|
|
|
Post Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
08-17-2008, 06:19 PM | #45 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
You're going to see how the cars perform against each other in a test drive? Trust me, your butt dyno ain't that good. Even a side by side drag race is often less than perfect as a test medium. One driver is better than another at hitting perfect gear changes, somebody jumps the gun by a hair, somebody lays a 100 foot patch in their excitement, etc. And by the way, even a basic chart like this one is infinitely better than "my torque curve is bigger and flatter so my car is faster than yours". Nope, you're never going to get it. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-17-2008, 06:49 PM | #47 | |
Major General
293
Rep 6,007
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-17-2008, 10:06 PM | #48 |
Lieutenant Colonel
50
Rep 1,664
Posts |
Why not just look at different stock car times at a drag strip. After enough samples you will get a good idea how the car performs in a straight line with real world variables.
__________________
2008 E92 M3 Jerez Black,DCT,Fox Red ext,Prem,Tech,19", ipod/usb, CF roof and trim
2010 E91 328i Space Gray,Black int, M sport, most options 2007 Montego Blue 335i (retired) |
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 09:15 AM | #50 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 12:20 PM | #51 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
^ Right. Think about it this way do you want to know the difference between the cars or the difference between the drivers? With purely apples to apples analysis such as charts, spreadsheets and simulations we can completely remove the driver from the equation or if chosen actually account for the driver (e.g. long shift times in simulation to represent a poor drag racing driver).
As far as the M5board videos go I think they are pretty good. Sure there is always the driver effect, but they do many more rolling start videos than launch from zero. Here when you have MT driver that is indeed a variable but that is not enormous. What you see then in the videos is great because it is the relative motion of the cars. If the production power specification are consistent (which I believe they are these days, very consistent (hmmm less the GT-R...)), this relative motion (which demonstrates the relative torque to the wheels as a function of time per vehicle weight!) is very representative of the two vehicles capabilities. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 12:27 PM | #52 | |
First Lieutenant
29
Rep 395
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
'07 e92 335i (sold)
'08 e90 M3 (sold) '15 M235i |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 02:02 PM | #53 | |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
No my comments are specific to Quattro with the full time AWD. The newer ones with torque vectoring with complete 100% torque shift front to back are good so long as it doesn't add too much weight. Look at the torque to the wheel differences between the M3 and the RS4.....only difference is the drivetrain losses. This is backed by observations where the RS4 gets spanked. In the case of the GTR, they have been able to reduce drivetrain parasitic losses to a minimum. Innovations like the off-throttle torque vector is great like the system on the X6 but we have not seen this in a performance car.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 02:25 PM | #54 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 04:03 PM | #55 | ||
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
The system will be seen in the S4 according to some well chosen sites, if it shows there you may get your chance to either be impressed or reject it's merits because it's connected to that awful Quattro system you dearly hate. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 05:07 PM | #56 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 05:13 PM | #57 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
I tend to agree with you in that the GT-R probably has more total drive train loss than a RS4 (or equivalent) but keep in mind that the losses come from two sources - the number of components times the efficiency of each component (or perhaps more clearly stated the sum of the losses of each component is the total loss). Although a system with an extra shaft will indeed have significantly more components - it could be that the individual components are so good that the loss is not higher. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-18-2008, 07:21 PM | #58 | |||
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|||
Appreciate
0
|
08-19-2008, 04:35 AM | #59 | |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
0 ~ 60mph time: BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 4.1s (MT) BMW E92 M3: 4.1s (R&T) BMW E90 M3: 4.1s (C&D) Lexus IS-F: 4.2s (R&T) BMW E92 M3: 4.3s (C&D) BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 4.3s (C&D) BMW E90 M3: 4.3s(MT) Audi RS4: 4.3s (R&T) BMW E92 M3: 4.4s (C&D) Audi RS4: 4.5s (Autocar) BMW E92 M3: 4.7s (AutoCar) 0 ~ 100 km/h time: BMW E92 M3: 4.5s (AUTO-Italian Mag) BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 4.6s (Auto Bild) BMW E92 M3: 4.6s (AMS) Audi RS4: 4.6s (Automobil A) BMW E90 M3: 4.7s (AMS) BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (BMW) BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (Sportauto) BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (Powercar Germany) BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (Dutch Mag - BMW Fanatics Magazine) BMW E92 M3: 4.8s (Auto Bild) BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 4.9s (Sportscars) BMW E92 M3: 4.9s (AM&S) BMW E92 M3: 4.9s (AM&S) BMW E90 M3: 4.9s (Sportauto) BMW E90 M3: 5.0s (Autozeitung) BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 5.1s (Autozeitung) BMW E92 M3: 5.1s (Automobil A (noted traction problems)) BMW E92 M3: 5.1s (18" - Powercar Germany) Audi RS4: 5.1s (Dutch Mag - BMW Fanatics Magazine) BMW E90 M3: 5.2s (18" - Powercar Germany) 0 ~ 100 mph time: BMW E92 M3: 9.4s (R&T) BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 9.7 (MT) BMW E92 M3: 9.8s (C&D) BMW E90 M3: 9.8s (C&D) BMW E90 M3: 10.1s (MT) BMW E92 M3: 10.2s (AMS) (160km/h?) BMW E92 M3: 10.2s (Autocar) Audi RS4: 10.5s (Autocar) BMW E92 M3: 10.6s (AM&S) BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 11.0s (Sportscars) BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 11.2s (Autozeitung) 0 ~ 150 mph time: BMW E90 M3: 24.9s (C&D) BMW E92 M3: 25.5s Audi RS4: 25.6s BMW M3 M-DCT: 26s (C&D) 0 ~ 200 km/h time: BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 15.2s (Auto Bild) BMW E92 M3: 15.2s (Powercar Germany) BMW E92 M3: 15.4s (AMS) BMW E92 M3: 15.7s (Autobild&Sportauto) BMW E92 M3: 15.8s (Supertest) BMW E92 M3: 15.8s (BMW) Audi RS4: 15.8s (Automobil A) BMW E90 M3: 15.9s (Sportauto) BMW E90 M3: 15.9s (Autozeitung) BMW E90 M3: 16.0s (AMS) BMW E92 M3: 16.0s (Dutch Mag - BMW Fanatics Magazine) BMW E92 M3: 16.1s (18" - Powercar Germany) BMW E92 M3: 16.3s (Auto Bild) BMW E90 M3: 16.4s (18" - Powercar Germany) BMW E92 M3: 16.7s (AM&S) BMW E92 M3: 16.7s (Automobil A (noted traction problems)) Audi RS4: 17.2s (Dutch Mag - BMW Fanatics Magazine) BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 17.3s (Autozeitung) BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 17.6s (Sportscars) 1/4 mile time and speed: BMW E92 M3: 12.5s @ 114.8 mph (R&T) BMW E92 M3 M-DCT: 12.6 @ 113.2 mph (MT) BMW E90 M3: 12.6 @ 113mph (C&D) BMW E90 M3: 12.7s @ 111.3mph (MT) BMW M3 M-DCT: 12.7 @ 113 mph Audi RS4: 12.8 @ 109 mph (R&T) BMW E92 M3: 12.9 @ 111 mph (C&D) Audi RS4: 13.1 @ 111.5 mph (AutoCar) BMW E93 M3 M-DCT: 13.4s @ ?112mph? (Sportscars) BMW E92 M3: 13.3 @ 112 mph (AutoCar) As you car see from the data compiled that the variation between the times are huge, but as you will also see the RS4 isn't the slowest in any of the disciplines, that title falls to the M3, nor was it the quickest, again that title falls to the M3. Does this mean that the M3 is slower, of course not, that has never been my argument, the point I am trying to make and it seems to be falling on deaf ears is that the evidence proves the RS4 is very much in the running and seldom is any slower. P.S. Maybe in a rolling start at the 50km/h suits the gearing of M3 better than the RS4, or maybe the drivers in the BMWs are better at shifting gear than the Audi drivers, that is something I could agree with as when you try and hurry a Quattro's shift you can fuck it up a lot of the time. I don't know the reason for their results but I can read and the above list tells a different story than anything I have ever seen at an M5Board event. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-19-2008, 10:02 AM | #60 |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
T-Bone,
You like video evidence that show Audis being slower than other rwd cars. Well here's the opposite, an M5 getting beat by an RS6 (both stock). Here's another street race E60 M5 vs C5 RS6 (don't know if either is stock but then we don't know about M5Board events either) [u2b]Bq-iiEPY0rw&feature=related[/u2b] Next is another street race, R8, M3, RS4 and 335i Here's a traffic light race between an M6 and an RS4, again the results speak for themselves. I am sure you can counter these videos with your own showing the RS4, RS6 and R8 getting beat but what's the point, we aren't going to agree on any of this or the fact that Quattro does not sap anywhere near the amount of power you are saying it does. P.S. I am not a Fanboy for Audi, I have an M3 coming in September, I just don't agree that Quattro is the devil and it's the worst thing that ever happened to motoring. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-19-2008, 10:27 AM | #61 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
I should say that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much in terms of proof, but I'm a little surprised about your opinion because of my experience with our 2000 A6 4.2. This car's off-the-line performance was sluggish enough that I thought card-carrying members of the Anti-Destination League had infiltrated Audi's engineering department, but it was no slouch out on the road. In fact, on two separate occasions it managed to hold its own against a pair of 540s from a highway roll. Of course, it made more power (300 to 282), but it also weighed a fair bit more, it being a bigger car plus Quattro. Those bimmers could slaughter me off the line, but everywhere else, it was pretty even, with me seeming to have the upper hand as speeds rolled into triple-digit territory. The car wasn't anything special in terms of performance, either, running a best of 14.9 @ around 93 mph at the local drag strip, so it isn't as if I had a ringer or anything. In any event, it didn't seem as if Quattro was hurting me a whole bunch, powerwise. Can you tell me why Quattro suffers more power loss than, say, the awd in your bimmer? Is it the Torsen center diff? If not, what is it? Thanks, Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-19-2008, 10:34 AM | #62 |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
T-Bone,
Can you explain what's different here. 2 videos M6 vs E55. Can I ask you, listen to the sound of the engines in both videos of the E55, the M5Board event E55 has no go in it at all compared to the other video. Bearing in mind that the E55 in first video has over 640hp and 900Nm of torque one would rightly think that it would be a walk in the park but amazingly the M6 storms pass it as if it's sitting still. Now which looks the more credible. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, if you use those videos as evidence I call you a FANBOY, plain and simple. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-19-2008, 10:38 AM | #63 |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Bruce,
He may have an answer but it will be a FANBOY answer based on calculated figures and little proof, apart from M5Board videos. I too have raced similar powered cars in my S5 and I also found no evidence to back up TB or swamp's claims that quattro sapped power to the degree that it was noticeable. |
Appreciate
0
|
08-19-2008, 05:44 PM | #64 | |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
Ha! I traded my 2001 A6 4.2 Quattro for the 335xi. From my butt dyno, clearly not all 300 hp cars are equal and not all AWD systems are equal. I remember a run I had when I was alot younger and dumber in Mexico, I could barely keep up with a E46 325 at higher speeds on the Highway. The 335xi's allows torque spliting front to rear up to 100% while the present is something like 30/70:F/R, I believe I read somewhere at high speeds, the torque up front goes to zero. BTW, a A6 4.2 on paper is very similar to a 335xi. Both have 300 hp and about 300 ft pounds of torque. The A6 weighs 3638 pounds and the 335xi weighs over 3700 pounds.... But the 335xi is in the 13s and traps over 100 mph....this couldn't be clearer data that something is intercepting the power between the flywheels and the wheels.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-19-2008, 05:49 PM | #65 | |
Brigadier General
544
Rep 4,021
Posts
Drives: 2008 335xi Coupe
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The land where we kill baby seals
|
Quote:
You are dumber than my shoe. I know you spent hours scouring the internet of RS4 wins because they are far and few. I am amazed at all the doubters of the M5board videos..... Why don't you ask Pea, Just_Me and a few others to see if they are rigged. Here is the RS4 losing to a 5000 pound truck, has more power than the RS4 but weighs alot more and has the aerodynamics of house....no dodging this one....let's face it, the RS4 Quattro system sucks the power out of an otherwise decent engine. Keep trying..... Just admit Quattro sucks power then we can move on.
__________________
"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
08-19-2008, 06:07 PM | #66 | |
Major
76
Rep 1,288
Posts |
Quote:
Whew do I totally agree. Sometimes I wonder if the M3 comes with a scientific calculator and a book on physics, so buyers can have all the ammo they want to justify their purchase. Carbon fiber leather pocket protector optional. In no way is this a slight against my (obviously very) intelligent friends who have M3's. Just a comment on the thread, which to me is like reading a math book. I can't pay attention. What do all the calculations have to do with driving a car and getting the maximum enjoyment out of it? I guess I am just a limbic-brain caveman in a C63. Going fast, making lots of noise, and grinning from ear to ear.
__________________
2009 135i 6MT Euro Delivery 9/5/09
BMW Performance Power Kit - Exhaust - Short Shifter - Suspension |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|