4.4 sec conf bmw m3

[jareknyc]

0-60 they said it will go under 5 sec (4.8) they just made nother test it end up at 4.4 that baby is crazy

[swiss_cornholio]

Originally Posted by jareknyc

0-60 they said it will go under 5 sec (4.8) they just made nother test it end up at 4.4 that baby is crazy

0-100km/h (62mph!!): 4.8s (official BMW spec)

==> 0-60mph <4.8s is not that surprising...

[Robert]

C&D said it expects faster time under dry condition. The beast is back!

[Just_me]

I find 0-60 times not intresting, Im more intresting what the baby is capable to 120mph

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by Just_me

I find 0-60 times not intresting, Im more intresting what the baby is capable to 120mph

Agree. For the 0-120mph time, see the thread titled "C&D First Test, full scans...". FWIW, it's slightly faster than the time C&D got for their manual transmission Audi R8.

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by jareknyc

0-60 they said it will go under 5 sec (4.8) they just made nother test it end up at 4.4 that baby is crazy

??

BMW claims was 0~62mph in 4.8 seconds. But everyone knows that was a highball figure, BMW always does this!

Is it really surprising to you that it's been recorded at 4.4 seconds??







-Garrett

[MisterBMW]

so why did some magazine reviews says its slower than the Rs4 ?

[Epacy]

Originally Posted by MisterBMW

so why did some magazine reviews says its slower than the Rs4 ?

Uh-oh, that is like putting the Batman symbol in the sky. You are going to call out all the Audi fanboys.

[gtb75]

Originally Posted by MisterBMW

so why did some magazine reviews says its slower than the Rs4 ?

Maybe traction issues during early testing (as C&D hinted at)? I seriously doubt the new M3 will be slower than the RS4 once full road tests hit the stands. And the M-DCT tranny should improve the situation even further

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by MisterBMW

so why did some magazine reviews says its slower than the Rs4 ?

Every car and every test driver is different. So your going to get DIFFERENT 0~62 times....!!

We all know the car is capable of 0~60 times of 4.4 seconds. And it's undoubtedly going to get quicker than that. Tempurature, road surface all have an impact.

0~62mph and 0~60mph times will be mismatched because people don't uasually pay attention to those extra 2mph! In and regards, it's conceiveable that the new M3 will post times of: (given the right driver, track conditions...etc)

0~60mph @ 4.2seconds
0~62mph @ 4.3seconds

And with M-DCT about .100ms and possible 200ms quicker!!










-Garrett

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Epacy

Uh-oh, that is like putting the Batman symbol in the sky. You are going to call out all the Audi fanboys.

right you are robin! ready the batmobile!! *blam* *crunch* *zow* *bang*

[gmund1948]

Originally Posted by BOB Nevada

lol

Annoying Uncoordinated Driving Idiots


Now this is in fun so Flame me if you want but its more fun to do something like this I am sure you can do the same with any brand !

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by jareknyc

0-60 they said it will go under 5 sec (4.8) they just made nother test it end up at 4.4 that baby is crazy

0-60 times are essentially useless because: A) There isn't any "true" 0-60 time, and B) It wouldn't matter if there was a true 0-60 time, because it doesn't equate to anything out here on the actual planet that we can relate to.

In regard to A), test conditions vary, driving styles vary, and test procedures vary.

If you're at 90 humid degrees ambient and testing with trusty stopwatch in hand at sea level (and assuming that speedometer needle lag just makes up for BMW's traditional three mph optimism), you're going to be about a second slower than Car and Driver's 4.4 time, testing the same car - providing you are very good with clutch, shifter and launch techniques.

Car and Driver is fairly aggressive in terms of their test procedures and correction factors, but they don't power shift, so it's possible that you may get a 4.3 or better if you use their procedures and don't bother to lift on the one-two. Would that be a "true" 0-60 time? Or, how about using BMW's published time. Is that a true time?

You see the issue, I hope.

In regard to B), there isn't any way to relate an 0-60 time to something concrete out here on the mean streets (or tracks). Although the "faster" car has a better than 50% probability of being ahead of the slower car at 60, it's far from a done deal. Time to speed has essentially nothing to do with time to distance, so a car that reaches 60 before another car may very well be behind in a drag race at the time. The only thing that you can say with complete confidence is that the car with the quicker 0-60 time will be going faster than the car with the slower 0-60 time - at either car’s 60. It may be behind (and catching up), even with (and about to pull away), or ahead and widening its lead.

Pop quiz in regard to time-to-speed vs time-to-distance:

Car A does zero to 100 in about 11.8 seconds, and zero to 108 in 13.2.
Car B does zero to 100 in 13.2 seconds, and zero to 108 in about 15 seconds.

Question: Who's ahead at 100? (either car's 100)

BRAAAP!! Wrong! Thank you for playing!

In this case, car B was a GMC Syclone AWD turbo pickup in the right lane at Atco dragway in southern Jersey, while car A was me in a '93 LT-1 six-speed Corvette. At the green, I got a pretty decent launch, but with AWD and pre-loading the turbo against his torque converter, he launched like a ball bearing out of a slingshot, and I spent the entire quarter mile with right foot on the floor, rowing the gearbox in an effort to catch up.

At the finish line, we were essentially side by side, with me loping by at a fast jog. Other than the win light in his lane, the time slips said it all:

Me: 13.22 at 108 and change.
Him: 13.21 at 100.

Moral: Don't bother with 0-60 times. If you're interested in comparing your car with somebody else's, quarter mile times are a more reliable guide. Even then, it's wise to use Car and Driver or Motor Trend as guides, since they correct their times to weather standards.

Bruce

PS - Assuming similar 0-60 times (or even if the new M3 is a bit quicker), I'd be willing to bet that the RS4 would be ahead at that point. You can rev that Audi to redline, then pop the clutch while flooring it at launch, getting out ahead of the M3. So what. The M3 will be the faster car at all speeds except launch, so even if it's still behind at 60, it's a matter of time.

[Martl]

4,2 or 4.4 what the hell!!!!
The car is great

regards Martl

[Garrett]

Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast.

0-60 times are essentially useless because: A) There isn't any "true" 0-60 time, and B) It wouldn't matter if there was a true 0-60 time, because it doesn't equate to anything out here on the actual planet that we can relate to.

In regard to A), test conditions vary, driving styles vary, and test procedures vary.

If you're at 90 humid degrees ambient and testing with trusty stopwatch in hand at sea level (and assuming that speedometer needle lag just makes up for BMW's traditional three mph optimism), you're going to be about a second slower than Car and Driver's 4.4 time, testing the same car - providing you are very good with clutch, shifter and launch techniques.

Car and Driver is fairly aggressive in terms of their test procedures and correction factors, but they don't power shift, so it's possible that you may get a 4.3 or better if you use their procedures and don't bother to lift on the one-two. Would that be a "true" 0-60 time? Or, how about using BMW's published time. Is that a true time?

You see the issue, I hope.

In regard to B), there isn't any way to relate an 0-60 time to something concrete out here on the mean streets (or tracks). Although the "faster" car has a better than 50% probability of being ahead of the slower car at 60, it's far from a done deal. Time to speed has essentially nothing to do with time to distance, so a car that reaches 60 before another car may very well be behind in a drag race at the time. The only thing that you can say with complete confidence is that the car with the quicker 0-60 time will be going faster than the car with the slower 0-60 time - at either car’s 60. It may be behind (and catching up), even with (and about to pull away), or ahead and widening its lead.

Pop quiz in regard to time-to-speed vs time-to-distance:

Car A does zero to 100 in about 11.8 seconds, and zero to 108 in 13.2.
Car B does zero to 100 in 13.2 seconds, and zero to 108 in about 15 seconds.

Question: Who's ahead at 100? (either car's 100)

BRAAAP!! Wrong! Thank you for playing!

In this case, car B was a GMC Syclone AWD turbo pickup in the right lane at Atco dragway in southern Jersey, while car A was me in a '93 LT-1 six-speed Corvette. At the green, I got a pretty decent launch, but with AWD and pre-loading the turbo against his torque converter, he launched like a ball bearing out of a slingshot, and I spent the entire quarter mile with right foot on the floor, rowing the gearbox in an effort to catch up.

At the finish line, we were essentially side by side, with me loping by at a fast jog. Other than the win light in his lane, the time slips said it all:

Me: 13.22 at 108 and change.
Him: 13.21 at 100.

Moral: Don't bother with 0-60 times. If you're interested in comparing your car with somebody else's, quarter mile times are a more reliable guide. Even then, it's wise to use Car and Driver or Motor Trend as guides, since they correct their times to weather standards.

Bruce

PS - Assuming similar 0-60 times (or even if the new M3 is a bit quicker), I'd be willing to bet that the RS4 would be ahead at that point. You can rev that Audi to redline, then pop the clutch while flooring it at launch, getting out ahead of the M3. So what. The M3 will be the faster car at all speeds except launch, so even if it's still behind at 60, it's a matter of time.

Great response...! :rocks: