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)
 
GT Haus
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      07-13-2007, 04:15 AM   #67
esquire
Colonel
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Drives: 2011.5 Dakar Yellow M3 Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Orange County, California

Posts: 2,800
iTrader: (0)

struck me as odd

Quote:
Originally Posted by drsnooz View Post
0-60 in 4.9 secs??? That is incorrect. Makes me not believe the entire article if they can't even get that right.

this also confused me.

bmw's posted 0-60 is 4.8 (per everything we've read so far)
audi's posted 0-60 is 4.8 (per audiusa.com)


so why is autoexpress publishing audi's 0-60 as 4.7, and bmw's as as 4.8? are they saying that these are real world test numbers? i don't buy it, for so several reasons:

1) member steved has already posited that the review period wasn't sufficient in length to make for ample performance testing.

2) bmw is at this point notorious for understating power and 0-60 stats. case and point - BMW advertises the outgoing M3 as making 0-60 in 5.1/5.2 seconds, but real world tests say otherwise, bringing the car in at 4.8/4.9 seconds. The new 335i finds itself in almost the exact same position. bmw has followed this trend faithfully and there's no reason to believe otherwise for the incoming M3. if the past is any indicator of the future, then we can fairly expect the new M3 to actually hit 60mph in something more along the lines of 4.5/4.6seconds instead of the advertised 4.8 seconds. and with M-DCT on board, a 4.4 figure wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
__________________

[ESS VT2-625] [Akrapovic Evolution Exhaust] [KW Clubsports] [OSS Angel Eyes] [Revinora r-CRT Lip]
[Vorsteiner Boot] [Challenge Race Diffuser] [See the Build Thread HERE]
esquire is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 04:47 AM   #68
Phoenix 21st
First Lieutenant
 
Phoenix 21st's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3 M-dct SG
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London

Posts: 325
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
this also confused me.

bmw's posted 0-60 is 4.8 (per everything we've read so far)
audi's posted 0-60 is 4.8 (per audiusa.com)

+1

Integrity must be questioned if a reviewer cannot even read the manufacturers brochure to obtain 0-60 figures.
Phoenix 21st is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 05:06 AM   #69
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

More

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix 21st View Post
+1

Integrity must be questioned if a reviewer cannot even read the manufacturers brochure to obtain 0-60 figures.
+1, exactly. They botched the weight, they botched the "reported" 0-60 times. I'm sure there are other gross/obvious errors there as well. Funny how it is so easy to find such careless/blatant mistakes in all the shit articles and none in the good articles. That is not fan boy-ism it is the clear marks of good journalist and good articles vs. poor one.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 05:19 AM   #70
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregA View Post
Audi still state "unladen" weight numbers by DIN standards, not by EU ones like BMW do.

The difference between standards is exactly 75kg (68kg driver, 7kg cargo).

So, to compare the numbers you should always:

a) add 75kg to Audi weight figures, or
b) take away 75kg from BMW weight figures.




So, the comparable figures are:

by EU standard: 1,655kg (M3) vs 1,725kg (RS4), or
by DIN standard: 1,580kg (M3) vs 1,650kg (RS4).


The fact:

RS4 is 70kg heavier than M3.

Thanks Greg. Interesting how some new members are coming out of the woodwork to "show" the RS4 is better, huh?
ILC32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 05:22 AM   #71
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Many of the pro-Audi and anti-BMW comments really show the maturity of the posters. I think most folks here, like myself prefer BMW but prefer it because it is typically a better performance car while still offering comfort and a bit of luxury. Also, like most here, I actually LIKE the RS4 a lot. That is a truly fantastic engine and a great looking car. So, first to all of you rude, immature haters with nothing concrete to say besides your little false, teasing, snippets go back and crawl under your rock and let the rest of us
intelligently reveiw and compare both cars and this "review" itself.

Based on the 2WD system, the CLEAR, the undisputed weight advantage (apple to apples of course), the much less parasitic drivetrain losses and BER as well the M3 will be putting SIGNIFICANTLY more power to the ground than the RS4. And it's power to the ground to weight ratio (not the crank hp to weight ratio!) really blows the Audi away. Those numbers are M3: 3649/(420*.85) = 10.2 lb/hp, RS4: 3803/((420-5)*.8) = 11.5 lb/hp. This is a 13% advantage and this is HUGE, it is simply BMWs "efficient dynamics". Surely to the uninformed this will sounds like a poor devastated fan boy using math to dispute a magazines flawless verdict. Oh well, math is math, it works and you simply can not beat physics. I am confident in real tests it will out perform the RS4 in almost all speed contests except ones where the 4WD may give it a small jump on the take off. The M3 is going to beat the RS4 in braking, ring time, and price as well. Heck read the review; it already says in so many places that the M3 is a better performance/sports/track car, over and over again.

It does suck that there are such poor articles like this they will be haunting us forever, even after some real tests like EVO come out.
Good points all.
ILC32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 06:00 AM   #72
moss
Private First Class
 
Drives: Audi RS4
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England

Posts: 119
iTrader: (0)

I can't imagine there are any people on this board who would truely say either "The M3 is great the RS4 is crap" or "The RS4 is great the M3 is crap".

These are truely both fabulous cars at the top of their game. I think plenty of other cars are crap - but love both of these....why wouldn't you? Why do some make it into one car has to be great and the other one therefore is crap? Makes no sense to me????????????????
moss is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 06:36 AM   #73
mofomat
Captain
 
mofomat's Avatar
 
Drives: BMW M3 (E92)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Maastricht, NL

Posts: 996
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
so why is autoexpress publishing audi's 0-60 as 4.7, and bmw's as as 4.8? .
They're not. They're publishing the M3 as 4.9 secs.
mofomat is offline   United Kingdom
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 06:51 AM   #74
Epacy
Reincarnated
 
Epacy's Avatar
 
Drives: 02 Maxima SE
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: IL

Posts: 4,227
iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2008 M3  [0.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by who_me View Post
It remains the faster vehicle. It remains the better daily choice for driving. Since my place of employment and residence is not on a racetrack, guess I'll stick with the heavier, um porker as it was called. Better yet, I'll wait for the RS5
Ok, thanks for registering for that one.
See you on the Audi board. Later.
__________________
Epacy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 06:54 AM   #75
Carnage
Lieutenant General
 
Carnage's Avatar
 
Drives: people insane
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: classified

Posts: 16,404
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Many of the pro-Audi and anti-BMW comments really show the maturity of the posters. I think most folks here, like myself prefer BMW but prefer it because it is typically a better performance car while still offering comfort and a bit of luxury. Also, like most here, I actually LIKE the RS4 a lot. That is a truly fantastic engine and a great looking car. So, first to all of you rude, immature haters with nothing concrete to say besides your little false, teasing, snippets go back and crawl under your rock and let the rest of us intelligently review and compare both cars and this "review" itself.
Carnage is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 07:11 AM   #76
RussianM3_dude
Private First Class
 
Drives: B7 Audi RS4
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Switzerland

Posts: 172
iTrader: (0)

I agree that the M3 should really have much better acceleration. My Audi never feels 420hps and has long gears and is heavier.
RussianM3_dude is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 08:09 AM   #77
swamp2
Lieutenant General
 
swamp2's Avatar
 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Posts: 10,201
iTrader: (1)

Right on

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epacy View Post
Ok, thanks for registering for that one.
See you on the Audi board. Later.
Terrible post and amplified by it being his first post. OP: Go troll somewhere else, you are so uninformed you are embarassing your fellow Audi enthusiasts.
swamp2 is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 08:43 AM   #78
Rico
New Member
 
Drives:
Join Date: Mar 2005

Posts: 11
iTrader: (0)

Munich had to go back to the drawingtables.. it's a shame.. and hands up for the RS4..
Rico is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 09:35 AM   #79
2002 Tii
Private
 
Drives: Cooper S JCW
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL

Posts: 85
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruff View Post
Do you favor totalitarianism over democracy as well?
I sure do that's why I voted for my buddy Bush

You should have sensed that my post was entirely sarcastic and if you didn't if you read my following post it would have been very clear.
2002 Tii is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 09:51 AM   #80
E36325is
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 1M coupe
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hong Kong

Posts: 220
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
Swamp just posted some info on the EDC. It seems to be "active" only in the more "comfortable" two settings, and switches to a "passive" mode in the sport setting so that the concern you raised with PASM would not be applicable to the M3 with in EDC while driving in sport mode.
Well an extended test drive will be necessary to determine the final outcome, not just in theory..... thanx for the info but PASM also looked good on paper, but it adds an extra layer between the driver and an awesome chassis.

Otherwise nothing beats the sporty nature of the much simpler Bilstein PSS9.
E36325is is offline   Hong Kong
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 10:20 AM   #81
BruceWain
Private
 
Drives: You Crazy
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ

Posts: 66
iTrader: (0)

WOOOOW

Looks as though the group from Ingolstadt seem to be a bit nervous.
They should be !
The New M3 will not rival the RS4.
The New M3 will rival the R8.

Some many new members. . . . is this a new forum record ?
BruceWain is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 10:33 AM   #82
lucid
Major General
 
lucid's Avatar
 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

Posts: 8,034
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by E36325is View Post
Well an extended test drive will be necessary to determine the final outcome, not just in theory..... thanx for the info but PASM also looked good on paper, but it adds an extra layer between the driver and an awesome chassis.
There is no "theory" here. The system is either active or passive. If Swamps info is correct, in passive mode, EDC sets a specific damping ratio and leaves things alone unless you switch it to a setting other than sport, so you are in control. If you don't like the suspension setting in sport, that's another story, but that can happen with any non-EDC setup as well.

Last edited by lucid; 07-13-2007 at 12:54 PM.
lucid is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 10:40 AM   #83
kem
New Member
 
Drives: RS4, Former: 911C4S, M Coupe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco

Posts: 7
iTrader: (0)

First, off I'd like to thank some of the more mature posters here that are not hell-bent on having a pissing contest of which car is better (my dad can beat up your dad, sound familiar?).

But I think right off the bat from some of these tests its pretty clear to me when the M3 and RS4 face off going down into the canyons (or the track), the winner is going to be the better driver and not the car. We can magazine race all we want but its not going to change that fact.

I was pretty surprised by some of these tests the the RS4 is right there with the M3 even though the M3 has the nod in weight distribution and it has RWD working for it. It's amazing Audi made a car that overcame many of the short comings that Audis have always faced.

I'm sure as more real track tests come in you will all be happy when the M3 inches out the RS4, however with either one your driving home in a badass car. But to those posters who are hellbent on being better, just remember there is always a vette around the corner thats ready to mop you up. Even the standard C6 vette broke the 8min barrier on the Nürburgring (7.59 I think).
kem is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 10:42 AM   #84
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kem View Post
But to those posters who are hellbent on being better, just remember there is always a vette around the corner thats ready to mop you up. Even the standard C6 vette broke the 8min barrier on the Nürburgring (7.59 I think).
Thanks. I never thought of that.
ILC32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 10:45 AM   #85
Carnage
Lieutenant General
 
Carnage's Avatar
 
Drives: people insane
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: classified

Posts: 16,404
iTrader: (2)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ILC32 View Post
Thanks. I never thought of that.
A stock Vette will mop up most everything at the Ring and that just one from 06-07, let the 08 take a run.
Though in all fairness the Vette is a different car then the RS4 or the M3, it's main purpose is outstanding performance at a more than reasonable cost for that level of performance, it is a 2 seat performance car period. The RS4 and M3's are a blend of seating and high performance at a slightly higher price point. The Vette doesn't consider those cars as competitors and vice versa, different cars for different things.
Carnage is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 10:47 AM   #86
ILC32
Lieutenant
 
ILC32's Avatar
 
Drives: 1993 Porsche RSA
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere

Posts: 580
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnage View Post
and that just a stock one from 06-07, let the 08 take a run.
Thanks for that too. It really is amazing that there are always faster cars out there. That is real news to me.
ILC32 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 11:06 AM   #87
kem
New Member
 
Drives: RS4, Former: 911C4S, M Coupe
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco

Posts: 7
iTrader: (0)

Yes and no... I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people cross shop the vette and the M3. If performance is everything the vette is cheaper, but none of us drive vettes and for our good reasons. But the similarities between the vette and m3 coupe are far more then the differences (back seats). The 911 S is a totally different class of car too, but if the m3 indeed beats its ring time I'm sure there will be no shortage of punters claiming the superiority of the m3.

Anyways, I think maybe the expectations were too high for the M3 and maybe thats why the media so far has been somewhat critical. But I have a feeling its going to be an awesome car and I can't wait to drive one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnage View Post
A stock Vette will mop up most everything at the Ring and that just one from 06-07, let the 08 take a run.
Though in all fairness the Vette is a different car then the RS4 or the M3, it's main purpose is outstanding performance at a more than reasonable cost for that level of performance, it is a 2 seat performance car period. The RS4 and M3's are a blend of seating and high performance at a slightly higher price point. The Vette doesn't consider those cars as competitors and vice versa, different cars for different things.
kem is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      07-13-2007, 11:45 AM   #88
jworms
Second Lieutenant
 
Drives: 99 E36 M3, 07 328i
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Redondo Beach, CA

Posts: 256
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kem View Post
Even the standard C6 vette broke the 8min barrier on the Nürburgring (7.59 I think).
not necessarily:

the sport auto laptime is 8:15 for the standard vette:
8:15 --- 149.818 km/h -- Corvette C6, 404 PS/1491 kg (sport auto 08/05), 8:15* -- 149.818 km/h -- Holden GTS (00), *estimated

there is another laptime for the z51 packaged c6 vette but it's not a sport auto time so it's about as valid as getting hans stuck to drive the e92 M3 around the nurburgring:
7:59* -- 154.822 km/h -- Chevrolet C6 Z51, company test driver Dave Hill (*mfr.)

the competition for the c6 z06, etc. will come with the e92 M3 CSL. the e46 M3 CSL managed to drop 32 seconds on its nurburgring laptime compared to the standard e46 M3:
8:22 --- 147.749 km/h -- BMW M3 E46, 343 PS/1584 kg (sport auto 12/00)
7:50 --- 157.787 km/h -- BMW E46 M3 CSL, 360 PS/1421 kg (sport auto 08/03)

now i'm not saying the e92 M3 CSL will have the same 32 second difference with the non-CSL e92 M3, but the non-CSL e92 M3 has already proven that it's faster than the e46 M3 CSL in a straight line:
e46 M3 CSL: 16.1s
e92 M3: 15.8s

and braking performance is the same:
e46 M3 CSL: 100km/h - 0: 34m
e92 M3: 100km/h - 0:34m

so with that stated i think we can definitely assume that the e92 M3 CSL will pull an even better time around the nurburgring than the e46 M3 CSL. somewhere in the 7:4X range would put it head to head with cars like:

7:40 --- 161.217 km/h – Bugatti 16/4 Veyron, 1001 PS/1980 kg (Wheels magazine Australia, 12/05)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1655 kg (AutoBild sportscars 01/07) *mfr., company test driver Giorgio Sanna
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Mercedes Benz SLR McLaren, Klaus Ludwig (AutoBild 07/04)
7:40* -- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche Carrera GT, 612 PS/ 1495 kg, *cold and partially wet track (sport auto 12/03)
7:40 --- 161.217 km/h -- Porsche 997 Turbo, 480 PS/ ??? kg, Michelin Cup Sport tyres (Motortrend)
7:41 --- 160.868 km/h -- Manthey Porsche GT3 M410, 413hp (AutoBild 07/04), http://www.manthey-motors.de/nextsho...pdf.asp?id=217
7:42* -- 160.519 km/h – Ford GT, 550 PS/ 1521 kg (*as indicated by Octane magazine, 11/05)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Mosler MT900S Photon, Joao Barbosa (04) (according to dailysportscar.net)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h – Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1420 kg (*mfr.)
7:42 --- 160.519 km/h -- Radical 1500 SR3, 230 PS/510 kg (02)
7:42.9 - 160.207 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 500 PS/1319 kg, Jan Magnusen, (Sporbilen, jun,26 05), http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y...ID=1384471&l=d
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 RS, factory test driver Walter Roehrl (MOTOR magazine)
7:43 --- 160.173 km/h -- TechArt Porsche GT Street, 620 PS/1453 kg, (sport auto 08/02)
7:43.5 - 160,000 km/h -- Lamborghini Murcielago (Autocar magazine 02)
7:44 --- 159.828 km/h -- Pagani Zonda C12 S, 555 PS/1388 kg (sport auto 07/02)
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- Aston Martin V8 Vantage N24, 385 PS/1350 kg (race car, not street-legal, slicks)(*mfr.)
7:45 --- 159.484 km/h -- Gemballa Porsche GTR 600, 600 PS (00)
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black Series, 507 PS/1760 kg (*mfr.) according to http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ck-series.html
7:45* -- 159.484 km/h -- McLaren F1, *estimated lap time from a video available at www.pistonheads.tv
7:45*-- 159.484 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/ 1424 kg, worls driver Walter Roehrl, *mfr.
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT2, 462 PS/1450 kg (sport auto 06/01)
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- Jaguar XJ220, John Walton (EVO magzine 07/00), www.jwhubbers.nl/ring/docs/evo-0007-7.jpg
7:46 --- 159.142 km/h -- SHK Porsche 993 GT2, 652 PS (sport auto 99)
7:47 --- 158.801 km/h – Lamborghini Murcielago LP640, 640 PS/1805 kg (sport auto 01/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=111663
7:47* -- 158.801 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/ 1440 kg, works driver Walter Roehrl, *mfr.
7:48 --- 158.463 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3 RS, 415 PS/1424 kg (sport auto 03/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=2&tID=120285
7:48 --- 158.463 km/h -- Porsche 997 GT3, 415 PS/1440kg (sport auto 07/06) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...ID=2&tID=91836
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Corvette Z06, 512 PS/1440 kg (sport auto 06/07) http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?vie...D=0&tID=129099
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h –- BMW X5 Le Mans, 700 PS/~2000 kg, Hans-Joachim Stuck
7.49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3, 392 PS (AutoBild 2004)
7:49 --- 158.124 km/h -- Porsche 996 GT3 Cup, 360 PS/1207 kg (sport auto 02/99)
jworms is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
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 09:57 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