|
|
10-24-2007, 10:59 PM | #23 |
Major General
543
Rep 5,498
Posts |
Interesting...
I dont mind the looks that much and the 59K is very nice considering the competition. I hope M3 undercuts even 59K but I guess time will tell..
__________________
Instagram: jellismotorwerks |
Appreciate
0
|
10-24-2007, 11:33 PM | #24 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Direction?
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-24-2007, 11:50 PM | #25 |
Brigadier General
1908
Rep 4,128
Posts
Drives: M235i & G30 540i
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boynton Beach
|
I am actually surprised by the numbers. Especially since it weighs soo much. I didn't expect such a fast 0-60, or even the quarter mile figure. Nevertheless, I still would not even consider it even if it was as fast as a GTR. That car is damn ugly and I dont care how many times its been said.
__________________
Lack of money is not the problem. It is merely a symptom of what's going on inside of you! - T Harv Eker
Follow me on Insta https://www.instagram.com/bmwm_life_/ https://www.instagram.com/autogiftua/ https://www.instagram.com/phoenixbmwlife/ |
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 12:10 AM | #26 |
Registered
0
Rep 3
Posts |
After looking at the BMW M3 Sedan E90, the New IS-F looks 10x better. I agree the coupe E92 looks awsome. But the E90 looks so ugly it makes me want to its that UGLY!
PS. Compare sedan to sedan. |
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 12:16 AM | #27 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Over rated
OK did some tweaking with CarTest to get a ball park estimate of the power and torque figures required to obtain the quoted numbers could not get perfect - a few numbers ended up a bit quick and others a bit slow but it is way closer than with the as quoted figures.
hp: 470 (94 hp/l) tq: 440 ft lb (88 ft lb/l - probably unreasonable, F430~80 ft lb/l) 0-60 mph: 4.6 s 0-100 mph: 10.1 s 0-150 mph: 23.7 1/4 mi: 12.8s @ 114 mph |
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 12:36 AM | #29 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Over rated
Quote:
1. The reported performance figures from the car mag in my opening post. 2. The weight figure for the car. 3. The reported hp and tq figures for the car. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 12:46 AM | #30 | |
Major General
427
Rep 6,968
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 11:14 AM | #31 |
Private First Class
1
Rep 188
Posts |
meh.. lexus is truly uninspiring.. i would rather get a 1series than a lexus.
__________________
'05 X5/3.0 Sport (E53)
'03 540i/6 M-Sport (E39) '91 325i/5 Sport Package (E30) BMWCCA #360858 SCCA# 374179 NASA # 128290 |
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 11:38 AM | #32 | |
Captain
415
Rep 977
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 03:36 PM | #33 | ||||
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Here's the Dyno results from the Automobilemag:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 03:52 PM | #34 |
Sargeant First Class
4
Rep 125
Posts |
I spent 8 years out my 22 years in the army stationed in Germany and I've seen the BMW brand perform on the autobahn and in all types of weather conditions (real world) how long as toyota (Lexus) been real performers on the autobahn, they are really nice cars but a BMW they are not, BMW's have set the standards the others are just keep trying to keep up.
__________________
2006 330i SG,PP,SP,HS,STEP,GR LEATHER
2007 Infiniti G35 Journey 2002 Mazda Tribute LX |
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 04:00 PM | #35 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Last edited by gbb357; 10-25-2007 at 06:05 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 06:08 PM | #37 |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
The IS-F is not 4 wheel drive nor does it have a 8 speed sequencial manual gear box. It has a regular rev-matching 8 speed automatic with paddle shifts. I wish it had SMG or a regular manual gearbox, which is one of it's short comings.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 07:12 PM | #38 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Read
Quote:
I figure it is under rated by using multiple methods. Don't attack my conclusions here just because you drive a Lexus. Try to argue your points with more evidence, science, logic, etc. The reasons/methods I have used to determine the car is under rated are scaling on power to weight. Power to weight ratio is one of the best indicators of acceleration performance (F=ma, more or less). The M3 has a substatntially better power to weight ratio and especially considering the additional power losses from an automatic transmission (meaning power delivered to the ground divided by weight, which is what really matters). The M3 has been dyno-ed at 373 rwhp(link). So we have:
That is a whopping 13% difference which equates to about an extra 50 hp if the cars weights were to be equal. You think this does not matter.. You think it makes sense that the IS-F is faster?? Next I used physics based simulation software (the same basic techniques used to design the majority of the cars we all drive by the way). This software is called CarTest and I encourage you to play with it (well maybe not, it probably requires an engineer or scientist to get decent results from it) The IS-F figures vs. the Audi are still suprising to me. The RS4 should absolutely get the jump on the IS-F 0-60 with its AWD. Furthermore the 114 mph trap speed for the quarter is more of an indicator of the hp rather than the ET. This thing is really moving at the end of the 1/4. Again this does not add up given its delivered power to weight ratio. The substantial besting of the M3 by the IS-F to 100 mph is also quite suprising given its the same reasons outlined above (less power to weight, more weight, more lossy transmission, etc.) So in conclusion stop thinking I am "dogging" the IS-F; the numbers it is delivered, at least straight line numbers () are astounding. So astounding that something just does not add up. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 07:23 PM | #39 |
Lieutenant
29
Rep 487
Posts |
Swamp, ur little program is flawed. Anybody who does a lot of drag racing, or straightline performance knows that Max numbers mean absolutely NOTHING. You must take into consideration the whole torque curve. Plotting max numbers into your little calculator does nothing. What if the lexus makes that much torque throughout the rpm band? The car most likely is not underrated. If you look at the torque graph, the car makes a lot of power starting at 2k rpms, something the new m3 does not do.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 07:26 PM | #40 |
Lieutenant
29
Rep 487
Posts |
Oh, and by the way, you keep talking about power to the ground, and then refering to horsepower. Horsepower does not equate power to the ground, it is an easy calculation that allows simple minds to understand torque at higher rpms. You can figure out real power to the ground by looking at the torque numbers and gear ratio, something I don't feel like doing right now.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 07:55 PM | #42 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 08:02 PM | #43 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-25-2007, 08:09 PM | #44 |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Here's the Car and Driver test on the M3 and the article on the IS-F:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-f.html?al=164 C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec Zero to 100 mph: 9.8 sec Zero to 150 mph: 24.7 sec Street start, 5–60 mph: 4.6 sec Standing ¼-mile: 12.7 sec @ 114 mph Top speed (governor limited): 172 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 159 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.92 g Base MSRP of Test Vehicle: $59,990 MSRP of Test Vehicle: $62,540 |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|