real 0-60 time?

[335rocket]

does anyone know the M3 coupes true 0-60? They list different 0-60 times on various different sites. On bmwusa.com, they list it 4.7 secs. I think motortrend or one of those mags said 4.4 secs? Does anyone know what it is for real? Just curious

[mkoesel]

They are all real. It differs depending on weather, road surface conditions, driver, rollout or not, transmission, phase of the moon, color of car, tomAYto or tomAHto, etc.

If you want your true 0-60, test drive one and try a dynolicious or whatever. I'd guess you'll probably be around 4.6 or so on an average day.

[Chicago M3]

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test

They claim 4.1 with the sedan 6MT

[TailHappyM3]

From another forum and poster but not including the recent 3.9 clocking:


I've kept track of all the main car mags times (R & T, C & D, and MT):

Fastest, slowest, average for 0-60: 4.1, 4.6, 4.3

Quarter Mile fastest, slowest, average:

12.5 @ 114.8
13.0 @ 110.4
12.7 @ 112.4

11 total road tests, 8 coupes, 3 sedans, 7 6-speed transmissions, 4 DCT

[piloto]

Didn't C&D get 3.9 seconds in their recent test against the RS5 and CTS-V Coupe (w/ 1ft rollout)? Not that it matters, it's still the same car regardless of 0-60 time. It's fast, one way or another.

[BMWMFAN27]

Originally Posted by 335rocket

does anyone know the M3 coupes true 0-60? They list different 0-60 times on various different sites. On bmwusa.com, they list it 4.7 secs. I think motortrend or one of those mags said 4.4 secs? Does anyone know what it is for real? Just curious

I think BMWUSA says 4.5 Sec with DCT 4.7 with Manual for that E92 and 4.9 Sec with DCT for the Vert and 5.1 Sec manual.

[335rocket]

I think BMW is very conservative with their numbers. I think they post slower than average performance times. They have 5.3 for the 335 coupe

[TailHappyM3]

Don't these times fluctuate anyways depending on where the car is tested? ie. seal level vs higher elevations

My previous 335d was a rocket ship up here in the higher elevations and I can certainly tell the difference vs a NA engine which I suspect loses about 10-15% of its power up here.

[Dice13]

Originally Posted by 335rocket

does anyone know the M3 coupes true 0-60? They list different 0-60 times on various different sites. On bmwusa.com, they list it 4.7 secs. I think motortrend or one of those mags said 4.4 secs? Does anyone know what it is for real? Just curious

I think you should put NOS in your car, seem like you think this car is slow. Again NOS

[335rocket]

lol no I was just curious

[BMWMFAN27]

Funny things is if you ask a dealer it will always be a faster 0-60 time than on any BMW site ha ha.

[swamp2]

Have a look at this very comprehensive performance "database" for the M3. Link (always go the the most recent post). The range or the car is 3.9 to 4.7 (the 3.9 figure has not been added to this list yet). Note the 3.9 time is the ZCP model. Throwing out the best and worst times, which is reasonable with and large-ish dataset, the range is 4.1-4.4. From American magazines this will include a freebie 1' rollout. European results for 0-100 k/hr generally will not include any rollout. The rollout for 0-60 or 0-100 will make a significany difference, about 0.3-0.4 seconds.

-You want bragging rights: 3.9s
-You don't want to count the ZCP: 4.1s
-You want a typical good time folks can get on the street with some practice and good conditions: 4.5s

[Chest Rockwell]

I just had my V-tech installed and am hitting 3.9 all day.

Seriously though I picked upt C&D today and MT at the store and one said 3.9 the other was 4.1. So when people ask I just say 3.9-ish and tell them that it's gonna be faster than 90% of anything else on the streets.

[335rocket]

thats funny because doesnt the CTS V do 0-60 in 3.9 secs? And its much faster in a straight line. Dont get it?

[bobbyd1961]

whatever it is i want a second faster

[piloto]

Originally Posted by 335rocket

thats funny because doesnt the CTS V do 0-60 in 3.9 secs? And its much faster in a straight line. Dont get it?

0-60 represents, along with HP and torque, how good a car's traction is from a standtill. To truly see straight line speed, look at the 1/4 mile trap speed, and look at figures of 0-100, or 0-120 mph. These will give you a better idea of straight line speed. This is why often you'll see a 600+ hp car, like the ZRI struggle to break the 3 sec barrier 0-60, but you see that sme car hit 100 in under 8 seconds. Likewise, you begin to appreciate the off-of-the-line traction of cars like the 911 Turbo and GT-R.

[JCtx]

Originally Posted by swamp2

You want a typical good time folks can get on the street with some practice and good conditions: 4.5s

And even then, that requires some serious abuse to your clutch, tires, and driveline few owners subject their cars to . I never launch my cars hard, so I'm more interested in the 5-60 time than 0-60, which is going to be slower, of course (probably in the 5-sec range).

[jdgamble]

Originally Posted by elp_jc

And even then, that requires some serious abuse to your clutch, tires, and driveline few owners subject their cars to . I never launch my cars hard, so I'm more interested in the 5-60 time than 0-60, which is going to be slower, of course (probably in the 5-sec range).

Very true. I generally just roll into the throttle from about 2-3K RPM in first... much easier on the car. I always get excited when I read an article about the M3 with a good 0-60 time, but I'll probably never experience one in my car. I DESTROYED my 1996 328i clutch and flywheel by dumping the clutch excessively... lesson learned... fun but expensive lesson!

[ferrari6891]

I hit 4.1 once, but I think God was smiling on me that day

[shchow]

As with any scientific study, consistency and reproducibility are what's important.
You don't want to look at a one off number and claim that for yourself.
I agree with Swamp, probably a mid 4 second car. And that's with practice.

Also, you have to take exploits posted by random bloggers with a serious grain of salt.
Take for example a recent posting about pulling car LENGTHS on an E60 M5. At best the M3 will run even, and then get killed up high. But you never know, maybe the M5 had bald tires, or was running suboptimally...

[IbanezGod]

My local dealer had s sign on the door advertising the M3 and it said "by the time this door closes behind you the M3 will be doing 100mph".

that's veyron speed haha.

[ersin]

A few points...

o Magazines report the "best" time, not an average or range of times. Even though this is a best case scenario I believe it to be valid. It gives an indication of the potential performance of the car.

o Magazines such a CD and RT claim to adjust the times to sea level density so that comparing different cars on different days and places is more meaningful. However, there are still variables, so I take these times as one piece of evidence not the whole story.

o I think the fact that several magazine were able to hit 60 with the M3 in 4.1 seconds with both the coupe and sedan mean that this is no outlier value. It is reproducible but of course in the best conditions.

o The folks that test these cars for the magazine don't own them. They probably beat the mechanicals of the car much harder than any of us will and don't worry about their longevity. I'm sure any number of us owners here would be able to go this fast, but only if we had plenty of money, were ignorant of the abuse dished out or just plain don't care.

o Having said all this, if someone asks I just do what everyone else does: use the best time published, tell them that the M3 can do 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds and that there is evidence to back it up. Woohoo, my car is in the "under 4 sec" club.


Cheers.