BIMMERPOST BMW F80 M3 / F82 M4 First Drive Review

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by swamp2

"Way out of whack" is hyperbole. Have a look at the recent Vbox results for the new M3 along with my simulations.

Have to admit that model looks terrific. In my opinion, either CarTech has improved, or your use of it has. (short time ignored for the time being)

Originally Posted by swamp2

CarTest isn't perfect and I have written a simple version of a simulator myself using MS Excel (thousands of lines and nearly a dozen tabs). Unfortunately it relies on mass factor which is one huge shortcoming. To get away from this one needs to actually model the drivetrain which requires estimates of the mass and inertia of each component (and perhaps even how those might scale with crank torque). I can't seem to best CarTest without doing so and using a much greater level of complexity perhaps written in a general purpose system level math/physics simulator (Simulink, Simplorer, etc.). The wheel spin model and traction model is certainly one of the lesser accurate parts of CarTest. Loss modeling doesn't appear perfect nor does it's shift point calculation and the interplay between these. Traps also seem consistently just a bit low.

No simulation is ever perfect.

Hats off for even trying. This is very complicated stuff. I was part of a development project (actually just myself and one other guy) around 20 years back, and trying to simulate an accurate traction model was fiendishly difficult. I remember buying a dozen or so SAE papers just to try and get a clue. The other guy did all of the code for "ShiftMaster", but we spent months before coding began just to try and nail even the approach.

Originally Posted by swamp2

However, none of this is really relevant to this particular discussion. You really screwed up the fundamentals here and finally admitted it, after blaming "my" crappy simulator and me not thinking. I guess I should stop trying to let you off lightly and compliment you.

It's possible that for the last week or two my brain has been operating on a different astral plane (not even sure what that means, however it's still possible ) but, other than that silly mistake of too much power (600 hp @ 7000 rpm), where did I screw up and where did I admit it?

Seriously. I'm not aware of any other issue.

OK, back to basics. Given Rupes' question, I said that with all else equal, the 600 car would beat up on the 400 car in a race (either drag or road race), because it would make more power after each shift. You said not so fast, I said not so fast back, etc. etc.

I assumed the same rpm points for peak power and torque for each engine, but let's assume Rupes didn't actually mean that.

I say so what. With any sort of "real" power curves (meaning not 2000 rpm for torque, and 8300 rpm for power), I believe the 600 car will still win, period.

Do you disagree?

Real life example: With slightly inferior power to weight and a mild handicap, transmission-wise, the C63 ends up being slightly quicker than the M3, primarily because it has roughly 50% more torque, and thus is in a better position after each shift. This is assuming 451 hp vs 414 hp.

Do you disagree?

Bruce

PS - You might want to get in touch with Patrick Hale (originator of "Quarter" and "Quarter, Jr.") to see if Quarter is still available. I believe his traction model is unequalled. Quarter is a much more advanced and detailed model than Jr., and may be worth your while. He can be reached out in Phoenix at (602)992-2586.

[mc3456]

Originally Posted by paddy335

I agree. I reckon these modern marketing campaigns of months and months of endless 'teasers' and snippets and speculation, all carefully fed and managed by the car companies is a reason. They end up developing such a massive bow-wave of expectation that it's almost impossible to meet those expectations.

After months of high expectations I am finding the reviews a little muted too. A bit like "well good car BMW, just what we expected, now, where is the next car to review". Sort of like the car is an expected level above the old one, but certainly nothing really special.

What I am really waiting for is the comparison tests, of which there will be many.

I think the fact that there have not been any/many true instrumented road tests or comparison tests is very telling.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by mc3456

I think the fact that there have not been any/many true instrumented road tests or comparison tests is very telling.

Telling? Yes. Telling us to be patient.


Cheers.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by mc3456

I think the fact that there have not been any/many true instrumented road tests or comparison tests is very telling.

I agree............................................. .................

(insert theme from X-files here)

Actually, what it means is a few things:

(1) You are wrong. there have been a few (tests at 'ring, some numbers in the recent C&D comparison with the 911, etc).

(2) You probably overlooked those other tests before you posted.

(3) The car just went on general sale about 12 days ago. There could not be "many". As @ersin said, "Patience. You must learn patience!"

...wait, yoda said that. But, whatever, same point.

(4) Benghazi!!!!!!!!

(5) I have too much free time today to be posting responses to things like this.

(6) Stampede starts tomorrow. That is bad for my liver.

(7) I may have lost the thread a bit here.....

(8) Oh yeah, anyway, nice try to troll it up there with something (should we assume that BMW has surpressed 3rd party tests so that they can bury this proverbial body in a forest where nobody sees it? Really? Really? Really? If not, exactly what is 'telling'....?) but #fail.

thank you come again.

[mithiral67]

The couple reviews that are out clearly note its a great car. Its going to holds its own against anything they test it against.

[ryem3]

Originally Posted by mc3456

I think the fact that there have not been any/many true instrumented road tests or comparison tests is very telling.

Wrong. SportAuto has already tested the car. It is much faster on the track and beat the E9X in basically every way. It is simply a much better car. I've had the past 3 generations and I would say the E92 was the worst. Worst tranny, heaviest, worst torque, and worst mileage. This new car is so much better. Easily boosted to 500 hp, it's going to be a killer!

[Sir Loin]

Originally Posted by mc3456

I think the fact that there have not been any/many true instrumented road tests or comparison tests is very telling.

Originally Posted by ryem3

Wrong. SportAuto has already tested the car. It is much faster on the track and beat the E9X in basically every way. It is simply a much better car. I've had the past 3 generations and I would say the E92 was the worst. Worst tranny, heaviest, worst torque, and worst mileage. This new car is so much better. Easily boosted to 500 hp, it's going to be a killer!

I think the fact that there is at least one true instrumented road test or comparison test to show the new M3/M4 are better than the old M3 in every way is very telling.