Performance predictions - F80 M3

[Powerslide]

As pretty much everyone here knows, Car and Driver just recently tested the F10 M5 and obtained the following results:

0-60: 3.7 seconds (I assume with 1ft rollout)
1/4 mile: 12.0 @ 122 mph

That being said, assuming an F80 M3 with 450-465 hp and 3600-3650lb weight, what are everyone's predictions in terms of acceleration (I believe the slalom/skidpad will be better, with slightly less weight and wider track than E90)?

I'm thinking, since C&D got 3.9 seconds 0-60 and 12.4 quarter mile 114 with the ZCP E92, the F80 should be at least slightly faster - however, we also know that BMW in the past did not want the M3 to be quite as fast as an M5 in straight-line acceleration.

Perhaps:

0-60: 3.8 seconds (with 1ft rollout)
1/4 mile: 12.1-12.2 seconds 119-120 mph?

[Envyscorpio]

I'm guessing the coupe @ 480hp with 3500# of weight. Sedan @ 460hp and same weight.

0-60: 4 seconds and 1/4 mile: 12.0 with sedan two tenth of a sec slower than the coupe in both category.

I'm guessing by the time the M3/M4's out. BMW will tweak the engine for the M5 a bit and make it 600hp.

[Uli_HH]

I´am guessing the sedan @ 460-470hp from an 3.3-3.5ltr.V6 BiTurbo with S63 Turbosystem plus probably the patented eTurbo-System and with an weight of around 3300.

[swamp2]

From my original post on this topic about 1 year ago...

• 0-60 mph: 3.7 - 3.9 s
• 0-100 mph: 8.6 - 8.8 s
• 0-200 kph: 13.2 - 13.6 s (for our metric friends!)
• 1/4 mi time: 11.9 - 12.1 s
• 1/4 mi trap: 116 - 119 mph
• top speed: 190 - 193 mph (of course true, not indicated, indicated should be just shy of 200 mph)
• Nurburgring Nordschleife lap time (SportAuto): 7:53-7:58

If you want the gory details and justifications for the numbers have a look at my original post here.

[amdmaxx]

if it becomes an under 4 second car to 60, I will be VERY impressed..
CTS-V territory..

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by amdmaxx

if it becomes an under 4 second car to 60, I will be VERY impressed..
CTS-V territory..

The E92 M3 has already been tested (one of the major car rags) at under 4 seconds to 60. That being said that time is a bit of an outlier type of time. Either way, the new car WILL be that fast, pretty well guaranteed. However, 0-60 really is not the best measure of a cars acceleration or power. It is a traction contest. 0-100, 60-130 or its 1/4 mi trap speed is much more telling and important.

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by Uli_HH

I´am guessing the sedan @ 460-470hp from an 3.3-3.5ltr.V6 BiTurbo with S63 Turbosystem plus probably the patented eTurbo-System and with an weight of around 3300.

I'm guessing 3.3L max and 450 HP max.
Today's game is about weight reduction and fuel economy.

Time will tell. Let the wait begin.

[Powerslide]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

I'm guessing 3.3L max and 450 HP max.
Today's game is about weight reduction and fuel economy.

Time will tell. Let the wait begin.

Not only is horsepower relevant - buy also look at how the s63tu has such a huge power advantage at speed versus the s85 - s85 didnt reach peak power until 7750 rpm, at which point the hp starts to go somewhat back downhill again. With the s63tu, you're at 560 hp from roughly 6000 rpm to about 7000 rpm!! Presumably the next generation m3 engine (whether I6 or V6) will also have peak hp and torque over a broad range of rpm's - which in turn means a significant increase in performance beyond what the numbers themselves suggest.

Take the F10 M5 - it has "only" 60 more peak hp than E60 M5 - which doesn't seem like that much. You then take the 200 lb greater weight of the F10, which would seem to further diminish the 60 hp advantage - therefore - the power to weight ratio of the F10 v the E 60 is not much better at all. But nevertheless, the performance advantage is far more significant that the power to weight figures by themselves would otherwise suggest.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Powerslide

Not only is horsepower relevant - buy also look at how the s63tu has such a huge power advantage at speed versus the s85 - s85 didnt reach peak power until 7750 rpm, at which point the hp starts to go somewhat back downhill again. With the s63tu, you're at 560 hp from roughly 6000 rpm to about 7000 rpm!! Presumably the next generation m3 engine (whether I6 or V6) will also have peak hp and torque over a broad range of rpm's - which in turn means a significant increase in performance beyond what the numbers themselves suggest.

Take the F10 M5 - it has "only" 60 more peak hp than E60 M5 - which doesn't seem like that much. You then take the 200 lb greater weight of the F10, which would seem to further diminish the 60 hp advantage - therefore - the power to weight ratio of the F10 v the E 60 is not much better at all. But nevertheless, the performance advantage is far more significant that the power to weight figures by themselves would otherwise suggest.

I mostly disagree with this.

Certainly average power being higher is better. There is no doubt about that, it is basic physics. However, the importance of the shape of the F10 M5's power curve vs. the E60 M5's, from a practical perspective is basically in the noise. In short peak power is still by far the most important factor.

CarTest simulations (physics based acceleration simulation software) provide the following predictions for the E60 and F10 M5 quarter mile results

E60: 12.2 s @ 118 mph
F10: 11.9 s @ 119 mph

Some of the fastest tested times correpsond nicely with those. These are not supposed to be the best times found nor a detailed statistical average just good solid times from various tests, magazine and private.

E60 M5: 12.3 s @ 118 mph
F10 M5: 12.0 s @ 122 mph

Much like the case of the 335i I suspect the F10 M5 might be a tad underrated given the 122 mph achievement.

Now if we "manufacture" a hypothetical F10 M5 with the exact same peak power but a power curve totally unlike the actual "table top" flat curve above 6000 rpm but like the E60 M5 (or E9X M3) we find this car will run about:

12.0 s @ 118 mph

This is a mere 0.1 second and 1 mph better than the results simulated with the actual shape of the power curve of the production car.

So again, in short, the power and torque curve shapes matter but peak power to weight reigns supreme as the most important indicator of performance.

[Tony135]

If any of these predictions are real, I'll be a very happy person. I'm seriously considering the new m3.

[kaykay]

0-60 in 3.7?

Keep dreaming guys

The fact that R&T got the E92 to hit 3.9 is irrelevant; they had a perfect launch, strong motor, perfect conditions (weather, elevation, tires, humidity, etc.).

New M3 will be advertised as a "4.2-4.3" 0-60mph car, with mags hitting 3.8 or so, maybe 3.9 again, one lucky magazine might get it to 3.7, again, with perfect conditions and settings.

Current M is advertised as a 4.7[4.5] 0-60 car (latter being DCT); marketing alone says they won't drop down half a second! They'll cannibalize their own brand.

If BMW wants to steal C63 AMG (w/ Performance Package) sales, they should advertise this car as a 0-60 in 4.2 car. And if they have a brain they should offer a Performance Package for extra HP/TQ like AMG does. Everyone would buy it.

Car will also be heavier than the current one.

[Uli_HH]

According to what I have heard the M-GmbH quotes for the new F80 M3 an NOS-Laptime of ~ 7.40min (without sporttires!)

Greets Uli_HH

[consolidated]

Originally Posted by Uli_HH

According to what I have heard the M-GmbH quotes for the new F80 M3 an NOS-Laptime of ~ 7.40min (without sporttires!)

Greets Uli_HH

That would be impressive, but sounds too good to be true. 7:40 is the approx. quoted time for the new 991 S. I hope your right, it would be a quite a trick.

Edit: perhaps I'm misunderstanding, what is "NOS"?

[US///M3]

I wonder how fast it's gonna be with a juice box from Terry plus a meth kit?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by kaykay

0-60 in 3.7?

Keep dreaming guys

The fact that R&T got the E92 to hit 3.9 is irrelevant; they had a perfect launch, strong motor, perfect conditions (weather, elevation, tires, humidity, etc.).

New M3 will be advertised as a "4.2-4.3" 0-60mph car, with mags hitting 3.8 or so, maybe 3.9 again, one lucky magazine might get it to 3.7, again, with perfect conditions and settings.

Current M is advertised as a 4.7[4.5] 0-60 car (latter being DCT); marketing alone says they won't drop down half a second! They'll cannibalize their own brand.

If BMW wants to steal C63 AMG (w/ Performance Package) sales, they should advertise this car as a 0-60 in 4.2 car. And if they have a brain they should offer a Performance Package for extra HP/TQ like AMG does. Everyone would buy it.

Car will also be heavier than the current one.

Wow, talk about self contradictory. It is VERY likely that there will be a 3.7-3.8 0-60 "outlier" sort of time for the new M3. You say not but then follow that right up with OK yeah it will happen.

Who cares what time BMW will publish, their times are and always have been supremely conservative.

Last but not least the new car has a VERY good shot at being lighter than the existing car. Some of the educated guesses are in this post but other more detailed comparisons and justifications for this conclusion are scattered around in various other posts.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by consolidated

That would be impressive, but sounds too good to be true.

Agree. That time simply is not justified by the cars likely power and weight. Now that being said if its production tires are more or less track equivalent rubber then perhaps, but even then it would be a great time.

[Levi]

The M5 F10 is said to be 7:50 min, so 10 sec less is possible.

[kueks29]

Originally Posted by Levi

The M5 F10 is said to be 7:50 min, so 10 sec less is possible.

I've seen the stopwatch at 7:43 min

[Levi]

7:43 min, for the M3?

[kueks29]

Originally Posted by Levi

7:43 min, for the M3?

Nope....
7:43 min for the M5....and the M3 will be a little faster

[manuelf]

Originally Posted by kueks29

Nope....
7:43 min for the M5....and the M3 will be a little faster

But also in the hands of HvS and the like?
If not, then these times are "worthless" for public audience

[mweisdorfer]

My guess would be 450 horsepower in a triple turbo charged inline 6. Basically, taking the n55 engine and pimping it out.

Result after less weight and more horse power:

0 to 60 - 3.9
1/4 mile - 12.0

I hope BMW continues with the double clutch option.

MPG - 20 city
25 hwy

It will probably sit at 1500 rpm at 80mph.