Predictions on the M3's 0-60 performance?

[JK42]

We're talking about a N/A engine from Audi and a N/A engine from BMW - near same displacement (0.2dl more on the RS4.) The BMW engine will be significantly better. As evidenced by the 5.2 liter V10 on the S6 and S8 Audi's only outputs 320-331kW and is much newer than the 5.0 liter S85B50 on M5/M6 that outputs 373kW. In M3's case the BMW engine will be newer of the two... BMW will need to have the M3 completely obliterate the RS4, that should be obvious. That's the only competitor in it's segment. This is probably why BMW will want to get the new V8 up to 9000rpm, and might still be able to pull it off if they want to. It might postpone the car, but if they want to do it, they'll do it. The RS4 revs up to 8k with only 420hp DIN and 430Nm of torque. All information aside, the M3 will have to put out at least 450/450 of each to obliterate the RS4. And as calculated here several times, it's easily doable, especially with BMW's DI technology.

In the S6, the 5.2 liter V10 (copied from BMW's S85B50 idea directly) takes the S6 from 0-100 in 5.2s regardless of the AWD... The M5 which would be the direct competition there, is 4.7s 0-100 with RWD only. On dry conditions, the results are clear as a day, the S6 doesn't stand a chance. The S8 is 5.1s 0-100. Part of the poor times of the Audis have to do with the fact that they still have to use slushboxes, as they don't have any SMG-type technology for their gearboxes, and DSG doesn't work for over 300Nm of torque (it'll blow up), which slows them down, but not that much. Their V10 is just powerless and doesn't rev as well. The RS4 V8 will seem powerless and non-revving compared to the new M3 V8 as well.

P.S.

RS4 does 0-100 in 4.8 seconds, so in that field, it won't be hard to decimate on straight line even if the BMW engine remains at about the same figures. But 450hp (DIN!) is a number I've heard so constantly that I won't believe it only when I see the real final numbers from BMW.

Best regards,

Jussi

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by JK42

P.S.

RS4 does 0-100 in 4.8 seconds, so in that field, it won't be hard to decimate on straight line even if the BMW engine remains at about the same figures. But 450hp (DIN!) is a number I've heard so constantly that I won't believe it only when I see the real final numbers from BMW.

Best regards,

Jussi

Road and Track has RS4 at 4.3 seconds and M6 at 4.1. Perhaps you are correct, the M3 should win but I'm saying in the real world you might be surprised how often an AWD smokes the RWD car if you've never had an AWD.

In any case, isn't competition great?!? As long as manufacturers are engaged in the current 1 upmanship, we all win.

PS I'd never buy the Audi, just saying for sake of comparison...

[JK42]

I think we should stick to the manufacturer reported 0-100 times, not some magazine times, because then they won't be comparable. The manufacturer reported times are usually based on standard measurements, and yes, in real conditions they can often be beat easily (my 130i does under 5.5s 0-100 right now, manufacturer reported time 6.1s)

AWD, especially VAG's wastes lot of the power and torque in the transmission, around 13-25% typically (as proven with rototesting) - RWDs don't have the same waste, especially these days when BMW has concentrated on minimizing the waste and they only lose about 4-10%. In dry conditions this means RWDs are usually even faster.

Best regards,

Jussi

[replicat]

Everywhere that the weather is good, 0-60, 0-100, whatever.

M3 > RS3

The RS4 won't have anything in it favor. It weighs more, it has less power, inferior aerodynamics. The only thing it has going for it, is the AWD which will only be an advantage in the rain.

[Smoltz]

Originally Posted by JK42

I think we should stick to the manufacturer reported 0-100 times, not some magazine times, because then they won't be comparable. The manufacturer reported times are usually based on standard measurements, and yes, in real conditions they can often be beat easily (my 130i does under 5.5s 0-100 right now, manufacturer reported time 6.1s)

AWD, especially VAG's wastes lot of the power and torque in the transmission, around 13-25% typically (as proven with rototesting) - RWDs don't have the same waste, especially these days when BMW has concentrated on minimizing the waste and they only lose about 4-10%. In dry conditions this means RWDs are usually even faster.

Best regards,

Jussi

Jussi,

Often times the extra traction of AWD outweighs the weight penalty & additional drivetrain loss when talking about 0-60mph. Above that or from a roll, RWD is going to dominate given similar power with similar sized cars due to the reasons mentioned above.

Once again, I will reiterate that you CANNOT conclude drivetrain loss from looking at Stated Engine Performance vs. Actual Dyno Performance.

However since you continue to maintain this position, please look at some figures from the webiste which you use as a reference. I don't see any numbers over 7%, not even close to the 13-25% you claim.

A3 2.0T Quattro (Haldex) 5%/3% Loss

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=215

A4 2.0T Quattro (Torsen Center Diff.) 7%/6% Loss

http://www.rri.se/popup/performanceg...p?ChartsID=658



-Adam

[sdiver68]

Originally Posted by Smoltz

Jussi,

Often times the extra traction of AWD outweighs the weight penalty & additional drivetrain loss when talking about 0-60mph. Above that or from a roll, RWD is going to dominate given similar power with similar sized cars due to the reasons mentioned above.
-Adam

Exactly what I said earlier.

Interestingly, in last months Road and Track, they pitted the 286HP 3300lb Mitsu Evo versus a 295HP, 3150 lb Porsche Cayman S.

Care to guess which car was faster in both 0-60 and in track lap times?

The G35X was also found to be faster than the G35 RWD in track lap times in another test.

[JK42]

Originally Posted by sdiver68

Exactly what I said earlier.

Interestingly, in last months Road and Track, they pitted the 286HP 3300lb Mitsu Evo versus a 295HP, 3150 lb Porsche Cayman S.

Care to guess which car was faster in both 0-60 and in track lap times?

The G35X was also found to be faster than the G35 RWD in track lap times in another test.

It is widely known that the Evo's manufacturer times and power/torque are significantly under-reported, and it's not a surprise it would kick Cayman S's butt, because a Z4 M Coupé will do it too, on both conditions, and EVO will kill the Z4 M Coupé as well. But it's still a Mitsubishi.

Best regards,

Jussi

[replicat]

So whats the conclusion from you? AWD is better for racing?

[JK42]

Hell no. AWD usually causes FWD-type oversteer, and I have never driven an enjoyable AWD car. In addition, in bad weather, once you lose control of AWD, you can't get it back even if you're Michael Schumacher. With well built RWD, you can always regain control.

If AWD was better for racing then why are 99% of all track racing series RWD-only? Such as ALMS, DTM, Le Mans, F1, All Formula classes, etc. etc. etc.

Personally, I'm addicted to RWD and will never have anything else on my cars. It's just most fun and most enjoyable under all conditions.

Best regards,

Jussi

[replicat]

Hahaha, obviously not you Jussi, I figured your all for RWD just like the majority of us. Its naturally the most fun to drive and a better all around perfomer. I was talking about smoltzy!

[Mikeobello]

one new gadget on the new m3 will be:
it will be a front wheel drive

[Last E92 M3]

Originally Posted by Mikeobello

one new gadget on the new m3 will be:
it will be a front wheel drive

i am sure that JK42 will bomb bmw headquarter if that happens lolol!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by JK42

I think we should stick to the manufacturer reported 0-100 times, not some magazine times, because then they won't be comparable. The manufacturer reported times are usually based on standard measurements, and yes, in real conditions they can often be beat easily (my 130i does under 5.5s 0-100 right now, manufacturer reported time 6.1s)
Best regards,

Jussi

IMO manufacturers times are definitely not the best basis for comparison. I say this for a couple reasons. 1. Mags almost always get substantially better times for BMWs compared to BMWs own numbers. 2. Mags tend to do a fair job of trying to standardize things and they also push the cars as hard as possible to always get the best time. 3. Serious enthusiasts will, if only out of pride, always report the very best number they can find - there is no way around that and it is likely to be a mag. Probably the best, most fair thing would be to average a bunch of different mag results but who could we count on to be as sophisticated as to perform an average...

[enigma]

Originally Posted by JK42

Hell no. AWD usually causes FWD-type oversteer, and I have never driven an enjoyable AWD car. In addition, in bad weather, once you lose control of AWD, you can't get it back even if you're Michael Schumacher. With well built RWD, you can always regain control.

I am assuming you meant, fwd understeer. AWD is no harder to control than RWD under any conditions. I have no idea where you got this information but its way wrong.

[JK42]

Originally Posted by enigma

I am assuming you meant, fwd understeer. AWD is no harder to control than RWD under any conditions. I have no idea where you got this information but its way wrong.

I have "got this information" by driving AWD cars in several instances (Audi A6s for example in one instance, with several different engines, the models 2 generations ago when they still had 50:50 quattro power distro) on an ice and snow track. When you'd lose control on the ice (even with studded tyres), there was NO WAY to bring it back under control. With RWD cars (in this case Volvo 740s), it was never a problem. With the same type of tyres.

Once in bad weather you go over the limit with AWD, you are gone, but with RWD you might still be able to regain control once you lose it.

Regards,

Jussi

[Smoltz]

Originally Posted by enigma

I am assuming you meant, fwd understeer. AWD is no harder to control than RWD under any conditions. I have no idea where you got this information but its way wrong.

I wouldn't waste any more time. Some people are going to beleive what they want to beleive regardless of the facts.

-Adam

[enigma]

Originally Posted by JK42

Once in bad weather you go over the limit with AWD, you are gone, but with RWD you might still be able to regain control once you lose it.

Regards,

Jussi

So what you really meant was, You couldn't control the AWD car. Go watch some pro rally drivers, you appear to have something to learn. They do some amazing thing and don't spin out and die just because they are driving an AWD car in bad weather.

Making statements like this makes it much harder to believe the other things you write.

[JK42]

The rally car drivers still have the AWD cars in control when it does look wild.

Ever see how many times they DO lose control on a typical race by the way? At least one or two guys usually drive out during one or two days of each race of the WRC series. Look up the former famous WRC pro driver "Henri Toivonen". He is buried about 30 feet from my father's grave.

Go watch some pro rally drivers, you appear to have something to learn. They do some amazing thing and don't spin out and die just because they are driving an AWD car in bad weather.

Making statements like this makes it much harder to believe the other things you write.

99.99% of AWD car owners are not professional pro rally drivers, by the way. Statements like this make you seem very rude and in addition to your signature, very arrogant. So, are you a professional driver? Should AWD drivers be professional drivers, or does the fact that RWD is easier to control in extreme conditions by the vast majority of drivers than AWD mean that RWD should actually be preferred of the two?

Regards,

Jussi

[enigma]

Originally Posted by JK42

Should AWD drivers be professional drivers, or does the fact that RWD is easier to control in extreme conditions by the vast majority of drivers than AWD mean that RWD should actually be preferred of the two?

This statement is just wrong. You can say what you want but your opinion doesn't line up with fact.

I have spent a lot of time at racetracks in bad conditions. Almost without exception the AWD guys gain the upper hand. Also there is a reason people buy AWD cars when they need to deal with bad conditions. Who in the world goes, "Its snowing I better leave my AWD car and home and take the RWD one" ?

Stop presenting your beliefs as fact.

I don't mean to come off as rude but I simply try to correct things that are incorrect. I can see how this would seem rude to those that are posting the incorrect things.

BTW: I am not a pro driver but I won the 2005 regional BMW top driver shootout and missed repeating this year by 0.03 seconds. I also used to write vehicle simulation software. But what do I know. I have had the luxury of driving a lot of diffrent cars at autocross in both an instructional and fun role. So its not like I have not driven most of the cars we are talking about here.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by MarkE90M3

They've already perfected the use of those new smc ultra light bumpers which will be on the E90.

The E46 M3 has a composite bumper(s?). I actually saw the part totally out of the car at the manufacturers booth at a composites industry trade show.