Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
BMW always under specs acceleration. I don't have a huge problem with that. They want a time that most drivers can obtain with out destroying their car. That is simple.
The power under-rating thing is an entirely separate topic. Under-rating power or torque to not cool, appropriate nor honest. I don't agree with BMW doing this as they clearly have done so with the 335i (save the E46 M3, and E92 M3 reputation and status.... ugh). However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the M3 is under-rated. There is evidence that it has an efficient chassis and drivetrain (typical BMW) as well as things like BER that contribute to a low loss system. I am a BMW fan but never a fan boy. gbb - your accusations here are stale, unsubstantiated and getting so f^&*ing old, just drop it. If there was evidence of the M3 being under-rated I would be the first to identify it and want to discuss it. You just don't get curiousity, skepticism and fairness when you see it. Your comments here are nothing but pure emotion and baiting and you are 100% inaccurate as well calling my post a flame. I have flamed you much in the past with plenty of reason to do so. You know 100% why you posted what you did.
I continue to stand by the overall evidence and conclusion that both the IS-F and GT-R are very likely under-rated.
|
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF THAT THE IS-F IS UNDER-RATED! Even after i have shown you a dynotest result of the IS-F making 333rwhp from Automobilemag, you still insist it's under-rated. That's almost 20% loss of power. You made the same claim and assumption of the GTR making around 80-110hp more when it is actually only between 20-40hp. How many times do i have to point out to you all of your wrong conclusions. And again, you did'nt have any problem claiming other cars to be under-rated without any valid proof, so don't bitch when somebody does the same with the M3, deal with it.