M3 performs admirably on Car and Driver's 2009 Lightning Lap Test

[niqui]

the xkr was a real shocker for me, finally that car is getting some performance to match those good looks.

[footie]

Originally Posted by niqui

the xkr was a real shocker for me, finally that car is getting some performance to match those good looks.

The Jag also surprised me, even the XKR is really too soft for use on the track so this time was a head scratcher.

[M&M]

Theres is no difference between the US & Euro S4's. The weight you see is what they weighed the S4 at. I don't think there is a conspiracy from the journalists to lie about the S4 weight. Who the hell cares?

Footie, the Euro tests you showed mayeb weighed an unladen car with no fuel. Ot maybe they didn't even weight the cars at all & quoted manufacturer's figures given to them.

The point is C&D weighed every car on the same scale & those are the weights. And it's in line with the Edmunds test given maybe fuel & options variances.

[jml]

Originally Posted by M&M

Theres is no difference between the US & Euro S4's. The weight you see is what they weighed the S4 at. I don't think there is a conspiracy from the journalists to lie about the S4 weight. Who the hell cares?

Footie, the Euro tests you showed mayeb weighed an unladen car with no fuel. Ot maybe they didn't even weight the cars at all & quoted manufacturer's figures given to them.

The point is C&D weighed every car on the same scale & those are the weights. And it's in line with the Edmunds test given maybe fuel & options variances.

There a big difference in the likely option content. The US seats are the upgraded seats in the Europe, and the car likely had the optional 19" wheels. Both together could easily add 80-100lbs to the car's weight. Th eUS car also likely had the B&O system and Nav, which will could also add nearly 50lbs. I'd guess the option content is where the extra weight comes from. Force of gravity also changes slightly between different elevations

My E90 M3 DCT is fully loaded, sans sun roof and extended leather - so nearly a worst case content scenario for a M3. With a full tank and 35lb baby seat it's

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by -=Hot|Ice=-

I only came in here to tell you guys not to argue with him. It's worthless and a waste of your time.

Agreed. Ignored him a long time ago. Just can't understand arguing with a diesel Jag driver over Audi on an M3 board . If everybody ignores him he'd go away.

[footie]

Originally Posted by jml

There a big difference in the likely option content. The US seats are the upgraded seats in the Europe, and the car likely had the optional 19" wheels. Both together could easily add 80-100lbs to the car's weight. Th eUS car also likely had the B&O system and Nav, which will could also add nearly 50lbs. I'd guess the option content is where the extra weight comes from. Force of gravity also changes slightly between different elevations

My E90 M3 DCT is fully loaded, sans sun roof and extended leather - so nearly a worst case content scenario for a M3. With a full tank and 35lb baby seat it's

Attachment 340195

Your weight is in line with what we have found with UK M3 saloons and those cars had 19", EDC, M-DCT and come standard with Satnav and M-mode. So we have established that US and UK M3s are roughly weighing the same, so it appears that US S4 cars in general weigh considerably more accordingly (does anyone know what Audi AoA quote for this car), is this possibly true for more brands and not only Audi?

The results were all the more impressive considering this particular S4 weighed the best part of 200lbs more than normal.

Next to discuss is the 370z, that also didn't perform as per usual. Any thoughts on this?

[jml]

Originally Posted by footie

Your weight is in line with what we have found with UK M3 saloons and those cars had 19", EDC, M-DCT and come standard with Satnav and M-mode. So we have established that US and UK M3s are roughly weighing the same, so it appears that US S4 cars in general weigh considerably more accordingly (does anyone know what Audi AoA quote for this car), is this possibly true for more brands and not only Audi?

The results were all the more impressive considering this particular S4 weighed the best part of 200lbs more than normal.

Next to discuss is the 370z, that also didn't perform as per usual. Any thoughts on this?

they crashed it before they learned how to drive it, nuff said. The brake pads are not up to track duty on Nissans, sounds a lot like hawk HP+ pads. Relatively high torque until MOT, then an off switch. C&D did a brake test across many different performance vehicles last year, including the 370 and FX50, and found the same phenomenon. After 2-3 panic stops from 80, the cars had zero brakes.

[M&M]

Originally Posted by jml

There a big difference in the likely option content.

Yeah exactly what I'm saying. The difference is in whatever options were specced. Whether us US or Euro spec makes no difference. We get the euro spec down here and we had an S4 weighed recently and it was in line with the US mag tests. It was sportronic with the sport differential, moonroof, and quite a but of options and it hit 4000lbs. And it's Euro spec, not US. So I guess that conspiracy theory can go out the window.

[devo]

Originally Posted by TotalPower

how did it beat the Carrera S?

I don't believe it. I'll give credit to M cars whenever possible but I don't buy this one. Rags love to boast about how some an underdog beat the superior car.

The S beat the M by over 12 seconds at the Nurburgring. We've all seen the S beat out the M repeatedly in acceleration tests; from the dig and in-gear, with a higher top end in the quarter and all out. The S has a better power to weight.

The M may well be easier to drive at the limit, thus some inexperienced drivers may fare better with the M.

This test is like the ones where these rags judge the best sports car with one of the criteria based on trunk size.

[zenderm3]

Man - that is fantastic... and to think that I have one of those in my garage

[TheKosherStogie]

just as surprised that the carrera s beat the m3 as the 335 beating an RS4. Id place my bet on the carrera s anyday

[dhoggm3]

FYI the R8 was a V10. They tested the V8 last year and it was within less than a second of the M3.

[Bimmerboy888]

Very cool!

[KonigsTiger]

Very, very cool indeed! wow!

[RichB]

Originally Posted by devo

The M may well be easier to drive at the limit, thus some inexperienced drivers may fare better with the M.

I agree. This is one of the reasons why the ///M is so loved. It does not take a pro to make it go as fast. It is very forgiving for the 95%+ who are better drivers because of the M3. Myself included.

Notice how the Cayman was at the same time as the 911. The Cayman has a lot less HP than the 911, but is very balanced for the non-pro. The Cayman is a very capable track car, but I would put my money on the 911 with a pro driver any day.

IMO...People take these tests too seriously. Don't get me wrong. I read every article. I like to see what car won, by how much, the cost, etc. Different tracks favor different cars. The driver is a big factor. One miss of the apex will cause a second or two delay. Hitting brakes too soon before a turn...second or two. Not controlling oversteer....second or two. I usually have a time variance of at least a few seconds when I track my car. Same car, same driver. Depends on my performance on that particular lap.

Originally Posted by devo

This test is like the ones where these rags judge the best sports car with one of the criteria based on trunk size.

Not in this test.

[footie]

Originally Posted by devo

I don't believe it. I'll give credit to M cars whenever possible but I don't buy this one. Rags love to boast about how some an underdog beat the superior car.

The S beat the M by over 12 seconds at the Nurburgring. We've all seen the S beat out the M repeatedly in acceleration tests; from the dig and in-gear, with a higher top end in the quarter and all out. The S has a better power to weight.

The M may well be easier to drive at the limit, thus some inexperienced drivers may fare better with the M.

This test is like the ones where these rags judge the best sports car with one of the criteria based on trunk size.

Maybe someone can tell me if this is the case with C&D's tests but here in the UK the three main mags that conduct such group tests to determine the best overall driver's car all include a selection of professional racing driver which solely produces the lap time, then as a whole they each rate the car they preferred driving during either a one or two test on track and road, rating them in order from 1 to 10 if that is the number in test, then lap time is also rated from 1 to 10 with first getting 1 and last 10. Figures and totalled and the lowest is the best/favourite car of the day.

Such a test will the most objective as lap times at the end of the day only tell you one thing, which was the quickest though not necessarily the best overall or the most rewarding to drive.

Anyway, when the test to to find the best driver's car then practicality and number of seats should go out the window but as a consumer looking to make a purchase they will also bear that in mind anyway.

[gthirtyfizle]

Originally Posted by KonigsTiger

Very, very cool indeed! wow!

I wonder how urs would perform on that track with those cars..

[graider]

Originally Posted by devo

I don't believe it. I'll give credit to M cars whenever possible but I don't buy this one. Rags love to boast about how some an underdog beat the superior car.

The S beat the M by over 12 seconds at the Nurburgring. We've all seen the S beat out the M repeatedly in acceleration tests; from the dig and in-gear, with a higher top end in the quarter and all out. The S has a better power to weight.

The M may well be easier to drive at the limit, thus some inexperienced drivers may fare better with the M.

This test is like the ones where these rags judge the best sports car with one of the criteria based on trunk size.

I'm curious who drove the cayman s and carerra s in this car and driver test. does he has any profesional racing background at all? I just find it funny everytime the porsche lost, the excuse of someone can't drive the car came up.

the carrera s that did 7:50 on the ring is this one right? maybe it is due to carbon brake and michelin cup tires? is the tires on the m3 in this test the same as this cup tires? I think there are too many factor involved here.

7:50 Porsche 911 Carrera S (2009) Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (08/2008),[34] PCCB, PDK, Sport Chrono Plus, Michelin Cup tires

btw, the e46 m3 csl was fast. 7:50 on the ring by horst as well. that's impressive consider it has less hp, no bbk, old smg, and semi slick tires compare to the 2009 carrera s pdk

[Montoya]

Originally Posted by graider

I'm curious who drove the cayman s and carerra s in this car and driver test. does he has any profesional racing background at all? I just find it funny everytime the porsche lost, the excuse of someone can't drive the car came up.

the carrera s that did 7:50 on the ring is this one right? maybe it is due to carbon brake and michelin cup tires? is the tires on the m3 in this test the same as this cup tires? I think there are too many factor involved here.

7:50 Porsche 911 Carrera S (2009) Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (08/2008),[34] PCCB, PDK, Sport Chrono Plus, Michelin Cup tires

btw, the e46 m3 csl was fast. 7:50 on the ring by horst as well. that's impressive consider it has less hp, no bbk, old smg, and semi slick tires compare to the 2009 carrera s pdk

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, but to answer your question, no, the 7:50 lap time was with a 2008 911 without PDK. The E92 has a best of 8:05 with a manual at this track. Here are some other lap times from fastlaps.com:

http://www.fastestlaps.com/car46f388b437911.html

You can see that there are some tracks that suit the M3, others that suit the Porsche. On average, the Porsche 911 S is slightly faster on all the tracks listed on fastestlaps.com, the 911 is slightly slower...

http://www.fastestlaps.com/compariso...772a2d468.html

http://www.fastestlaps.com/compariso...744cdd4d5.html

Finally, here are all the times for Virginia Raceway:

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track20.html

[footie]

Actually I am pretty sure that the 7:50 lap done by the C2S was indeed equipped with everything that graider said. So on this occasion I think fastlaps have got it wrong.

In any case I, like Devo also questioned the times done by both the C2S and the Cayman S simply because the data of entry speed didn't match up to what I know about both cars, you enter a corner quicker in a Cayman, not the other way round. BTW this in no way lessens what the M3 did which was very impressive but when something at first glance looks not right then generally it ain't.

It's always best to look at who does the most advertising in a rag, generally who ever that is they seldom want to piss off. This is always a good rule of thumb that has serviced me well through the years.

[chris719]

I find the Lightning Lap data to be fun to look at but not really trustworthy.

[Montoya]

Originally Posted by footie

Actually I am pretty sure that the 7:50 lap done by the C2S was indeed equipped with everything that graider said. So on this occasion I think fastlaps have got it wrong.

In any case I, like Devo also questioned the times done by both the C2S and the Cayman S simply because the data of entry speed didn't match up to what I know about both cars, you enter a corner quicker in a Cayman, not the other way round. BTW this in no way lessens what the M3 did which was very impressive but when something at first glance looks not right then generally it ain't.

It's always best to look at who does the most advertising in a rag, generally who ever that is they seldom want to piss off. This is always a good rule of thumb that has serviced me well through the years.

Well, the PDK didn't come out until 2009- so the Ring time Porsche does not match the one in the Lightning lap test.