F80 M3 VBOX Acceleration Results: 4.2s 0-100kmh / 0-62mph

[Tonymiabmw]

Originally Posted by Johnmd

How are they the same?

Because a M5 is not running a 12 flat in 82 degree weather. No way in hell.

[Johnmd]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Again, yes depends on the contest. Drivers race from a dig but for any high speed rolls the M5 will crush the M4. This is entirely consistent with the cars power to weight and hp.

What is a good/best measured 1000m time for the M5? I've seen 21.3 seconds on fastestlaps. Given its lower weight, very aggressive gearing and perhaps improved LC, the M4 could get off the line better. It also has a slightly "better" power curve delivering peak power for more of the rpm band. Once it gets ahead due to the cars very similar power to weight, it will stay ahead for some time. It'll basically be a LC or drivers race up to the 1/4 mile, but again with all things equal I suspect the M4 to win, just by a hair.

On the flips side for all high speed contests from a roll such as 60-130 or even anything above 50-70 the M5 will trounce the M4.

Here is a simulation which gets both observed times pretty well nailed and shows the M4 physically ahead (time to distance, not time to speed) up to the 1/4 mile. Both cars have DCT. M5 is at 580 hp, M4 at 455. M4 on left, M5 on right, obviously.

The problem with that figure is the CP M5 dyno over 650hp not 580. This is why CP M5 does much better. I dont believe M3 will get a 7.3k ZCP like the M5 and I dont expect any power increase for this reason.

[Johnmd]

Originally Posted by Tonymiabmw

Because a M5 is not running a 12 flat in 82 degree weather. No way in hell.

The guy from south caroline said many times he ran consistently 11.6 on 85+ weather with much worse humidity. Remember, humidity has much worse effect as well.

These cars have a lot of extra boost available to compensate for temperature changes.

Also, the 25C the OP did his run is merely spring weather here, its not like his times were done in 45C.

[pfl]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Again, yes depends on the contest. Drivers race from a dig but for any high speed rolls the M5 will crush the M4. This is entirely consistent with the cars power to weight and hp.

What is a good/best measured 1000m time for the M5? I've seen 21.3 seconds on fastestlaps. Given its lower weight, very aggressive gearing and perhaps improved LC, the M4 could get off the line better. It also has a slightly "better" power curve delivering peak power for more of the rpm band. Once it gets ahead due to the cars very similar power to weight, it will stay ahead for some time. It'll basically be a LC or drivers race up to the 1/4 mile, but again with all things equal I suspect the M4 to win, just by a hair.

On the flips side for all high speed contests from a roll such as 60-130 or even anything above 50-70 the M5 will trounce the M4.

Here is a simulation which gets both observed times pretty well nailed and shows the M4 physically ahead (time to distance, not time to speed) up to the 1/4 mile. Both cars have DCT. M5 is at 580 hp, M4 at 455. M4 on left, M5 on right, obviously.

Isn't it a bit too optimistic to think M3/M4 will cut a 1.65 60ft? on stock tires?

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Tonymiabmw

Who cares about speed? If you can't put the power to the ground whats the point? If this was done in 82f weather, this car will be faster than a M5. We will see a high 11 out of this car stock.

What car at this power level and weight has trouble putting power down? This is a car that will dyno probably a tad over 400 WHP and end up weighing mid 3500 LB. No crazy superlatives there.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by pfl

Isn't it a bit too optimistic to think M3/M4 will cut a 1.65 60ft? on stock tires?

I think it's absurd. 1.8 would already be optimistic to be honest.

[Tonymiabmw]

Originally Posted by Johnmd

The guy from south caroline said many times he ran consistently 11.6 on 85+ weather with much worse humidity. Remember, humidity has much worse effect as well.

These cars have a lot of extra boost available to compensate for temperature changes.

Also, the 25C the OP did his run is merely spring weather here, its not like his times were done in 45C.

Until I see a video of it on stock tires and engine I don't believe it.

[135iDCT]

when u will race vs the old m3?

[M5Rlz]

Originally Posted by ASAP

I think it's absurd. 1.8 would already be optimistic to be honest.

http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=978207

Our buddy who got an 11.08 with a BMS m5 posted a 1.706 60ft... Just saying.

[bmwm3redblack]

Originally Posted by Needsdecaf

Not to mention what we pay for the cars in the base case. 1/3 to 1/2 or even 1/4.

+100000000000000000000

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=978207

Our buddy who got an 11.08 with a BMS m5 posted a 1.706 60ft... Just saying.

LOL?

Do you see the tires that he is running in the rear? Those are not Michelin PSS. The m5 is also a much much heavier car that can put that weight in the rear down. If you look on dragtimes, most drag GTRs hit 1.6s lolol.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I think the M5 is closer to 4390 with driver and the M4 is closer to 3585. These along with a more reasonable estimates of their power (580, 455, due to underrating) makes them within about 1-2% for power to weight.

Was going with the manufacturer's numbers as reported by C&D, but the M5 is supposed to be straight-line faster than the M3. It isn't that unusual to have big/fast cars (again, the ridiculous power and times on the S63 or the comparable Bentleys, Rolls Royce Ghost, Astons, Maserattis, etc).

They are just really different cars. I don't understand why there was a need to (a) act surprised the M5 was faster (it is supposed to be); and/or (b) do much of a straight across comparison.

The M3 is diverse/dynamic enough that there are interesting cross-shoppers (everything from Corvettes, to Porches to M5s to GTRs, to whatever) that I guess some comparison is inevitable. But when one car is supposed to be faster and, in fact, is, I woulda thougth that is about 3 posts, not 15 pages of discussion......

But maybe I am just too 'efficient' (that is sure what all the ladies say.....hahahahahahaha)

[turbo8765]

Originally Posted by 335iRlz

http://f10.m5post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=978207

Our buddy who got an 11.08 with a BMS m5 posted a 1.706 60ft... Just saying.

On DR's

[M3_WC]

I definitely see the M4 testing below 3.9 sec 0-60 when magazines get them. Majority of mags got 4.1 sec for E92 DCT M3, with Car and Drive pulling a 3.9 sec. Trap speed looks real promising, it will be a quick car.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by SlowSaloonM3

m5 owners "race" in straight line only and think it is KING.

id take a car that is almost as fast but much agile and nimbler because you know, we like to turn!!

i wonder if tuned panamera turbo S owners are laughing at gt3 owners because they have "no chance in a race"

LOL

[bmwm3redblack]

Good job UAE!!! And waiting for more videos and updates!!!

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by Powaup

LOL

i'm putting that in my sig right now!

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by Powaup

LOL

To be fair though.. that is a way more absurd comparison.

First of, you are comparing a 3200 lb RWD NA powered 2 seat seat sports car to a 4300LB wagon/hatchback AWD looking frog whatever the hell a panamera is.

With the M3 and M5, you are comparing 2 four seat sedans, both RWD, both with the same trannies, difs and somewhat similar power and torque to weight ratios. They are different classes but it's natural for someone to make this comparison.

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by Tonymiabmw

Because a M5 is not running a 12 flat in 82 degree weather. No way in hell.

Yeah you're right it would run an 11.8 @122 lol. This thread has gotten way out if hand . At this point there are many of you who think the M4 would win a race with God . The bottom line is the OP's Vbox data proves that the M4 can likely equal an M5's 0-60 time through putting more of its power to the ground as we all expected ,and because of this be close in the quarter mile ET wise while trapping 3-4 mph less . His 60-130 mph of over 10 seconds also proves that it is much faster than the E92 M3 and slower than an M5 at those speeds no surprise there either (E92 took around 12 sec stock and the avg of regular M5 is~ 8.8) . I fully expect the M3 on a nice negative 1000 DA day to be in the high 11's in the quarter mile and trap ~118 at the strip . Those are great numbers for a car with only 430 hp . As others have said drag racing isn't the purpose of the M3/4 and I would have loved it if the M5/6 were more sports car than a GT rocket . That wasn't the case which is why I have a dedicated track car , a modded Z4M , and my M6 as a daily driver . For those that can only have one car the M3/4 as always is a great balance of sport and GT . Let's stop this pointless bickering like little school girls .

[FogCityM3]

Would love to see a tuned E92 vs stock E92 vs F80 M3/M4 simulation. On the typical tuned E92: ~440 crank hp (pulley, filter, no cats, tune, 93 octane), 8600 rpm redline, -30lbs on exhaust, wheels & bbk (-45 lbs). Gear ratios the same. Not going to be big difference but would be cool to see given many are choosing to further tune E9x in lieu of getting the F80.

Originally Posted by swamp2

Correct.



Positively, unequivocally false. I've been doing this a while and this simply isn't a problem with the simulation technique and tool.

See attached E92 M3 MT vs. M-DCT. Both tabular results and time profiles of acceleration clearly show precisely the correct behavior for the effects of very short DCT shifts vs reasonably fast MT shifts.






I agree and this is exactly what I am using in the simulation. It is of course gear and speed dependent!

[TomTom///M]

Originally Posted by uae247

Try now.

Sounds good, habibi! I like it, but there's no question that mine will get the Akrapovic fitted. It transformed the 1M and I'm pretty sure it'll do the same here...

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by ASAP

To be fair though.. that is a way more absurd comparison.

First of, you are comparing a 3200 lb RWD NA powered 2 seat seat sports car to a 4300LB wagon/hatchback AWD looking frog whatever the hell a panamera is.

With the M3 and M5, you are comparing 2 four seat sedans, both RWD, both with the same trannies, difs and somewhat similar power and torque to weight ratios. They are different classes but it's natural for someone to make this comparison.

why you gotta be so technical?

well, since most of the bigger M car owners actually do want AWD and a lot of the m4 guys are going to upgrade suspension, tires, put seats and a cage....it will be more analogous in the future. at the same time I think they would say that of the GTS as well.

hows that?