Our speedometers go to 200 MPH - who's been there ?

[Bartledoo]

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/2136cff...1i7hKngy7.copy

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by DSilk

The figures I quoted were from the pre-2015 C63 (2007 - 2014), which makes it a W204. And the power figures that I was giving were at the crank. If you bothered to read the article that I posted you would see that the author made a point of discussing powertain losses when he concluded that 450 bhp (at the CRANK) might be sufficient to reach 200 mph, but only with nearly perfect aerodynamics, minimal frontal area, and low rolling resistance tires. The point is that a stock e9X M3 is never getting to 200 mph no matter how much you protest.

400 WHP translates to at least 480-500 bhp at the crank with a slushbox, given average losses of about 20%. So your point was...?

THE ORGINAL POST I WAS POSTING TOO when I posted my supercharged m3 doing so in 7th gear.
Ok - we ll know our M3's are very capable of double digits . Who has (on a closed course, race track) reached burying that speedo needle..all the way to the 5 o'clock position and got the V8 S65 to 200 MPH ?

(disclaimer) I only would recommend people test their cars at a closed course or dedicated race course to conduct any kind of high speed test..

Ok, that being stated - who's got pictures and proof of the illustrious 200 MPH...????

Cheers,
Merlin



Your first response to me was a quoted numbers of 470 and 503 funny those are the exact numbers of a W205 BITURBO. I corrected you and now you are still tryna say you were talking a w204 when you were incorrect on the first response.

if you are tryna do the google back to back have the correct car in your search key. a w204 is 451, 480, and 507 edition. none of them are S trim like you stated your first response. So now that we can get pass the BS of tryna act like you knew what you were talking about. I was never speaking to you in comment post nor was there a need for me to go back through every comment in this thread to find what ever article you are now referring too. My comment was first, My m3 has done 200 and then second that I've even done so with my wifes car which barely makes 400whp, Someone said the cars weren't able to reach it do to gearing and that a 6spd would go further then a dct. None of this had anything to do with you for you to be so defensive to back up. So now that we have gotten pass that are you finished or are you done?

[dogbone]

The AIM Solo DL data can shed some light on the difference between GPS speed and the BMW speed sensor. The AIM logs the BMW speed sensor data, and it has it's own GPS to determine speed.

According to the AIM, at high speeds---beyond 120mph---the BMW dash shows about 10-12 mph faster than you are actually going. Let's look at an AIM Solo DL chart.

In California, the fastest stretch of track can be found at Auto Club Speedway. You can get around 160mph on the Oval before dealing with Turn 1.

In the chart below, there are two parameters shown:

Blue is GPS Speed.
Red is the BMW speed sensor.

We're looking at the first 6500 ft of the track. My lowest speed on the Oval was 135 mph (GPS). From (GPS) 135-158 mph, the difference between the two was pretty steady at 10-12 mph.

I'd guess the delta goes up a bit more with even higher speeds.

[Flying Ace]

You definitely need at least 500 hp to get to 200 mph

[m3jala]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

You definitely need at least 500 hp to get to 200 mph

Is the car in your avatar the sample of you doing a backward wheelie to a stop right after your 500hp 200mph sprint to give way at the friendly neighborhood 4-way stop sign?

[BOOF-M3]

Originally Posted by m3jala

Is the car in your avatar the sample of you doing a backward wheelie to a stop right after your 500hp 200mph sprint to give way at the friendly neighborhood 4-way stop sign?

Have you not seen the video? It's epic.

[m3jala]

Originally Posted by BOOF-M3

Have you not seen the video? It's epic.

Animated gifs and imagination aside, I have not been blessed as such yet.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Properstyle

THE ORGINAL POST I WAS POSTING TOO when I posted my supercharged m3 doing so in 7th gear.
Ok - we ll know our M3's are very capable of double digits . Who has (on a closed course, race track) reached burying that speedo needle..all the way to the 5 o'clock position and got the V8 S65 to 200 MPH ?

(disclaimer) I only would recommend people test their cars at a closed course or dedicated race course to conduct any kind of high speed test..

Ok, that being stated - who's got pictures and proof of the illustrious 200 MPH...????

Cheers,
Merlin



Your first response to me was a quoted numbers of 470 and 503 funny those are the exact numbers of a W205 BITURBO. I corrected you and now you are still tryna say you were talking a w204 when you were incorrect on the first response.

if you are tryna do the google back to back have the correct car in your search key. a w204 is 451, 480, and 507 edition. none of them are S trim like you stated your first response. So now that we can get pass the BS of tryna act like you knew what you were talking about. I was never speaking to you in comment post nor was there a need for me to go back through every comment in this thread to find what ever article you are now referring too. My comment was first, My m3 has done 200 and then second that I've even done so with my wifes car which barely makes 400whp, Someone said the cars weren't able to reach it do to gearing and that a 6spd would go further then a dct. None of this had anything to do with you for you to be so defensive to back up. So now that we have gotten pass that are you finished or are you done?

You think that a stock M3 has actually gone 200 mph? DREAM ON! You can say it a thousand times, but that doesn't make it true. Yes I know that you want to believe that you have the 1 magical vehicle that somehow is able to evade the laws of physics, but there is your imagination and there is reality, and never the twain shall meet. 414 bhp at the crank isn't getting an M3 to 200 mph in the real world.

As for your wife's C63, the power figures I have posted come from Mercedes Benz, and yes they are for the W204 with the V8, and not the twin-turbo W205 that hit the market as a 2015 model year. Your wife's car has a tune, and 400 WHP actually translates to around 500 bhp at the crank. Whether or not your wife's car has actually reached 200 mph I cannot say, since it may have sufficient power to do so. But, as noted before, the C63 has more power and has a cleaner aerodynamic profile than does the M3, so even if a tuned C63 has seen the far side of 200 mph, that doesn't mean that a stock M3 is getting there.

Now slap a supercharger on the M3 and you are talking a different story, but the difference between 500 or 600 bhp at the crank and 414 is huge.

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by DSilk

You think that a stock M3 has actually gone 200 mph? DREAM ON! You can say it a thousand times, but that doesn't make it true. Yes I know that you want to believe that you have the 1 magical vehicle that somehow is able to evade the laws of physics, but there is your imagination and there is reality, and never the twain shall meet. 414 bhp at the crank isn't getting an M3 to 200 mph in the real world.

As for your wife's C63, the power figures I have posted come from Mercedes Benz, and yes they are for the W204 with the V8, and not the twin-turbo W205 that hit the market as a 2015 model year. Your wife's car has a tune, and 400 WHP actually translates to around 500 bhp at the crank. Whether or not your wife's car has actually reached 200 mph I cannot say, since it may have sufficient power to do so. But, as noted before, the C63 has more power and has a cleaner aerodynamic profile than does the M3, so even if a tuned C63 has seen the far side of 200 mph, that doesn't mean that a stock M3 is getting there.

Now slap a supercharger on the M3 and you are talking a different story, but the difference between 500 or 600 bhp at the crank and 414 is huge.

no where in any of this did I mention a stock m3 doing 200 nor did I ever say or support that it could. So i'm going to chalk this up to you just wanted to be right about something that was never being argued lol...if you did some reading you will see my only m3 response was about my SUPERCHARGED M3 not a bolt on or stock one.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Properstyle

no where in any of this did I mention a stock m3 doing 200 nor did I ever say or support that it could. So i'm going to chalk this up to you just wanted to be right about something that was never being argued lol...if you did some reading you will see my only m3 response was about my SUPERCHARGED M3 not a bolt on or stock one.

The original post began with a question regarding who among us has taken our M3 to 200 mph or beyond. Within a few posts there was a video apparently showing an e92 M3 with a reflashed ECM hitting 200 mph. Reprogramming the ECU is not getting the S65 to over 450 bhp, and I commented that the M3 won't get to 200 mph without forced induction. I then posted an article by a physicist and race driver who noted that generally you need at least 500 bhp on tap to take a street-legal car to 200 mph. You then jumped in to try to dispute the physics with claims about your wife's C63 with 400 WHP and your own M3 (which you did not say was supercharged), and here we are.

[ekbusdriver]

Well, cooler temps are a long way away for me to give this a try.
I have not done the math yet, but I think with the shorter rear end, I will run out of gears and rpm's before getting to 200.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Throw some oil on the fire...

[Richbot]

Originally Posted by ///M Power-Belgium

Throw some oil on the fire...

7750rpm in top gear (looked like more like 7600 when he lifted but let’s be generous) is 193mph on stock rear tires. So right about where the calculators say it should be.

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by DSilk

The original post began with a question regarding who among us has taken our M3 to 200 mph or beyond. Within a few posts there was a video apparently showing an e92 M3 with a reflashed ECM hitting 200 mph. Reprogramming the ECU is not getting the S65 to over 450 bhp, and I commented that the M3 won't get to 200 mph without forced induction. I then posted an article by a physicist and race driver who noted that generally you need at least 500 bhp on tap to take a street-legal car to 200 mph. You then jumped in to try to dispute the physics with claims about your wife's C63 with 400 WHP and your own M3 (which you did not say was supercharged), and here we are.

direct quote from comment #71

Originally Posted by Properstyle

Have done 202mph in my DCT supercharged e90m3 on video and have seen 208 with out video. .

comment 78 also from me was again about my SUPERCHARGED m3 not being stock, and that the orginal post was not about a stock m3.

Originally Posted by Properstyle

Original post was not about a stock a m3 nor was your comment and clearly me stating my car was supercharged was not stock.

this was my second comment replying to someone else who said my car wasn't stock. once again another comment that made no sense at all as me clearly saying my car was supercharged made this obvious.

Originally Posted by Properstyle

My wife’s tunes c63 c6.2 has touched 200. Does it take awhile ?yes but that car barely makes 400whp all this talk of using math is pretty funny from those who have never attempted it.

My third comment which once again had nothing to do with you. So now that we can clearly see reading is not your strong point are you done? My first post in this thread was about my SUPERCHARGED M3. you can check that for your self instead of making random replies with out having any backing to them.

all of these comments are no where near any of your comments or replies. so once again NO ONE was talking to you DSilk.

Originally Posted by DSilk

A tuned C63 is going to be making at least 500 bhp at the crank (the stock car is either nearly 470 bhp or 503 bhp in S trim), so the math still works.

My only reply to you was stating a w204 c63 came with 470hp and 503 for the (S) trim. WHICH was then and still now incorrect. I then gave you the break down of what the all motor models came with. Try reading before just replying to show you being right when you are mistaken.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Properstyle View Post
My wife’s tunes c63 c6.2 has touched 200. Does it take awhile ?yes but that car barely makes 400whp all this talk of using math is pretty funny from those who have never attempted it.

My reply:
A tuned C63 is going to be making at least 500 bhp at the crank (the stock car is either nearly 470 bhp or 503 bhp in S trim), so the math still works.

This is where it started. Your wife's C63 makes 400 WHP, which given the 20% loss from crank to wheel translates to 500 bhp. As I said at the outset, the math still works.

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by DSilk

Originally Posted by Properstyle View Post
My wife’s tunes c63 c6.2 has touched 200. Does it take awhile ?yes but that car barely makes 400whp all this talk of using math is pretty funny from those who have never attempted it.

My reply:
A tuned C63 is going to be making at least 500 bhp at the crank (the stock car is either nearly 470 bhp or 503 bhp in S trim), so the math still works.

This is where it started. Your wife's C63 makes 400 WHP, which given the 20% loss from crank to wheel translates to 500 bhp. As I said at the outset, the math still works.

Now look above that comment. the one you keep avoiding where it clearly stated supercharged m3 (that part you said was never stated) . and the comments above that which says the same.

The 400whp was an indication that doesn't take much to get to 200mph it had nothing to do with what ever physics article you are referring to. it was about someone stating the final gearing on a DCT car which as 7 gears being too long to reach it. all of which were not replys to you nor did I quote you when I made them. SO once again you don't know what you are talking about. You are one of those spending so much time tryna be right you interject your self in to comments that have nothing to do with your argument.


the smart thing to do would be to ask (what math are you referring to) which would have made you look less retarded after this now 10 comment back and forth only to see what was stated from the being that no one was talking to you..

My only reply to you was correcting your hp rating that the you gave a c63 6.2 after you gave the hp readings from the BI turbo 4.0 model.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Properstyle

Now look above that comment. the one you keep avoiding where it clearly stated supercharged m3 (that part you said was never stated) . and the comments above that which says the same.

The 400whp was an indication that doesn't take much to get to 200mph it had nothing to do with what ever physics article you are referring to. it was about someone stating the final gearing on a DCT car which as 7 gears being too long to reach it. all of which were not replys to you nor did I quote you when I made them. SO once again you don't know what you are talking about. You are one of those spending so much time tryna be right you interject your self in to comments that have nothing to do with your argument.


the smart thing to do would be to ask (what math are you referring to) which would have made you look less retarded after this now 10 comment back and forth only to see what was stated from the being that no one was talking to you..

My only reply to you was correcting your hp rating that the you gave a c63 6.2 after you gave the hp readings from the BI turbo 4.0 model.

And you fail to recognize that there is a difference between 400 WHP and 400 bhp AT THE CRANK. Your comment that "it doesn't much to get to 200 mph" shows both that you don't recognize that difference between the 2 and that you have no understanding of basic physics. Once again, since reading comprehension does not seem to be one of your strengths, I will repeat: (1) You generally need at least 500 bhp to attain 200 mph in a street-legal automobile; (2) The difference between horsepower at the crank and horsepower at the driven wheels is about 20%, given heat and drivetrain losses; (3) The 400 WHP that you have quoted for your wife's C63 translates to around 500 bhp at the crank; (4) In what universe is 500 bhp "not that much power"?

The only thing retarded in this entire exchange is your attitude, my friend, so stop with the childish insults.

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by DSilk

And you fail to recognize that there is a difference between 400 WHP and 400 bhp AT THE CRANK. Your comment that "it doesn't much to get to 200 mph" shows both that you don't recognize that difference between the 2 and that you have no understanding of basic physics. Once again, since reading comprehension does not seem to be one of your strengths, I will repeat: (1) You generally need at least 500 bhp to attain 200 mph in a street-legal automobile; (2) The difference between horsepower at the crank and horsepower at the driven wheels is about 20%, given heat and drivetrain losses; (3) The 400 WHP that you have quoted for your wife's C63 translates to around 500 bhp at the crank; (4) In what universe is 500 bhp "not that much power"?

The only thing retarded in this entire exchange is your attitude, my friend, so stop with the childish insults.

Who said I didn't realize the difference? Is this another assumption? Another time of you putting your foot in your mouth? 400WHP is not that much in todays auto industry, there is a reason I put WHP and not crank. I care about the power that makes it to the ground not the crank. the f80 a another car I've owned quotes a crank horse power of 420hp but dynos 415WHP on average.that measnt the car is grossly under rated for what it makes. crank hp estimates don't mean shit. I care about WHP.



I am so one who races my cars so WHP matters not crank. When you go to a sanctioned race that limited by power out put they USE dynojet readings NOT CRANK.

NO 500crank isn't that much any longer, the c63 is my wifes DAILY. my m3 makes 570WHP. and my Z makes 840WHP. that translates to the following
500 rough estimate
670hp
990hp.

For the cars in my home I personally own, built and race.

I live in south Florida 400whp puts you loosing to just about any car that lines up at the track. I'm sorry that hurts your ego about driving a car that makes 400crank. but that is not my problem. Your problem is you made assumptions trying to be right about something that was NEVER being argued with you by me.

SO once again I NEVER argued about what was required to get to 200MPH I only said 400WHP is not that much to achieve 200mph mark. IS THAT CLEAR? Do I need to barney style that for you ?

400whp isn't much for a car for it to be reaching the 200MPH MARK. that means I am NOT saying it doesn't require that based on a given weight.

So once again my wifes 4klb boat of a benz has been 200mph with barely 400WHP. That is not saying it doesn't take that it measn that's all that was required for my WIFES CAR TO GET THERE.


lets list a number of cars that make at least 400whp

2009 GTR and ever one after bolt ons and 85 stock turbos (640whp)

2009 CTSV and ever one after it bolt on and e85 with meth stock blower ( 650whp)

mild bolt on 2012plus 5.0 (430whp)

headers and tune ls3 c6 vette 430 (whp)

tuned c7 vette (410 whp)

2015 f80 m3 stock (415 whp) bolt ons and e85 stock turbos (580whp)

2013 plus m5 stock (530whp) bolt on and race gas stock turbos (700whp)

2013 c7z06 ( 490 whp) bolt on and e85 with meth stock blower and cam ( 770whp)

2017 Camaro zl1 ( 510whp stock ) bolt on and e85 (720whp)

2013 plus e63 stock (540whp)

2016 c63 stock (470whp)

2016 q60s with down pipe and tune (430 whp)

2017 Honda civic type r down pipe, intake, tune, just under 400whp. yes a civic with a stock interials motors makes that with less than 2k spent
(just dynode one at the shop 3 weeks ago) these are all cars I've dyno personally. What does that mean? That I work at a shop that builds cars we often host dyno days as well. We can continue this if you would like but you are not in the space of being to speak to many of these things with these piss poor assumptions you keep making further sticking your foot in your mouth. How many more assumptions would you like to make?

I can keep going for a while bud.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Properstyle

Who said I didn't realize the difference? Is this another assumption? Another time of you putting your foot in your mouth? 400WHP is not that much in todays auto industry, there is a reason I put WHP and not crank. I care about the power that makes it to the ground not the crank. the f80 a another car I've owned quotes a crank horse power of 420hp but dynos 415WHP on average.that measnt the car is grossly under rated for what it makes. crank hp estimates don't mean shit. I care about WHP.



I am so one who races my cars so WHP matters not crank. When you go to a sanctioned race that limited by power out put they USE dynojet readings NOT CRANK.

NO 500crank isn't that much any longer, the c63 is my wifes DAILY. my m3 makes 570WHP. and my Z makes 840WHP. that translates to the following
500 rough estimate
670hp
990hp.

For the cars in my home I personally own, built and race.

I live in south Florida 400whp puts you loosing to just about any car that lines up at the track. I'm sorry that hurts your ego about driving a car that makes 400crank. but that is not my problem. Your problem is you made assumptions trying to be right about something that was NEVER being argued with you by me.

SO once again I NEVER argued about what was required to get to 200MPH I only said 400WHP is not that much to achieve 200mph mark. IS THAT CLEAR? Do I need to barney style that for you ?

400whp isn't much for a car for it to be reaching the 200MPH MARK. that means I am NOT saying it doesn't require that based on a given weight.

So once again my wifes 4klb boat of a benz has been 200mph with barely 400WHP. That is not saying it doesn't take that it measn that's all that was required for my WIFES CAR TO GET THERE.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about the numbers my car, or anybody else's, generates. I'm the one stating that our cars won't make it to 200 mph in stock configuration, and that doesn't matter to me. None of us will ever see 200 mph on a public road (nor on most tracks) regardless of what we are driving. It's all about the driving experience. If I wanted a dragstrip winner I would have bought a Corvette or muscle car. I'll leave it to people who are insecure to boast about numbers.

Once again you insist upon making this a battle for no reason at all. My point, which you have yet to dispute, is that a stock e9X M3 does not have enough horsepower to reach 200 mph. For what it's worth, mass is far less relevant than drag at triple-digit speeds.

By the way, there is a difference between losing (a real word) and "loosing" (a misspelling).

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by DSilk

. My point, which you have yet to dispute, is that a stock e9X M3 does not have enough horsepower to reach 200 mph.

Why would I dispute something I agree with ? you truly are clueless. I never once agreed or made any statement that supported such. a stock m3 likely wouldn't make it passed 170mph who knows. I couldn't careless what a stock M3 would do as that wasn't the point of the post, NOR was it part of any of my responses.

[DSilk]

Originally Posted by Properstyle

Why would I dispute something I agree with ? you truly are clueless. I never once agreed or made any statement that supported such. a stock m3 likely wouldn't make it passed 170mph who knows. I couldn't careless what a stock M3 would do as that wasn't the point of the post, NOR was it part of any of my responses.

One final comment, and then I am done with this. The original post (not yours) asked who had seen the far side of 200 mph in their M3. One of the first responses showed an M3 with a reflashed ECM purportedly getting to that speed. A reprogrammed control unit won't get you past 450 bhp at the crank, and that was the post to which I was responding.

[Properstyle]

Originally Posted by DSilk

One final comment, and then I am done with this. The original post (not yours) asked who had seen the far side of 200 mph in their M3. One of the first responses showed an M3 with a reflashed ECM purportedly getting to that speed. A reprogrammed control unit won't get you past 450 bhp at the crank, and that was the post to which I was responding.

guess what??? I wasn't the person who made that comment my comments had nothing to do with you or that comment . So again now the
5th time you were making an argument with someone who WAS NEVER arguing with you.