|
|
10-29-2007, 07:33 PM | #133 | ||
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Okay, so here's the rest of the figures.
Quote:
Quote:
Here it is. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
11-28-2007, 05:40 PM | #134 |
Registered
0
Rep 3
Posts |
Road&Track just release their review on IS-F.
"The 8-speed transmission helps the IS F achieve its remarkably quick acceleration numbers: 0–60 mph in just 4.4 seconds and the quarter mile in 12.8 sec. at 113.3 mph." "Its 71.2-mph slalom speed is damn impressive for such a heavy sedan (3825 lb.), eclipsing not only the Audi RS 4 (68.9 mph) but also the Porsche Cayman S (70.6 mph). The 911 Carrera 4S barely edges the Lexus, at 71.5 mph. " http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6177 I would still choose E92 M3 over IS-F. But still an impressive car. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-28-2007, 07:47 PM | #135 |
Major General
541
Rep 5,498
Posts |
Impressive.
I for one am happy there are so many great performance choices. I really dislike parts of the ISF's overall looks. However, I dont think it is ugly. The interior is actually quite beautiful and sporty. I perfer the M3 though as well. The MDCT will only further improve the M3's impressive performance. Jason
__________________
Instagram: jellismotorwerks |
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2007, 10:09 PM | #136 | |
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep 241
Posts |
Quote:
Swamp, I see your error - it is the final drive ratio. It is closer to 3.0 actually. If you change that, your numbers will DRASTICALLY change. I thought it looked a little suspicious - the IS-F only goes 30+ in 1st and barely 60+ in 2nd gear. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2007, 10:14 PM | #137 |
Commander-In-Chief
2323
Rep 9,002
Posts
Drives: 2023 M2 Coupe, 2020 GLE 450
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lake Oswego, OR
|
IS F final drive ratio
Good catch--2.937 to be exact.
__________________
Greg Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA 2023 M2 Coupe - Brooklyn Grey/Cognac/CF, 6MT; 2020 MB GLE 450 |
Appreciate
0
|
11-29-2007, 10:29 PM | #138 |
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep 241
Posts |
Doing some rough approximations... The IS-F has a definite torque advantage in every gear over the M3. Wow, this totally changes swamp2's numbers... that 3710 ft lbs becomes over 5000 suddenly! Post up the new numbers swamp2!!! I'm curious - I'm not trying to start another argument, but just curious.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-30-2007, 08:35 AM | #139 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
I will look forward to one turning up at one of Gustav's events, though I doubt the Lexus will win..........well does anything ever win against BMW at these.
No, on pure performance figures the Lexus will be the one to beat along side the C63 with the M3 and RS4 close behind, though I doubt it's handling finesse will concern BMW much. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-30-2007, 10:26 AM | #141 |
Moderator
7537
Rep 19,368
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-30-2007, 11:08 AM | #143 | |
First Lieutenant
11
Rep 369
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-30-2007, 12:29 PM | #144 | |
Major
112
Rep 1,161
Posts |
Quote:
has anyone seen any indication as to whether or not either MB or Lexus have plans to add a DCT. I believe there was a post several months ago that hinted the MB would offer one in the future. p.s. As a former IS300 owner: The IS-F is FUGLY, good thing AC Schnitzer doesn't tune Lexus, that would make it even worse |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-30-2007, 03:44 PM | #145 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
1. M3 6MT std. simulation parameters 2. M3 M-DCT with improved shift times and all gear 7 gear ratios fairly optimized for acceleration 3. IS-F std. simulation parameters and corrected FD 4. IS-F with spectacularly low automatic transmission loss figures. I used lossed almost identically low as a MT. This is probably being optimistic towards how good the 8AT can be. Of course corrected FD as well. 5. IS-F, same as #4 with 435 hp and 385 ft lb torque. The conclusions are simple and quite similar to my previous conclusions:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-30-2007, 10:21 PM | #146 |
Second Lieutenant
5
Rep 241
Posts |
Looks about right - except I don't think your software is allowing for "launch" techniques. If you notice, all your 5-60 mph is FASTER than your 0-60mph times and with proper technique, clutch slippage or torque converter slippage, 0-60 is typically faster than 5-60. It is also noticeable on the 60 feet times - I'm sure the IS-F AND M3 is capable of 1.9 second 60' times. My stock IS350 with Dunlop Sportmaxx on stock rims has hit 1.91 seconds a couple of weekend ago (no weight reduction).
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-30-2007, 11:27 PM | #148 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
The software offers a variety of launch techniques for both automatic and manual transmissions. It also has an optimization feature that can optimize the launch rpm to minimize one performance figure or another. I always optimize launches, btw. All that being said launch is the trickiest part of the physics to capture with the clutch and tires spinning/slipping and all of the non-linear effects. The other problem is just a matter of a sort of a numerical signal to noise effect. Getting the answers absolutely correct when the times and distances are short and much of the error is during launch is challenging (i.e. just not going to happen). Surely the longer distances and times are more accurate than things like 60' time. Furthermore the software is better at predicting changes or relative performance rather than absolutes. Even so, the absolutes are generally within a couple tenths, which is probably less than the test variation among a set of typical journalists! Thanks again for your contribution to improved simulations. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 04:39 AM | #149 |
Major General
1207
Rep 8,034
Posts |
swamp2,
I think your estimates for all cars are a little low, especially at higher speeds. On at least 3 tests the M3 has better 25.6s to 150mph yet in your figures it's a full second slower that that, the same applies to the Lexus. We already have tests showing the Lexus better your times and those of the M3 so why sugar coat it in the M3's favour. I do believe that the M3 with DCT will be a little quicker but I doubt BMW will optimise the gears purely for acceleration, best guess would estimate the first 6 gears staying basically the same with 7th just increasing it's top end and long distance economy. I reckon the only real improvement between manual and DCT will come from the shift times which I reckon your figures are ever so slightly optimistic as the car will have only changed gears 4 times not 5. Last edited by footie; 12-01-2007 at 10:56 AM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 10:54 AM | #150 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 11:19 AM | #151 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 11:47 AM | #152 | |
Major General
382
Rep 8,033
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 12:10 PM | #153 | |
Captain
72
Rep 706
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-01-2007, 02:13 PM | #154 |
Captain
13
Rep 689
Posts |
There is a good reason that a lot of drag racers use automatic transmissions.
1: They are vastly easier to launch hard. 2: You don't lose time shifting when you could be accelerating. 3: They are more durable. Launching a manual car is hell on the clutch. 4: The torque converter provides extra gearing at low speed. It effectivly multiplies torque when the car is launched or right after you shift to a higher gear. The reason that maunals used to win a lot of contests is because they were more efficient at turning engine power into thrust. i.e. fewer mechanical losses. But lest just say they were 5% less efficient than a manual and lets say you need 0.3s to shift a manual during which time you are not accelerating. For a car that needs 5s of in gear acceleration a manual would take 5.0 + 0.3s or 5.3s while the auto would need 5 * 1.05 = 5.25s Assuming 4.3s of in gear it becomes 4.6 and 4.5 |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|