M3 vs cayman S

[graider]

Originally Posted by shift@red

Actually, I have a Z4M, and i will tell you as good as it is (i love it!), i dont think it has the perfectly balanced, honed, and poised chasis of a GT3. It is far superior a car to the e46 m3 though, IMO.
And considering that the GT3 still has a radio and AC and all that, and weighs under 3000 lbs, the bmw couldnt get any lighter without stripping those creature comforts out...the z4m already has less sound proofing than the m3 and the Z4M weighs about 3250-3300 lbs...so really not even close to the weight of a GT3.
So the answer is no, bmw couldnt A) get it as light while keeping all the creature comforts the GT3 still has and B) even with more power, it wouldnt be as fast in a straight or on a track (read paragraph one re: chasis). i dont think there are more than a few cars out there that put the power down like the Porsches, especially the GT3. Additionally, the handling on the car is flat out PERFECT in every way. In R&T it did the slalom in 75.9 mph! only the GT2 has matched it, not a single other car. Z4M only manages a 70.5, which is still great, but not at GT3 level.
You NEED to go and drive one. And then youll see.

actually that is not true. the nsx weight less than the gt3 rs. the answer is aluminium or carbon fiber or some exotic materials. That comes at a cost, but that's how to strip weight and maintain creature comfort. the z06 weight 3132 lb at a bargain price. I'm just saying weight saving can be done and porsche is not the only one that can do it. not to mention different vehicle have different dimension. add an extra inch in length, width, or height would add weight. below are some number for reference.

gt3

Length 174.6 in (4435 mm)
Width 69.7 in (1770 mm)
Height 50.2 in (1275 mm)

z06

Length 174.6 in (4435 mm)
Width 72.6 in (1844 mm)
Height Coupe: 49 in (1245 mm)

nsx

Length 174.2 in
Width 71.3 in
Height 46.1 in

[footie]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

The Gallardo was a Lamborghini concept which Audi helped bring to life. The R8 is a bit of an evolution and improvement upon the Gallardo. The fact remains that Audi hadn't produced a mid-engine, street legal supercar until the acquisition of Lamborghini by VW. Seriously, why does Audi bother to even keep Lamborghini's engineers on staff if they posses the ability to design and build supercars all in-house?

You have to understand how difficult it is to gain credibility in a Market so competitive as the supercar market. So Audi through VW's money bought Lamborghini with the goal to have their own supercar.

Many have questioned the need for keeping Lambo now that they have the R8 but the fact is that it's never been this profitable so why dump something that's making you money. Audi just like BMW have for some time had the knowledge, skills and backing to development and build a very competitive supercar but credibility in this market have kept one of them out of it and forced the other to purchase a main player, develop a additional model to the lineup (gallardo) and then borrow it's techology to make it's most expensive car by far actually look cheap and very sellable.

A brilliant move by Audi if you ask me.

[SCCAForums.com]

Footie seriously... can you change your Avatar to the 4 rings? Why don't you own an Audi? You clearly worship everything they offer, yet you leave them for an M3... and then end up with a Diesel Jaguar?

Every move by Audi is a brilliant one in your book... can you please explain the engine in front of the front wheels still?

Hell... 3 years ago... the motor barely fell behind the front bumper?

Brilliant Move again... I'm sure.

Dave

[ChinoOrtega]

there are plenty of Audi and Jag forums

[M3_WC]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

The Gallardo was a Lamborghini concept which Audi helped bring to life. The R8 is a bit of an evolution and improvement upon the Gallardo. The fact remains that Audi hadn't produced a mid-engine, street legal supercar until the acquisition of Lamborghini by VW. Seriously, why does Audi bother to even keep Lamborghini's engineers on staff if they posses the ability to design and build supercars all in-house?

It is more than a "bit of an evolution".

Just 15% is shared between the Gallardo and R8.

[southlight]

Originally Posted by M3_WC

It is more than a "bit of an evolution".

Just 15% is shared between the Gallardo and R8.

Speaking of the R8 V8, it's a blend between RS4 and Gallardo. Some say that production costs of the R8 aren't much higher than the RS4's were. Assuming that the RS4 wasn't unprofitable itself, the R8 has an incredible profit margin.


Best regards,
south

[footie]

Originally Posted by southlight

Speaking of the R8 V8, it's a blend between RS4 and Gallardo. Some say that production costs of the R8 aren't much higher than the RS4's were. Assuming that the RS4 wasn't unprofitable itself, the R8 has an incredible profit margin.


Best regards,
south

If you assume that Audi co-developed the Gallardo with Lamborghini always with the intention to launch their own 'much cheaper' version that was still hugely profitable then what does that not say about the Gallardo.

[NewM3driver]

Nothing can provide the pure, raw driving experience like an older, air cooled 911.

Not the M3, not the Cayman, not even a new 997.

[graider]

Originally Posted by NewM3driver

Nothing can provide the pure, raw driving experience like an older, air cooled 911.

Not the M3, not the Cayman, not even a new 997.

just curious, even the 997.2 gt3 rs?

[a burrito]

Originally Posted by graider

like the gt3 can be out lapped by the much cheaper car from gm and nissan aka z06 on all season tires and gtr with 800lbs extra weight? the cayman is faster or keep up with the m3 simply is due to the weight. that's all it is. I'm just saying there is nothing porsche can do that other can't. imagine if everyone have the same car as porsche, who would buy them? people love varieties. Not everyone can live with or prefer a gt3 or cayman s.

as for bmw, i don't see them making any porsche competitor for a long time. it is simply not the direction where their m department is heading to. porsche remains a niche player which allow them to create car like the gt3, etc.

porsche have not made a car that seat 4 adult and compete with the m3 for the same price. until then, we can have an apple to apple of what each company can do. i do not think it is difficult to make a car like the gt3 at their current price. many company can do this, but not many people can afford it and there is no point to make all the car perform same way as the gt3. variety is part of life.

That is a very interesting way to look at it to say the least. So now your viewpoint of the GT3 for a DD changes. I'm guessing you've driven one at this point? Also, I really do think there is more to it than the cayman being light but yes that is one of its advantages. You make car evolution sound like childs play.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

...but if bmw goal is set to make niche product like porsche, I believe with their engineer know how, they can. let's take the z4m coupe for example. it weight 3200lbs. do you really believe that given the extra cash as the gt3, bmw cannot strip this down to 3000lbs with a higher hp engine and make it faster than the gt3?

Yes, I really believe that.

It's pretty complicated, though.

First of all, there is no Z4M, and here on the actual planet, there's no way BMW would be able to resurrect it and make any money. The cheapest way for them to go would be to use the current Z4 platform, and work from that. Though it weighs just under 3500 pounds with the DCT box, BMW could save some weight by eliminating all the folding-top paraphernalia and just welding or glueing a steel top on the thing - but then they'd start adding weight via wheels and tires, brakes, etc., just as they do on the current M3, for instance. Figure they could battle that back to a draw with chassis pieces made out of unobtanium, etc. (doable under the new cost umbrella), but with an overall weight penalty vs the GT3 that they'll need something around 500 HP to compete with the Porsche. Figure turbo power would be the way to go, but that adds weight in the form of turbo and intercooler plumbing, increased cooling, stronger driveline parts to cope with the increased torque, etc. - and let's say you still hold the weight at around 3500 pounds via even more esoteric and expensive body and chassis components.

I'd be willing to bet that your engineering and product cost differences would be way bigger than those differentiating the GT3 from a base 911, and you'd have to write those costs off through each of the units produced and sold - meaning a much big number added to the cost of each car.

And since BMW will have the traditional problem associated with marketing a car that is so much more costly than the base model, they're not going to sell many units at all. Result: Even higher engineering costs per car. That's why the last CSL was a bunch more expensive than the regular M3, with much less standard equipment. Those relatively puny engineering costs had to be written off across a small number of cars. It's also why there's no current plan for a CSL. They can't find a cost model (written across so few units) that makes sense.

Look, I'm not saying it's impossible at all, but it's far closer to climbing Mount Everest in sneakers than it is to a walk in the park.

Bruce

[graider]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Yes, I really believe that.

It's pretty complicated, though.

First of all, there is no Z4M, and here on the actual planet, there's no way BMW would be able to resurrect it and make any money. The cheapest way for them to go would be to use the current Z4 platform, and work from that. Though it weighs just under 3500 pounds with the DCT box, BMW could save some weight by eliminating all the folding-top paraphernalia and just welding or glueing a steel top on the thing - but then they'd start adding weight via wheels and tires, brakes, etc., just as they do on the current M3, for instance. Figure they could battle that back to a draw with chassis pieces made out of unobtanium, etc. (doable under the new cost umbrella), but with an overall weight penalty vs the GT3 that they'll need something around 500 HP to compete with the Porsche. Figure turbo power would be the way to go, but that adds weight in the form of turbo and intercooler plumbing, increased cooling, stronger driveline parts to cope with the increased torque, etc. - and let's say you still hold the weight at around 3500 pounds via even more esoteric and expensive body and chassis components.

I'd be willing to bet that your engineering and product cost differences would be way bigger than those differentiating the GT3 from a base 911, and you'd have to write those costs off through each of the units produced and sold - meaning a much big number added to the cost of each car.

And since BMW will have the traditional problem associated with marketing a car that is so much more costly than the base model, they're not going to sell many units at all. Result: Even higher engineering costs per car. That's why the last CSL was a bunch more expensive than the regular M3, with much less standard equipment. Those relatively puny engineering costs had to be written off across a small number of cars. It's also why there's no current plan for a CSL. They can't find a cost model (written across so few units) that makes sense.

Look, I'm not saying it's impossible at all, but it's far closer to climbing Mount Everest in sneakers than it is to a walk in the park.

Bruce

i was referring to the z4m coupe

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

i was referring to the z4m coupe

It doesn't exist.

[graider]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

Yes, I really believe that.

It's pretty complicated, though.

First of all, there is no Z4M, and here on the actual planet, there's no way BMW would be able to resurrect it and make any money. The cheapest way for them to go would be to use the current Z4 platform, and work from that. Though it weighs just under 3500 pounds with the DCT box, BMW could save some weight by eliminating all the folding-top paraphernalia and just welding or glueing a steel top on the thing - but then they'd start adding weight via wheels and tires, brakes, etc., just as they do on the current M3, for instance. Figure they could battle that back to a draw with chassis pieces made out of unobtanium, etc. (doable under the new cost umbrella), but with an overall weight penalty vs the GT3 that they'll need something around 500 HP to compete with the Porsche. Figure turbo power would be the way to go, but that adds weight in the form of turbo and intercooler plumbing, increased cooling, stronger driveline parts to cope with the increased torque, etc. - and let's say you still hold the weight at around 3500 pounds via even more esoteric and expensive body and chassis components.

I'd be willing to bet that your engineering and product cost differences would be way bigger than those differentiating the GT3 from a base 911, and you'd have to write those costs off through each of the units produced and sold - meaning a much big number added to the cost of each car.

And since BMW will have the traditional problem associated with marketing a car that is so much more costly than the base model, they're not going to sell many units at all. Result: Even higher engineering costs per car. That's why the last CSL was a bunch more expensive than the regular M3, with much less standard equipment. Those relatively puny engineering costs had to be written off across a small number of cars. It's also why there's no current plan for a CSL. They can't find a cost model (written across so few units) that makes sense.

Look, I'm not saying it's impossible at all, but it's far closer to climbing Mount Everest in sneakers than it is to a walk in the park.

Bruce

this http://www.europeancarweb.com/longte...upe/index.html

climbing mount Everest is huge exaggeration. like I have said before, if the goal is to build a light weight 2 seaters. It can be done as you can see the nsx from honda, z06 from gm.

the csl is still a saloon with stripped rear seat. if bmw want to compete with the gt3. they will start from the ground up with a light weight 2 seaters.

I'm glad you agree with me that bmw doesn't make a gt3 competitor due to marketing/profit constraint, not engineering ability.

[a burrito]

Originally Posted by graider

this [url]
I'm glad you agree with me that bmw doesn't make a gt3 competitor due to marketing/profit constraint, not engineering ability.

Money Constraint and Engineering ability goes hand in hand. Key word is Budget. Bottom line is BMW has not cracked a cost efficient way to create such a car like a 911. Despite the light/strong/expensive metals and high end materials that porsche uses for their vehicles yet they, Porsche has one of the highest profit margins in the game. So no, BMW doesn't have a apple to apple answer to Porsche yet. Can they do it? I don't doubt it. By next year? No. Why? Money and engineering.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by a burrito

Bottom line is BMW has not cracked a cost efficient way to create such a car like a 911. Despite the light/strong/expensive metals and high end materials that porsche uses for their vehicles yet they, Porsche has one of the highest profit margins in the game.

Disagree here. Porsche does not use much, if any, exotic materials in the 911 line. It's just a regular old steel unibody much like almost any BMW ever built. The reason the 911s are light is basically because they are small. An M3 scaled down in volume according to the equivalent 997S volume would weigh within 100 lb of an actual 997S. Factor in more interior volume, more trunk volume, etc. and that allows you to conclude that the weight savings engineering, materials and technology among the two cars are roughly equal. Recall that BMW does use an aluminum hood, carbon fiber roof, composite fenders and a whole other variety of weight savings tricks (just as Porsche does). Other than the carbon fiber roof neither car really uses any materials you can really call exotic (beryllium, titanium, magnesium, structural composites, etc.).

[footie]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Disagree here. Porsche does not use much, if any, exotic materials in the 911 line. It's just a regular old steel unibody much like almost any BMW ever built. The reason the 911s are light is basically because they are small. An M3 scaled down in volume according to the equivalent 997S volume would weigh within 100 lb of an actual 997S. Factor in more interior volume, more trunk volume, etc. and that allows you to conclude that the weight savings engineering, materials and technology among the two cars are roughly equal. Recall that BMW does use an aluminum hood, carbon fiber roof, composite fenders and a whole other variety of weight savings tricks (just as Porsche does). Other than the carbon fiber roof neither car really uses any materials you can really call exotic (beryllium, titanium, magnesium, structural composites, etc.).

WRONG. Porsche use far more ultra high strength steel than most other manufacturers including BMW.

[graider]

Originally Posted by footie

WRONG. Porsche use far more ultra high strength steel than most other manufacturers including BMW.

and that goes back to the initial point that weight saving can be done by any manufactures. It just cost more for high strength steel and that reflects in the price.

[stickypaws]

Originally Posted by NewM3driver

Nothing can provide the pure, raw driving experience like an older, air cooled 911.

Not the M3, not the Cayman, not even a new 997.

Um, okay. Although "providing the pure, raw driving experience" is, uh, kinda rhetorical. What does that really, truly mean?

What about a 964 compared to a 993? A 550 compared to a 930? Or a 356 compared to a 912? Which better provides that elusive "experience?"

Sure, of course there's nothing like owning an oil cooled/air cooled 911. For better and for worse. But they do have limitations (i.e., engine design) compared to liquid cooled.

And there's nothing like owning a M3. Or a Cayman S. Or a 997.

I understand what you are implying, but it's all relative and never absolute.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by footie

WRONG. Porsche use far more ultra high strength steel than most other manufacturers including BMW.

Perhaps so, however, both cars remain decidedly un-exotic using a steel unibody. Can you provide your proof on this assetation? What is the % is high strength, 997 vs. 3 series? Keep in mind there are dozens of grades of steel used in a modern unibody including low strength, intermediate strength and so called AHSS (advanced high strength steel). There are also specialty steels that can take greater levels of plastic deformation without failure which are used in the crumple zones. Also keep in mind most modern unibodies mix grades. I know the 3 series does and I'm sure the 997 does as well.

There are some exotic iron based steels for sure but this is shades of gray. None of these for unibodies are these types. Even AHSS absolutely is not "ultra high strength" so you are wrong as well.

[footie]

Swamp, I wish I could pull the exact percentages out of my ass but I can't. All I know is I did read it some where that stated this fact. How much more than the 3series is pure guess work but I'm sure it's enough to be classed as a sizeable difference.

Oh and sorry for using the word 'ultra', I should have used 'super' high strength steel. My bad.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by graider

and that goes back to the initial point that weight saving can be done by any manufactures. It just cost more for high strength steel and that reflects in the price.

So, you are saying Kia can build completely viable M competitors, first try.

Huh.