|
|
02-21-2008, 02:01 PM | #155 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by gbb357; 02-21-2008 at 02:33 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2008, 03:38 PM | #156 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Your semi-sarcastic baiting is really quite annoying. Perhaps you can provide the detailed evidence and reasoning for your statement that the car is under-rated as opposed to a simple proclamation? By the way you have heard of "efficient dynamics" and BER right? Since you may have heard of these things and realizing that despite over ambitious BMW marketing there is absolutely much truth behind most of their marketing.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2008, 04:06 PM | #157 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-21-2008, 08:53 PM | #158 | |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
I don't think he's being sarcastic or saying anthing bad about the new M3 they under rate the 335 they say 0-60 in 5.3 and it does it in 4.8 http://www.autospies.com/news/2007-B...a-Ringer-8674/ so if the new M3 cuts a couple of tenths of the 0-60 and dynos with more HP, you should be happy I don't think that's a bad thing, my car is rated at 436, with the optional exhaust, I would have been very pleased if they under rated it and when I went to dyno my car it made 420 horses at the wheel. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 05:20 AM | #159 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 07:18 AM | #160 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 09:35 AM | #161 |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
So why don't you explain to us Swampy, how is it possible for the M3 that weights 500lbs heavier, makes 22hp less, and 124 lbs-ft less torque than the Vette, and yet it can be as quick as the Vette if not quicker. These are enough evidence (not proof) for me of "massively under-rating". Please don't tell me because it can rev faster and higher than the Vette. So why don't you prove me wrong, i have no problem admitting when i'm wrong and when i'm rightfully and respectfully corrected. Again, show me proof.
Basically the same attributes that Bruce had pointed out before that should give the Vette a decent advantage. 1) LS3 is slightly lighter in weight 2) LS3 is similar in overall size but not as tall, lending itself to a lower center of gravity in pretty much any car 3) LS3 makes about five percent more power (22 HP) 4) LS3 makes about 45% more torque (124 pound feet) 5) LS3 appears to have better bsfc numbers Last edited by gbb357; 02-22-2008 at 12:04 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 10:47 AM | #162 | ||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
I think the M3 does a little better than expected against the Vette because it has less rotating inertia at lower speeds (see Gillespie), and closer gear spacing at higher speeds. Someone else recently wrote a semi rant against the 6-speed in the M3 (in a DCT comparison string, I think), but to me the gear spacing is classic - and classically good. The Vette box, though very heavy and with very high rotating inertia (see Gillespie), is pretty good for American roads, but it would be a lot better if they hurled the gearset from the Mustang GT500 (the supercharged one) into it. Much more intelligent gear spacing. Quote:
Quote:
Bruce PS - One area where I completely take my hat off to BMW with this engine is the exceptionally wide torque curve. It only drops about 11% (33 pound feet) from peak over a 4400 rpm span. Amazing! This is an engineering achievement, and perhaps a milestone. They apparently sacrificed a bit of maximum torque production (74 pound feet per liter as opposed to 82 pound feet in the E46) for this amazingly wide curve. I say This engine gets the most performance from the torque produced. Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 02-22-2008 at 01:09 PM.. Reason: Spelling |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 11:15 AM | #163 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
Generally speaking, without knowing the values of engine specific parameters for the other variables such as combustion characteristics, friction, volumetric efficiency, mass of pistons and rods, the theoretical maximum for the thermal efficiency of an IC engine is dictated by the compression ratio (specific heat of the working fluid matters as well, but that can be assumed to be the same). So whoever consistently can pull off near complete combustion with as little friction as possible and with as much air sucked into the cylinder as possible at a higher compression ratio over the power output range will have the better design. The only piece of info we have on these engines is the compression ratio. For the 2008 Corvette, it is 10.7:1, and for the E9X M3, it is 12.0:1. But that doesn't mean too much by itself, and I doubt we will see data on all of the other variables. Regardless, the M3's higher compression ratio clearly makes some kind of a technological statement. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 12:24 PM | #164 |
Major General
608
Rep 5,446
Posts |
Grassroots Motorsports just tested the New 430hp Corvette. the best time 0-60 they got was 4.1 sec. BUT the AVERAGE was 4.3 sec. to me that means some runs were higher. also they hit the 1/4 mi ib high 12's.
__________________
Fore Sale Rare 6 speed manual X3 3.oi silver over grey. PM me
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 04:56 PM | #165 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Also with respect to your nice little list above this seems pretty much requoted direectly from Bruce's list here in this very thread. Time for some of your own thoughts and synthesis. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 07:59 PM | #166 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by gbb357; 02-22-2008 at 08:53 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 09:08 PM | #167 | |
Major
128
Rep 1,401
Posts
Drives: 2003 HPF 2.5, 2008 M3 (Sold)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pearl District, OR
|
Quote:
What would be BMW's advantage in under-rating the M3? I was just wondering. Thanks. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-22-2008, 10:13 PM | #168 |
Colonel
109
Rep 2,626
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-24-2008, 02:14 AM | #169 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Myself, the forum and the community will never cease to be amazed by your insight, analysis and brilliance.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-24-2008, 09:22 AM | #170 |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
What's with this the forum and the community B.S. Looking for back up Swamp, don't try to get anybody else involve in this, you are such a p#ssy. You still have'nt answered my question, why is it okay for you to speculate and make claims, but when others do it especially about the M3, you get your panty on a bunch. My claim is nothing controversial. Close your eyes and compare two cars, one is 3700lbs and the other is 3200lbs. The heavier one has 22less hp and 124lbs-ft less torque yet it is as quick or quicker than the lighter car, would'nt logic suggest that it's probably making more power that what it's suggesting. Now open your eyes and stop being a fanboy and really think about it. Don't tell me that the M3 is so efficient on putting power on the ground that it actually erased the 500lbs, 22hp+, and 124lbs of torque advantage that the Vette has.
Last edited by gbb357; 02-24-2008 at 10:13 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-24-2008, 11:47 AM | #171 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Strange, my number via CarTest is 138. That is 2008 LS3 engine only (6MT from existing car) stuffed into the M3.
Quote:
Quote:
One last detail. I noticed in performing sims of the M3 with the 2008 LS3 engine and transmission that the stock M3 with 6MT bests this hypothetical vehicle up to 500 in time to distance meaning of course it is physically ahead in a race, whereas the hypothetical vehicle takes all of the time to speed contests. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-24-2008, 09:02 PM | #172 | |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
I think one thing that helps the BMW is that it puts down the power off the line better than the vette, that could also be a possibility. a lot of people with stock vettes run 12.8-12.4 in the qtr mile with 2.0-2.1 60 foot times, I know it's tricky to get a good launch on the vette, it's too easy to sit at the line while others take off, I've seen ZO6's run high 13's because the driver could not drive. not mag publications, actual time slips at Moroso. So what if you could get that 60' to a consistent 1.8, then the average times would be 12.5-12.1. for those of you getting M3's in FL, when you get them head up to Moroso for test and tune, and start posting actual times, that would be good info for all. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2008, 03:09 AM | #173 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by gbb357; 02-25-2008 at 10:30 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2008, 07:19 AM | #174 |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2008, 08:06 AM | #175 | |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-25-2008, 08:26 AM | #176 | ||||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With more power and loads more torque at the same vehicle weight, the M3 can't help but be quite a bit quicker and faster with the Vette motor. The only reason it wouldn't be quicker is if it had a traction problem - which you carefully refrain from mentioning. Bruce |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|