|
|
01-06-2008, 12:47 PM | #1 |
Major
161
Rep 1,429
Posts |
M3 faster than a C6?
Stock v. stock, what would the outcome be?
__________________
|
01-06-2008, 01:12 PM | #2 |
Reincarnated
249
Rep 4,227
Posts |
M3 wins by 90 car lengths.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-06-2008, 01:40 PM | #4 |
Lieutenant Colonel
20
Rep 1,504
Posts |
Road and Track also has better numbers for the M3 vs. the C6.
0-60 4.1 vs. 4.3 0-100 9.4 vs.9.5 1/4 mi. 12.5 @114.8 mph vs. 12.6@115.7 mph That's pretty impressive considering the weight disparity and the similar hp. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-06-2008, 07:42 PM | #6 |
Lieutenant Colonel
20
Rep 1,504
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2008, 12:31 AM | #8 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2008, 10:33 AM | #11 |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
The current C6 would prevail, pretty much ten times out of ten, in whatever kind of race - but the margin is very, very small.
The wonder is how fast the new M3 actually is when you consider its excess poundage. Furthermore, factoring in the new automatic gearbox when that becomes available, I'm betting it'll be pretty close to a tossup. Don't get too fixated on the numbers you've just read, however. The figures generated by Road & Track in the current issue are just too quick to be true. I'm not doubting R & T, but since they don't factor weather into their results (and the weather conditions at the time looked to be very good), that's part of the issue. It's not enough to actually explain the results, however. When I run the quarter mile numbers, I can't match the R & T results without at least 440 HP, and that's only by stacking the traction and weather conditions way far in the M3's favor. In fact, if Swamp didn't dissolve into a mass of adoring protoplasm every time he even thought about the new M3, he'd have already written a new string entitled "New M3 Massively under-rated" or somesuch - but he'd leave out the commentary that it was nothing special given its componentry. I personally believe that the new car really is something special given its componentry. That 8:05 at the 'Ring is a terrific time, even assuming very sticky optional rubber available in Europe and don't-even-try-to-stop-when-they're-cold brake pads. It doesn't match the 7:59 generated by Dave Hill in a stock Z51 coupe, however, and with a nine percent power gain, I assume that Swamp and lucid would agree that the '08 Vette will be several seconds faster than that. The 8:15 generated by "I'm not fast, but I have a steady job" Horst? Dunno. I can only assume that he ran a car without the Z51 ("sport") package, and even though the Z51 has moderately crappy runflat sneakers, they're far better than the runflats in the standard car - as are the brakes, suspension, etc. Be content that although the M3 isn't as quick as a Vette in whatever venue, it's already something of an over achiever, and with the optional gearbox, it'll be closer together than half past six. Bruce Edit: PS - The numbers so far generated by publications other than R & T seem to support the notion that although the M3 is an over achiever, it's probably rated correctly in terms of power. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2008, 11:07 AM | #12 |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Bruce,
How are R&T getting the figures they are getting without telling wee white lies. I love the idea that my next car is able to get to 60 and 100 in 4.1s and 9.2s respectively but I personally have far more faith in AUTOCAR's figures of 4.5s and 10.2s. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2008, 01:27 PM | #13 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2008, 01:41 PM | #14 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
My analyses as well indicate that the 4.1/9.4 (footie: they got 9.4 to 100 not 9.2) times are outliers and are not consistent with the quoted specifications of the car. However, most other reported numbers and their averages are consistent with specifications. As Bruce stated (or hinted at) weather alone can not explain the amount that this is an outlier. My simulations with the exact temp and humidity of the R&T test showed a .1s gain to 60 and .2s gain to 100 comapred to standard temp and humidty. Since simulation only works with a reasonable accuracy for flat out straight line accelerations the Ring time sanity checks should be made based on: power to weight, driver, tires, similar vehicles and presense of automated manual. Lastly the 8:05 Ring time is EXACTLY as predicted by lucid's regression analysis. Given that many cars in that regression were not run with Cup/Cup+ quality of tires (as the M3 was) that may mean the car is a slight underperformer on the Ring relative to others.
Last but not least, even though these numbers are not so meaningful. If M-DCT launch control works well, I think we will be seeing a sub 4 second 0-60 run in that car. P.S. Bruce: if you read a bit more of my posts you would find my praise of the M3 is nicely balanced by my criticisms of both BMW (M and NA) and the car itself. Try as you might, you can not pigeon hole me as a fan boy. Nice try though. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-07-2008, 09:25 PM | #16 |
Lieutenant
12
Rep 409
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2008, 10:18 AM | #17 |
Major
161
Rep 1,429
Posts |
So it's all number racing still. I wasn't sure if anyone who already has one has raced a C6. I don't normally care about stuff like this, but the C6 is going to be my biggest competitor on the streets around here.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2008, 10:29 AM | #18 |
Lieutenant
29
Rep 487
Posts |
Same here. I'm in a racing club in the suburbs of Chicago, it's rather small, about 12 members but there are currently 8 Corvettes in the club, I just hope I can hang with the most of them. Most of them are running in the 11s already, but some of them are still close enough to stock where I think I can hang with them on the highway. Corvette = best performance for the money. You can get a brand new 08 Corvette for around 43-44k, that is ridiculous.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2008, 02:01 PM | #19 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by gbb357; 01-08-2008 at 02:55 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2008, 03:03 PM | #20 |
Lieutenant
29
Rep 487
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2008, 03:17 PM | #21 |
First Lieutenant
15
Rep 308
Posts |
Maybe no FI, but what about a little ?250? shot N2O?
I bet if we put one of them fogger things on a 335 we could outrun an M3 for much, much cheaper than the unknown cost of the M? |
Appreciate
0
|
01-08-2008, 03:46 PM | #22 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|