|
|
10-26-2007, 09:30 PM | #111 |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
^^ Thanks Swamp. I do see the figures to be dead on with the second results(40,000miles). But if you look at the first figures(new), it is the same difference that your getting with the IS-F results. Around 0.4 secs. Since your calculation with the program is giving you around 4.7 or 4.8 with the ISF, it is possible that it could be off by 0.3 to 0.4. In other words, 4.2 might not be as imposssible as you may think, but 4.4 is probably more realistic and logical. Not to say that this proves anything. But it does show some kind of consistency.
Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec / 4.8 sec Zero to 100 mph: 11.2 sec / 12.0 sec Zero to 130 mph 20.1 sec / 21.2 sec Street start, 5-60 mph 5.2 sec / 5.5 sec Standing 1/4-mile 13.1 sec / 13.4 sec @ 107 mph @ 105 mph |
Appreciate
0
|
10-26-2007, 10:18 PM | #112 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Cont.
Quote:
It is more the deltas (differences) comparing 100, 150, 1/4mi that got me concerned. 0-60 is more difficult to predict than other speeds because it is slow enough that the relative error on launch can be large compared to the total time. Again using my improved numbers with the updated transmission figures (optimistic figures, perhaps even non physical, I remind you...) spec, C.T., C&D, delta 0-60...4.7...4.2...0.5 0-100...10.7...9.8...0.9 0-150...25.9...24.7...1.2 1/4mi...13.1...12.7...0.4 These are more off and off consistently. Notice how some of the differences with the M3 were + and some -. Typical of a good simulation vs. test. More like average (delta) = 0. Here the error is always in the same direction C7D test always better than simulation. The other reason why 4.2 is so suprising is again the AWD RS4 should best the IS-F here and I think 4.2 is the best number I have ever seen (again maybe and outlier) for the RS4. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-27-2007, 11:35 AM | #113 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
Actually they are dead on with the 40,000 miles, they are not dead on with the brand new figures. You're right 4.7-4.2 is not 0.4, that's why i said around 0.4(0.3,0.4,0.5). My point is, your figures with e46 M3 to 60 @4.5 and you Cartest results of 4.84 is a diifference of 0.34, and that's acceptable. Should'nt the 4.7 and 4.2 difference of 0.5 on the ISF results be acceptable as well? In other words, there is a margin of error. I don't think it's necessarily an exact science. In terms of the RS4, remember it is close to 200lbs heavier. spec: C&D/40k/CarTest 0-60= 4.5/ 4.8/ 4.84 0-100= 11.2/ 12.0/ 11.91 1/4mile = 13.1/ 13.4/ 13.5 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-27-2007, 11:48 AM | #114 |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Here's the other logic that i'm going with. If the IS350 has been recorder with o-60 times of 4.9, 5.1, and 5.0. It'll be more shocking that the IS-F will only do 4.7 with 110hp more. The same logic goes with the 335i that has been recorded to post 0-60 times of 4.9 and 5.1. so the e92 M3 should be able to do much better and it has at 4.4 secs.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-27-2007, 01:52 PM | #115 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Repeating
@#113: Repeating my most important point...
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-27-2007, 10:35 PM | #117 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Cont.
You can make points along those lines but determining the change in time with change in peak hp from one car to another is not so easy. Sort of a statistical correlation as well. The M3 has now been recorded at 4.3s 0-60 by C&D but I am not sure it will even get much better than that. It is simply traction limited at these speeds as most cars with a similar much power to weight ratio. M-DCT will absoultely help but it will only help in 0-60 if they get the launch control software perfect (and hopefully offer it in the US as well). Again my comments about the AWD RS4 are appropriate - faster than similar cars by quite a bit in the lower speeds but losing out at higher speeds due to high drive train losses.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 05:40 AM | #118 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
As for the posted by the 335i, am I not correct in thinking that it has been dyno-ed at 360hp and similar ft/lbs of torque, which is a lot more than it's quoted output. I will be over the moon if my M3 can post a 4.7s 0-100km/h and doubt in my hands this will be possible. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 10:17 AM | #119 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 10:26 AM | #120 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
I'm talking about these points that i made.
Quote:
Actually they are dead on with the 40,000 miles, they are not dead on with the brand new figures. You're right 4.7-4.2 is not 0.4, that's why i said around 0.4(0.3,0.4,0.5). My point is, your figures with e46 M3 to 60 @4.5 and you Cartest results of 4.84 is a diifference of 0.34, and that's acceptable. Should'nt the 4.7 and 4.2 difference of 0.5 on the ISF results be acceptable as well? In other words, there is a margin of error. I don't think it's necessarily an exact science. In terms of the RS4, remember it is close to 200lbs heavier. spec: C&D/40k/CarTest 0-60= 4.5/ 4.8/ 4.84 0-100= 11.2/ 12.0/ 11.91 1/4mile = 13.1/ 13.4/ 13.5 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 10:42 AM | #121 | |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
Quote:
Sorry for the misleading remark. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 01:30 PM | #122 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Big picture
Quote:
P.S. I think it is time you bought the sotware and had some fun. I guarantee you will learn a lot and enjoy it! However, as you can see on my posts here about the M-DCT times it can sometimes be very trick/subtle to get a good prediction. Some engineering background is a very good idea but certainly not required. Cheers. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 01:33 PM | #123 |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
0-100 is a much better way to look at acceleration than 0-60. With the power levels of todays cars the launch is becoming the most important factor in 0-60 and 1/4 times.
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 01:49 PM | #124 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
THAT'S WHY I HIGHLIGHTED ALL THREE DATA POINTS TO BEGIN WITH. EVEN IN MY ORIGINAL POST IT WAS ALREADY HIGHLIGHTED. AND I DID'NT NEED ENGINEERING BACKGROUND. BTW, I HAD A FEELING YOU WHERE OF SOME ENGINEERING BACKGROUND, YOU REMIND ME OF MY COUSIN AND UNCLE. HERE IT IS AGAIN, NOT JUST 0-60 BUT 0-100 AND 1/4 MILE AS WELL. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE NOW. spec: C&D/40k/CarTest 0-60= 4.5/ 4.8/ 4.84 0-100= 11.2/ 12.0/ 11.91 1/4mile = 13.1/ 13.4/ 13.5 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 01:57 PM | #125 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Sure
Quote:
My comments are aimed at the complete set of IS-F results from C&D vs. simulation, not the E46 M3. You keep focusing on the 0-60 difference between C&D and simulation for the IS-F. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 02:20 PM | #126 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
spec: C&D/-CarTest 0-60= 4.5/ - 4.84 0-100= 11.2/ - 11.91 1/4mile = 13.1/ - 13.5 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 05:22 PM | #127 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Me too
Quote:
You are the one who claimed the 40k M3 test results vs. simulation were "dead on". Quote:
Let me try to summarize as clearly as I can. CarTest vs. E46 M3 results range from good to excellent, qualitatively. Deltas (differences) between the two for both new and 40k miles cars vary from under prediction to over prediction. CarTest vs. IS-F results show qualitatively and quantitatively worse agreement with CarTest. The noteable features are the the C&D results are universally faster than simulation and quantitativelty the deltas are larger than with the E46 M3 case (as well as with the deltas for most other vehicles). Finally, 0-100 and higher results should in general be easier to predict with simulation as well as rolling starts and in gear accelerations from speeds with little or no wheelspin. Again, I think I am done beating the dead horse here. You have everything; the tests, the simulations, my opinions and endless commentary. Get the software and have some fun. If you maintain a decent attitude I just might help you get good quality results, with justifiable changes when you find you can not. Now have the last word, pleeeease... |
||
Appreciate
0
|
10-28-2007, 07:49 PM | #128 | ||
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
What!
Okay, let's not start another war. The only reason i'm doing still doing this is because you and i have been pretty civilized about it, relatively. You responded with this, and you said that it is right on the money, it's highlighted. I responded yes it is, but only with the 40k figures and it is. BUt i said it is not with the "new" figures.
Quote:
Quote:
40k: 0-60= 4.8 0-100= 12.0 1/4mile= 13.4 Look at your figures: But they are way off with the "new" figures. "New figures" 0-60= 4.5 0-100= 11.2 1/4mile= 13.1 Anyway, like you said, we've beaten this topic way too much already. You're done and i'm done. Your bottom line is, the figure that you got originally for the IS-F of, and i'm just using this one as an example, 0-60 of 5.1, for you is realistic. Okay! Even though the IS350 have been recorded with the same results and even better ones. Enjoy your "Cartest", i'll stick with the more conventional reliable real world test and results. Please, somebody lock this thread. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 12:24 PM | #129 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
The IS350 has posted better than 5.1s but who said more power equals quicker 0-60mph times, the fact still remains that trying to get an extra 100+hp to the road surface with only two wheels doing the driving is harder and when you add the factor that only 46% of the weigh is now over these wheels (less than the IS350) it's amazing it's posting 4.8s at all. A better time to check out is 0-100 or 0-150mph and see how the IS-F is performing compared to the M3 and others, if by these speeds the thing is close then Lexus has done a good job with the engine and transmission.
Now the chassis, that's a different story and deserves another thread all on it's own. |
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 03:29 PM | #130 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
10-29-2007, 05:57 PM | #132 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
The only reason why 0-60mph is so dated is the fact the cars we are talking about, namely the M3, C63, RS4 and now the IS-F are so powerful that they are covering the 100mph mark in the same time it takes a normal saloon/hatchback to complete the 0-60mph discipline.
It's all relevant really. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|