Wow, another rigged test:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m3e462005-1.htm
This car is fully optioned with 19" wheels as can be seen on the spec list on the link. It ran 0-160 in 11.0 & 0-200 in 17.6
The one that ran 16.8 had 18" wheels & very few options & was tested in cooler conditions.
I guess its beyond the realms of possibility because you say so.
Before we go any farther with this, I already told people that a S5 would post a time of 11.6s to 100mph and around 18.5s for the 125mph mark and this was all before any magazine has even reported test results or quite possibly conducted the test in the first place, I have also reported before any magazine did, that the speed limit of a RS6 would be 300km/h and again how quick it would be capable of accelerating, so you may already get the feeling I know a lot more than most about what cars are capable of and what they are not.Originally Posted by 3x5PSI
I know how the tests are conducted in the UK magazines and that is why I believe their results 100%, now when they aren't able to achieve a result of 16.8s knowing full well that some of their testers are the holders for the 0-100-0 world records then chances are the car isn't capable of this time. The best time any UK magazine has posted for a CSL never mind a standard M3 is 10.6s and 12.0s for a standard M3 and you are expecting me to believe that the basic car is only 0.3s slower, please do the maths and check the power to weight of both models and then check this with the RS4 and S5, you will see a similar pattern forming. The S5 is a whole second slower to 100mph and just over 2.5 seconds slower by the 125mph mark and remember both car are on similar rubber unlike the two Beemers where the CSL is on super soft semi-race rubber, much better traction off the line.
If the German mags are getting their cars the achieve these times and the UK supplied cars aren't then just maybe there is a difference between the stock supplied in both countries don't you think.
Search and you will find the truth.
These are 2 different cars tested by well respected mags. I doubt anyone cares what you think is possible or not. I ran it through my simulator & according to the laws of physics its possible. Well of course its possible, it has already happened.
What magazines run in the UK is of no significance. We are talking about a good run in ideal conditions.
3x5PSI,
I tell you what, when I get my S5 I will be sure not to take on any M3s because all this facts and figures have got me a little concerned that I might just get blown away.
P.S.
Any any race I do decide to have, I will make doubly sure that it's with a manualM3 before I try a rolling start race.
Search and you will find the truth.
That explains your arrogance, I think if you ask quite a lot of the members on this board who have read any test conducted by any of the UK Magazines will know how meticulous they are in the process, using only the best of equipment and timing gear all performed at the same locations.
But what the heck, if a simulator says it's so then who am I to disagree.
Lets agree to disagree.
Search and you will find the truth.
Well besides the simulator 2 GErman mags & 1 American mag have run those times. But I'm sure all the motoring press on the planet have rigged the times becos in the UK it can't be done. Probably bcause it rains for 9 months there. Because the Brits can't do something doesn't mean its not possible. It has been done so of course its possible. I'm pretty sure even an S5 might run good times under the right conditions. I wouldn't shout that the magazine rigged it if the S5 runs a good time. Magazines inevitably strap their equipment onto a car, run the tests then publish the results. There's no "conspiracy" out there.
But what the heck, if a simulator says it's so then who am I to disagree.
Lets agree to disagree.
3X5PSI,
If the British roadtesters can't do it then in my opinion it can't be done or should I say drop it's time this much. You could argue that up to a 1 second or so is quite possible but not nearer 3 second, that places the car in to another power bracket completely, so unless the two cars (UK and German) are pulling out a difference of 50hp then I doubt it is possible.
You are right in saying heat will effect the performance of the cars but the difference in N/A engines are very small compared to turbo engines and in any case the UK's temperature is less than most, as for the tests been conducted in the rain, sorry that's just plain silly if this had been the case it would have been reported and I would have known, but as no less than 4 UK magazines have tested the M3 I reckon at least one might have came close to the time but alas no.
With the exception of this M3 every other roadtest conducted by any other magazine with all other cars, they all seems to be very similar to that of UK magazines and this includes the Z4M, M5 and M6, so I again ask the question could there be a difference between the cars supplied.
As for the US tests, I have always said even when the tests involve Audi cars, that the should be disregarded because they are conducted on such a sticky track surface and their results don't reflect true conditions and road surfaces so aren't possibly achievable by their owners.
Alas 3x5PSI, you and I will not see eye to eye on the subject, but there again you don't seem to see eye to eye with quite a few people here. Was it not you who stated that the new RS6 wasn't turboed because you couldn't see the intercoolers at the side.
Search and you will find the truth.
Buddy please just concede. I have a British test here where the M3 ran 11.5 to 100mph. Will you accept that? It's from Evo. Will you squirm out if I post it?
Please do.
I remember the test quite well actually and for reasons I will keep to myself.
But I would love to read it again.
Search and you will find the truth.
Ok my bad I mistook Autocar for Evo. ANyway, remember they test on like an airfield or something. Correct me if I'm mistaken. Whatever it is, they don't have a sticky surface like C&D do.
So let's recap. Sport AUto got 16.8 to 200 & on that run the 1/4 mile was 13.0.
C&D did 0-60 in 4.5, 11.2 to 160, 13.1 1/4 mile.
Here's Autocar.
11.5 to 160. Is that really that different to 11.2 the Yanks got? Sport AUto have a much better surface & I know when they ran that time is was very cold as the C32 also ran its best time on that day. Is half a second beyond the realms of reality to 160 especially on a traction-impaired surface like Autocar has?
This was conducted on different occasions and the M3 was a German press car, one of the early ones. On the full road test conducted back in the UK the M3 only achieved a time of 12.0s dead, a time equalled at the 0-100-0 event at Burlington, of course they were different cars.
But steadily the times are get more realistic, first 10.9s, then 11.2s and now 11.5s, soon we will arrive at the magic number of 12s.
My problem isn't the 100mph time as much as the 125mph time, to get a 1570kgs car with only 343hp to 125mph in 16.8s isn't possible, it would require a drop in weight or an increase in power. I believe it's the latter in some of the press cars.
Search and you will find the truth.
I'm afraid it is possible as it has been done. And a car with no options, so sunroof, no power seats will weight less than 1570kg. There is a guy with such a car is the US who ran 12.8 1/4 mile stock. These things happen from time to time.
2ndly, any simulator will tell you that it is possible. But like you said we don't need a simulator to tell us what a magazine has already run. I implore you to write a letter to Sport Auto complaining that they lied to the world & ask them for the reasons for their lies.
Another point is that Autocar ran the M3 vs M3 CSL vs M3 tuned. The stock M3 also ran 11.5 on that test to 100mph. I will try to find it & get it online. It was a different M3 to the one in the C55 test above as it was a different colour.
And sure you seem to accept that it's possible for an M3 to run 11.0 to 100mph. Well of course it's possible, it's been done already. But the run to 124mph after than will be determined by the conditions on the day. Running in bad air will a high DA will slow you down after 100mph. Running in cool air with low humidity & pressure will yield significant increases in time after 100mph. Wind resistance becomes a major factor at higher speeds & running in good air can make a big difference.
Sometimes my cars can trap 2-3mph higher on different days with the same fuel, tune, etc just by running in different air on the day. The DA at the day is the 1st thing you look for.
Doing a 12.8s 1/4mile run on a dragstrip is a lot more believable than on a public road as you will know, in fact awd will gain very little advantage if any in such conditions.
Why blame the innocent party, they don't supply the cars.
Not all of the cars in this test weren't timed by the way.
The problem I have with these times are the variation, two cars can run to within a tenth of each other to 160km/h yet be over 7 tenth different after another 40km/h, this is more than a sloppy gear change. The reason I talk about the 12s 100mph thing for UK magazine as this is the quickest for a full roadtest and only with a full roadtest is it conducted to exacting standards, with all of the equipment set-up for the job in hand. You talk about running in good air, most if not all the tests over here have be done in temperature less than 25C and most would be down 20C, heck that like winter in the States. But you may already know that numerous runs are carried out with differing techniques to see which gives the best results, unlike a drag race which is a one time deal, mess it up and you're out. You say Sport Auto use a stickier track, I can live with that as a reason for a very quick 0-60mph but after this the take off plays no role in the outcome above this and it's here where the times really go a miss.
It's my opinion and I am not asking you to agree with it.
Search and you will find the truth.
It can be your opinion but when you accuse highly respected mags of rigging tests, it gets a bit ridiculous. I have run my M3 in the low 17's to 200 when it was stock. As tested by a Racelogic Vbox. My 335 runs 14.5 to 200. You can read up & calculate & tell me that's impossible but that's what it ran.
Is the 335 (BMW I take it) standard ? Because if so then you are right, I don't believe it.I roadtested one a while back and yeah they are fast but not to these figures. But then again the petrol is different over there, it's what 93 octane, while over here it ranges from 97~99octane. I know which one should be capable of achieving the better times.
Search and you will find the truth.
No the 335 most certainly is not stock.
Then yes, but again that would depend on what's been done and how much it's putting to the wheels, but I already knew this from the graph because of the pick up it was having after 50mph, it looks like about then on you were able to use all of the available power.
Search and you will find the truth.
Well it doesn't matter but all the hardware on the car is standard on that run. The point is you would think its impossible for a 335 with stock hardware to run 14.5, but it obviously is possible as it's been done. Sometimes the stars line up & you get a perfect run. There have been plenty times at the track I have seen some of my competitors run a great time & if I wasn't there I would never have believed it.
You can't sit there & say 16.8 0-200 is impossible for an M3. It may be highly unlikely, but it's not impossible. (Well seeing as its been done, it's obviously not impossible).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote