory freak. Was the test done in Europe? If so the better times could be explained by the higher quality/grade fuel available in Europe. I remember the first ever driving test I read about the e92 M3 (I think it was R&T); it was a melbourne red 6MT tested in Germany that did 0-60 in 4.1s and 0-100 in 9.4s. Every test of the M3 (esp the 6MT) I have seen since then had been considerably slower, with the 6MT 0-60 times of 4.4-4.5s and 0-100 times of around 10.2-10.6s.
Road and Track ran a 4.1 0-60 and a 1/4 mile in 12.5@114.8mph with a 6MT car back in 08.

Here is the data panel..

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezfl...88724e04c1.pdf


Also, Edmunds shows the base starting price of the RS5 at $80k, I mean with options this thing could easily be knocking on the door of a $100k. Are they correct?

Dave
__________________
2013 M3 Coupe-MR/BLK ZCP, ACM test pipes, BPM Stg2 dev. tune and Megan catback, AFE Stg2. with C/F elbow
Previous rides: 2011 M3 Coupe-MR/Blk
2007 Porsche 997C2S Speed Yellow/Blk sport seats
2004 BMW M3 Imola/Blk
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 02:39 PM   #59
graider
Colonel
graider's Avatar
26
Rep
2,408
Posts

 
Drives: py/kiwi e46 m3
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: toronto

iTrader: (0)

I didn't have a chance to watch the short video by c&d until now. damn the m3 looks the best and sounds the best out of the three. the m3 is showing how much effort bmw put into the engineering of the m3 and it shows even against competitors that are 2 years newer such as the rs5 and cts-v. I'm impressed. e9x m3 is clearly the replacement for my e46 m3.

m3 has all the right curves in the right places. something that is not easy to do to a boxy style saloon.

Last edited by graider; 07-26-2010 at 02:47 PM.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 02:42 PM   #60
Dave07997S
Colonel
38
Rep
2,556
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 BMW M3 ZCP Coupe
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Playa del Rey, CA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaykay View Post
Check this out Quality, 28 horsepower dyno gain from 100 octane. Pretty amazing if you ask me.

As soon as I'm done with my break-in it's 100 octane time...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=19
After 95 (R+m/2) octane there is a point of diminishing return. You could probably get similar results with 95 octane and save yourself a bunch of money per tankful.

Dave
__________________
2013 M3 Coupe-MR/BLK ZCP, ACM test pipes, BPM Stg2 dev. tune and Megan catback, AFE Stg2. with C/F elbow
Previous rides: 2011 M3 Coupe-MR/Blk
2007 Porsche 997C2S Speed Yellow/Blk sport seats
2004 BMW M3 Imola/Blk
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 02:45 PM   #61
srt8/bmw
Private First Class
2
Rep
192
Posts

 
Drives: 08 335xi coupe-Space Gray
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: michigan

iTrader: (0)

it seems odd to me to compare the CTS-V to the M3. I always felt like the M5 was the better comparison in terms of size/wheelbase/interior room etc...

Also--those are substantially better numbers for the M3 acceleration and braking than C and D had posted before for the M3. Was more like;

4.1 0-60
12.6 @113 for the 1/4
161 ft for the 60-0 braking

the V did:
3.9 0-60
12.2 @119
154 ft 60-0 braking.

and a faster Ring lap as well...

Maybe its a style thing??? The V wins across the board in perfromance.
the rest is subjective I guess. But when I bought my V i Compared it to the M5, and will look again when the new M5 comes out,
__________________
2013550Xi msport white
335xi-JB3, UR DPs, code-3 fmic, BMS filter,borla catback,11.96@116
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 02:46 PM   #62
graider
Colonel
graider's Avatar
26
Rep
2,408
Posts

 
Drives: py/kiwi e46 m3
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: toronto

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
You should clarify "exaggerated". The choices are not that many. Let's cover all of them.

-This car was an intentionally under rated "press only" car
-All ZCP M3s are underrated
-Their instruments are bad or miscalibrated
-The outright lied

Or of course the most obvious one is:

-The M3 ZCP has numerous performance enhancements, each minor but when combined and combined with good conditions (road surface and weather) yielded some results just outside the best non ZCP times seen thus far.

So what does exaggerated mean exactly?



Sorry buddy this is not about me. It is you who spends way too much time in BMW forums talking about the superiority of Porsche. Regardless of the nice things you say about BMW the time spent doing the former is really quite odd. Pot, kettle, black. I'm totally secure about my own automotive decisions and understand where the cars sits in any sort of heirarchies, performance, prestige, etc., etc. And I still love 997s...



Ugh, read the thread. In post #32 I provide the link to an extensive database of performance results. I think that alone goes a very long way toward showing the legitimacy of the numbers from C&D. Now granted those are just about the performance side. I think we've beat to death the question of "bang for the buck" with the M3. The obvious comparison is indeed vs the 997 S.

Of course we will all recall your strong defense of outlier type of numbers for the 997 S when the debate was M3 vs. 997 S performance. You can't have it both ways.
spot on. i'm sure when c&d posts outrageous number of a porsche 911 or cayman, these guys will take them as true numbers because they are porches. LOL
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 02:58 PM   #63
mkoesel
Moderator
United_States
184
Rep
13,844
Posts

 
Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I know there is still some debate about whether DSC and or EDC software is actually revised. I think there is some evidence here to indicate that DSC has been revised.
As far as I know, swamp, it is considered official that for ZCP cars the EDC Sport Mode was revised to be active instead of fixed, and MDM DSC mode is revised to allow more slippage/yaw before intervening. The details of the EDC change have been discussed with specifics but I don't remember the numbers. I am not sure if anything specific is known about the MDM changes as far as quantitative figures go.

Other than this, there are no other changes. So, assuming this acceleration test and prior such tests were run with launch control on, the DSC change would not be a factor (LC requires DSC off, and can not be used in MDM mode). Not sure if that was the case though. EDC changes may or may not have been a factor either - depends on whether this test and previous tests were done in Sport mode or not (my guess is that previously they were typically done in normal mode).

Recent changes to the M-DCT software could in theory also play a role in acceleration times, though there's nothing to suggest that this is necessarily the case, and no way to know for certain.
__________________
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 03:13 PM   #64
red-sauerkraut
.
red-sauerkraut's Avatar
45
Rep
3,951
Posts

 
Drives: x-car/m-car
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: northern hemisphere

iTrader: (0)

Nice, the M3's mighty grip, allows it to almost nail a full G... Outstanding!
__________________
LESS LIMIT. MORE SKY.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 03:17 PM   #65
erio
Captain
erio's Avatar
United_States
22
Rep
801
Posts

 
Drives: e92 JB M3, 2012 GTR
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: GA

iTrader: (0)

I bet the cts is a blast to drive. However, I agree that it should be more fair to compare it with the m5 given it's brute power, but it's performance numbers don't match up. We are talking a 142hp and 253 lb torque difference with the m3. A supercharged M3 with proper suspension changes would likely far outperform the caddi.

Last edited by erio; 07-26-2010 at 03:27 PM.
Appreciate 0
      07-26-2010, 03:31 PM   #66
Golgothar
First Lieutenant
Golgothar's Avatar
9
Rep
328
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 M3 Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston

iTrader: (1)

I think it's fair to say that both C & D and R & T have it BAD for BMW in general.

That being said GO M3!!
__________________

OLD - 2008 Sparkling Graphite DCT e92
Rpi Scoops/Dinan Intake/DinanECUtune/DinanPulley/DinanExhaust/DinanStg 2 Suspension/Plus some cosmetic mods *SOLD*
NEW- 2011 Black Saphire 550i Sport (Some cosmetic mods/Dinan mods soon)
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 02:07 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