|
|
10-26-2007, 12:42 PM | #89 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
The most useful tidbit I noted for the "debate" at hand was the transmission performance. I already gave the IS-F the benefit of the doubt in previous simulations and have now performed a bracketing exercise. These two simulation results below show on the left: The IS-F with claimed weight and power specs but with the standard shift times from CarTest over ridden with a .1 s shift time (very impressive!). The results on the right are the same but I used some very optimistic (probably down right unreasonable values - but like I said - "braketing") mechnical tranny losses (5% as opposed to the default of 8%, and the manual value of 6%), torque converter losses are 1% (std. value is 3%) and lastly maximum transmission slip losses are set at 8% (default 15%). This is the max. extra loss during times the trans is calcuated to slip, not the loss when well hooked up. What did I learn? Sure you get quite a bit better performance with a better tranny (obvious). In fact now 0-60 you just barely get to the worst magazine figure 4.74 vs. 4.8. For all of the other results I still can not touch the C&D results. I even continued to push harder using even "magically" low loss results for the transmission (that is the 2nd image below). I still could not touch the reported 0-100, 1/4 mi nor 0-150 results. My conclusion still stands something does not add up: 1. Stated power/torque 2. Weight 3. Transmission ratios 4. C&D for sure and most other mag. results The last possibility is that the C&D car was a sleeper (a new and definite possiblity - this has been done before). I would LOVE to have a dyno result for that particular car vs. the reported dyno results in this thread. That would likely end this entire debate. I also posted one page that covers most of the inputs other than weight, dimensions, gears, power, etc. specific to each car. Pretty impressive inputs and physics captured by the software eh? (Note: no worries on all the blank hp entries, I am just using the curves calculated by CarTest which looked reasonable enough). |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 12:44 PM | #90 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
+46
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 01:13 PM | #91 |
Commander-In-Chief
2325
Rep 9,002
Posts
Drives: 2023 M2 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
Winding Road lengthyISF article
Just out, a quite lengthy article on the IS F here, although no test data: http://magazine.windingroad.com/wind...00712/?folio=1
__________________
Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2023 M2 Coupe - Brooklyn Grey/Cognac/CF, 6MT; 2020 MB GLE 450 |
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 01:24 PM | #92 | ||
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
[B]
Quote:
C&D results: note: Not too sure about the RS4 figures, it actually might be better than that. M3= 0-60 @ 4.4 secs/ 1/4 mile 12.9 secs/ 3650lbs RS4= 0-60 @ 4.6 secs/ 1/4 mile 12.8 secs/ 3900bls+ ISF= 0-60 @ 4.2 secs/ 1/4 mile 12.7 secs/ 3800lbs As you can see, they are not that far apart, you almost can't get any closer than that. So for you to think that the IS-F is under rating their HP figures just because it's 0.2 secs quicker is idiotic. Remember, these performance results could easily change hand at any given time depending on the "real world" condition that they are being tested. I still think that the M3 should be quicker. I actually predicted 4.1 or 4.2. So again, why does it not add up and why in the hell should everything add up to your calculations? I think your being just a little too technical about this whole thing. But that's fine, to each his own. We are obviously not going to agree on this. You are pretty much convinced with your "similuted test results" and that's the end of it all. That's fine, and i will stick to what the real world test results will show me. Quote:
|
||
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 01:41 PM | #93 |
Lieutenant Colonel
76
Rep 1,603
Posts
Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION
|
Wow, somebody is misunderstanding the whole point of this exercise.
Just wow. Swamp is trying to explain the difference in results between what we would expect from the stated specs and what we see in the "real world" tests. If you can't predict performance from the specs then the specs are wrong (EDIT: or the model is), one way or another. Science is based on predicting what will happen and testing those predictions, you know. But please, post more of the "it's close enough, why do you doubt it" stuff. You can predict performance in the real world, you know. It's the basis for car design. Models. So far the CarTest model has worked for other cars, why not the IS-F? Yeesh. |
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 01:55 PM | #94 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 01:58 PM | #95 | |
Law Enforcer
26687
Rep 22,640
Posts
Drives: '22 Chalk Gray Porsche C2S
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ..in your rearview!!!
|
Quote:
Please tell me that you are kidding. It has happened in the past where a manufacturer(s) sent a beefed up version of their production car(s) to auto rag reviewers for testing. It isn't something that can necessarily be ruled out in totality. As far as C&D's times (..and how they produce them), they have come into question in the past. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 02:02 PM | #96 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
76
Rep 1,603
Posts
Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION
|
Quote:
You continue to miss the point. We have *one* actual result that doesn't make sense given the specs of the car and yet you want us to trust the magic stuff inside the box and not open the hood? Please. Don't you ever ask "why" or did you go to school where that wasn't allowed? |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 02:12 PM | #97 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 02:17 PM | #98 | ||||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
OK. I am really done now. Keep on posting. You are so stubborn and arrogant and unwilling to read and learn I just can't keep trying to help you. You have really missed the ENTIRE POINT. Enjoy your isolated ignorant little world. And "ignorant" is not an insult, and does not mean stupid. |
||||
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 02:19 PM | #99 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 02:26 PM | #100 |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Easy Swamp, easy. Don't have a heart attack there tough guy. You're starting to bold letters and super sizing them, that can't be a good sign. Let's end this and just say we agree to disagree. That is all. You have your valid points and i have mine as well.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 02:32 PM | #101 | |
Law Enforcer
26687
Rep 22,640
Posts
Drives: '22 Chalk Gray Porsche C2S
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ..in your rearview!!!
|
Quote:
You're missing the point (....which seems to be fairly consistent behavior on your part)! He used the "sleeper" theory as a last-ditch possibility given that one (..or all) of the more reasonable variables were deemed to be accurate. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 03:02 PM | #102 | |
Moderator
7537
Rep 19,368
Posts |
Quote:
Any comments about my comparison to the E39 M5? After all, the car appears to have much more in common with that car than an either an RS4 or an M3. I.e 3800lbs, 5L V8, ~400hp, ~370ft-lb, RWD, etc. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 03:37 PM | #103 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 03:54 PM | #104 |
Moderator
7537
Rep 19,368
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 05:08 PM | #105 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Motortrend
An absolutely glowing review here on Motortrend. (and SOME more realistic results).
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...s_f/index.html Very impressive. As I always say competition is good. |
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 07:13 PM | #106 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 07:39 PM | #107 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Swamp2, can you explain this one or try to calculate in your software.
I'm just interested on what kind of figures you'll get. I'm not flaming or anything like that, i'm just curious. Because these are very close numbers that the RS4, ISF and even the current M3 are getting. Remember, this is a 3500lbs car with only 333hp. If you can, if you don't want to that's fine as well. Thanks.
http://www.caranddriver.com/longroad...-m3-page4.html Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 07:48 PM | #108 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
76
Rep 1,603
Posts
Drives: F80 M3
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: WHO DAT NATION
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 07:55 PM | #109 |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Here' another thing, if the IS350 is capable of doing 4.9 secs to 60mph, why would it be surprising that the ISF is capable of 4.2 with 110hp more. Granted it's 200lbs heavier.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 08:17 PM | #110 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
OK
Quote:
Using the exact figures in your post and making only the following minor changes to the default CarTest parameters: weight - to match the measured curb weight (software includes options and defaults for driver weight and gas weight and they did not match the number you posted for this particular car), shift times - default is .5 s a more realistic figure for a good driver in a MT is .3 s. Conclusions: -0-60: right on the money or within 3/10th however you like to call it -0-100: within 7/10th or 1/10th -1/4mi: within 1/10th to 4/10ths on ET -1/4mi: trap within 1.5 - 3.5 mph I think this is very typical of what one car get with CarTest. Do you notice how much closer this is comparing simulation to one actual test than the case we argued about for pages. I suspect that some tests do show better numbers and others worse for the E46 M3. My conclusion from this exercise is that both the reported figures for the car, the inputs to CarTest, the actual test itself and the simulation outputs are "consistent". There is no glaring/obvious problem with any of the pieces of the puzzle. My C63 AMG results today were just as good! Enjoy. P.S. One big reason the E46 M3 is fairly fast given its peak hp/weight ratio (not all that hot) is it's high redline and short gear ratios i.e. torque multiplication, just like the new car (I mean wrt gearing not a moderate hp/weight ratio). |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|