Quote:
Originally Posted by sayemthree
my comparison was with a 2008 430 hp vette tested in jan 2008 by RandT. its listed inthe backof the mag under road test summary. could not find a link. yes they are close enough that a driver would make the difference or maybe variation in cars. but which one would be faster driving down a mountain with four passengers and luggage?
|
The thing about Road and Track (and many other such publications) is that they publish just what they measure, and that can throw you (and me) off when trying to make comparisons, because of weather conditions. In this case, the M3 test was done under what appear to be very good weather conditions in Germany - plus the results are the quickest anyone has ever seen for an M3. The Vette was tested in their home venue, and they say in the text that if the '08 Vette was tested under the same conditions as the previous 400 HP LS2 version, it would be a tenth or two quicker, etc.
It was actually a little slower in that test, so the implication is that they were testing under adverse weather conditions.
Looking up Car and Driver comparative numbers, they get 12.8 @ 113 for the M3 (in a followup test with better traction conditions than their initial numbers in Spain), and 12.4 @ 116 for the Vette. These seem to fall about where you'd expect they'd fall, power-to-weight wise. More importantly, C & D zeroes their numbers to C & D standard day conditions in order to try and keep the playing field level.
As I mentioned back in note 11 in this string, the wonder is just how quick and fast the new M3 is, given its weight and mission. More BMW magic, from my point of view.
Still, that 8:05 at the 'Ring didn't get it done against the '05 Vette's 7:59, even with the aggressive rubber and brake pads they were using on the M3 at the time. The '08 Vette would likely better that 7:59 (maybe lucid and Swamp could give us an estimate), while if the M3 doesn't list those hot-damn sneakers and brake pads as regular production options in the U.S., you've have to believe it would be a number of seconds slower at the 'Ring with its standard PS2 (or whatever) tires - plus its apparently somewhat fade-prone brakes offered as standard equipment.
Yeah, I know it was Horst who was in the M3 instead of a hired gun, and that, plus the lack of the DCT at the time means the car could've been the equal of the Vette or even a bit quicker - but netting out tires, brakes and a hired gun will mean the time would likely go up by several seconds instead of down.
So, the Vette is quicker, as it damned well should be, given its power-to-weight and mission.
Again, the wonder is just how well the M3 performs against cars like the Vette, 997S and other high-performance offerings.
Bruce
PS - That "which one would be faster driving down a mountain with four passengers and luggage?" comment is M3 apologetic and immaterial, given the title of the thread. If we start to compare things that don't matter performance-wise, the Vette has a
much bigger trunk.
