M4 vs. 911 Performance Comparison Review in Car and Driver

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Largely nonsense.

High speed performance is all about peak hp and aerodynamics. Secondarily one must consider parasitic power losses, both entire drivetrain and tires as well.

We can dive into the math in detail if you like, it is relatively straight forward and I've posted here on the forum prior.

Dive into some numbers, please. N/A engines generally deliver a more linear output while turbos offer a burst of power that often run flat overtime. That's my experience. The turbo cars ran out of breath, if you will, at higher speeds. If we're talking aerodynamics...the Porsche wins. If we are talking top speed...the Porsche wins again since the M4 is limited to only 155mph. Besides far more variables are in control of a FI such as temperature, heat soak, etc. Regarding parasitic power losses...the Porsche wins again as I imagine drive-train loss is minimal considering the positioning of the engine over the rear wheels as compared to the M4 and its front-mounted engine/rear wheel drive design.

[myzmak]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

The ZCP is definitely a performance enhancer, but very very modest and maybe more because it's confidence inspiring. I think Top Gear found it to be slower vs the previous non ZCP M3 time but was a damp track day, but also on the same day, it handily beat an RS5 coupe in a back-to-back by 1.0 secs (one of the few same day tests of an RS5 vs M3 on a timed track by a professional driver and is surprising given AWD advantages on damp track).

I recall the episode. As i recall, it was one where JC went off about how it was too firm and thus "it costs more and is worse" (in classic JC overstatement) but, yup, beat the RS5 easily.

[ChrisK]

My two cents.

1) Cant wait for ZCP on the M4, I hope we see a hp bump and perf. exhaust.
2) Most of the bugs are fixed.
3) All the comparisons will have been done lol.


In regards to the 911... we are about to see a 991.2 and possibly a 991 GTS. Both of these cars will be significantly faster then the M3/M4.

Take the X51 power kit option on the 991s and make it stock on the 991.2

[elitex]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Dive into some numbers, please. N/A engines generally deliver a more linear output while turbos offer a burst of power that often run flat overtime. That's my experience. The turbo cars ran out of breath, if you will, at higher speeds. If we're talking aerodynamics...the Porsche wins. If we are talking top speed...the Porsche wins again since the M4 is limited to only 155mph. Besides far more variables are in control of a FI such as temperature, heat soak, etc. Regarding parasitic power losses...the Porsche wins again as I imagine drive-train loss is minimal considering the positioning of the engine over the rear wheels as compared to the M4 and its front-mounted engine/rear wheel drive design.

It really depends. If you're talking about regular turbo engines then yes I agree. Drive the new M5 and you'll see that it is very linear and has a great top end. I believe that new M3/M4 are similar in delivery.

[elitex]

Originally Posted by ChrisK

My two cents.

1) Cant wait for ZCP on the M4, I hope we see a hp bump and perf. exhaust.
2) Most of the bugs are fixed.
3) All the comparisons will have been done lol.


In regards to the 911... we are about to see a 991.2 and possibly a 991 GTS. Both of these cars will be significantly faster then the M3/M4.

Take the X51 power kit option on the 991s and make it stock on the 991.2

Porsche may also go all turbo engines soon....

[alexey21]

I am surprised how stupid some people are that read the magazines and fail to realize the following information:

Base 911:
Torque: 288 lb-ft @ 5600 RPM
Horsepower: 350 HP @ 7400 RPM
0-60 in 4.2 with the 1/4 mile in 12.7 at 113 MPH
(Dont forget that this is a 7MT)


M4:
Torque 406 @1800 or 1900? RPM
Horsepower 425 @ 5500 RPM
0-60: 3.9 and 1/4 mile at 12.1 119
(This is with a DCT)

Do you really not see the huge gap in torque and Horsepower? The M4 is suppose to be faster in a straight line, and it is suppose to be by a lot, but it is not. Disappointment. Oh yes by the way, you are paying more for the 911 because of the fit and finish, design, technology (driving technology not infotainment tech). So at the end of the day, you really gotta ask yourself, which car promises more... the 911 or the M4? Purely from a driving point of view. I mean that is exactly why people buy either an M4 or a 911? Dont give me the backseat bs line. How many people will really use the backseat of a 911 or an M4. Wait I can answer that since I have a 911 the answer is rarely. By the way, I was a die hard M fan for a long time. Even had a M5 that I did euro delivery on. Less than a year with the car I wanted to run away from it as far as possible. ///M is not what it used to be. Beware!

[elitex]

Originally Posted by alexey21

I am surprised how stupid some people are that read the magazines and fail to realize the following information:

Base 911:
Torque: 288 lb-ft @ 5600 RPM
Horsepower: 350 HP @ 7400 RPM
0-60 in 4.2 with the 1/4 mile in 12.7 at 113 MPH
(Dont forget that this is a 7MT)


M4:
Torque 406 @1800 or 1900? RPM
Horsepower 425 @ 5500 RPM
0-60: 3.9 and 1/4 mile at 12.1 119
(This is with a DCT)

Do you really not see the huge gap in torque and Horsepower? The M4 is suppose to be faster in a straight line, and it is suppose to be by a lot, but it is not. Disappointment. Oh yes by the way, you are paying more for the 911 because of the fit and finish, design, technology (driving technology not infotainment tech). So at the end of the day, you really gotta ask yourself, which car promises more... the 911 or the M4? Purely from a driving point of view. I mean that is exactly why people buy either an M4 or a 911? Dont give me the backseat bs line. How many people will really use the backseat of a 911 or an M4. Wait I can answer that since I have a 911 Turbo, the answer is rarely. By the way, I was a die hard M fan for a long time. Even had a M5 that I did euro delivery on and put 20k down on the car. That is how much trust I had in this brand. Less than a year with the car I wanted to run away from it as far as possible. ///M is not what it used to be. Beware!

Lol you keep saying I like you bought the cars. I used to do the same thing when I was 13.... Grow up and buy your own cars.

P.s daddy's cars don't count.

[Brosef]

Originally Posted by alexey21

I am surprised how stupid some people are that read the magazines and fail to realize the following information:

Base 911:
Torque: 288 lb-ft @ 5600 RPM
Horsepower: 350 HP @ 7400 RPM
0-60 in 4.2 with the 1/4 mile in 12.7 at 113 MPH
(Dont forget that this is a 7MT)


M4:
Torque 406 @1800 or 1900? RPM
Horsepower 425 @ 5500 RPM
0-60: 3.9 and 1/4 mile at 12.1 119
(This is with a DCT)

Do you really not see the huge gap in torque and Horsepower? The M4 is suppose to be faster in a straight line, and it is suppose to be by a lot, but it is not. Disappointment. Oh yes by the way, you are paying more for the 911 because of the fit and finish, design, technology (driving technology not infotainment tech). So at the end of the day, you really gotta ask yourself, which car promises more... the 911 or the M4? Purely from a driving point of view. I mean that is exactly why people buy either an M4 or a 911? Dont give me the backseat bs line. How many people will really use the backseat of a 911 or an M4. Wait I can answer that since I have a 911 the answer is rarely. By the way, I was a die hard M fan for a long time. Even had a M5 that I did euro delivery on. Less than a year with the car I wanted to run away from it as far as possible. ///M is not what it used to be. Beware!

you're way off, but it's not worth wasting my time explaining. bottom line is that the 911 is an actual sports car, not a sporting daily driver like the M4. it's much smaller (basically no back seat and a trunk that can't even fit golf clubs) and therefore it should surprise nobody when it is the better handler. personally, having owned or at least driven extensively each of the Carreras since 2002, I can confidently say that the fit/finish of the interiors is absolutely no better (though I will say the new interior design in the 991 is untouchable). they all developed rattles within 2,000 miles.

also, the straight line performance difference is immense. forget the 0-60 times (they're irrelevant anyway... a measurement invented to help non enthusiasts debate performance while drinking beers). look at the difference in trap speed. 6mph is huge.

[FTS]

I guess history has a way of repeating itself; this is just for some old fun:

[Rambler]

Originally Posted by FTS

I guess history has a way of repeating itself; this is just for some old fun:

Man, I loved watching this! Comparison videos of this vintage seem to be a rarity. Back in the day, the mag comparos are all I remember.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by Holset

Here are a Car and Driver test of a Corvette C7 1/4 mile 12,2sec 117mph http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...gray-specs.pdf

The C7 has been noted as a 3.9 car in 0-60 by many (including by both C&D and Motortrend). Regardless of whether the M4 can do achieve the same, the C7 is going to be faster car in a straight line due to horsepower...especially if we are talking about realistic track applications (ie running down the straight away) rather than arbitrary 0-60mph times from a stop.

Motortrend acknowledges the 12.2 for the 1/4 mile, but I think that can be misleading when you compare it to the M4 which is some 30 hp and 60lb-ft short of the C7.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

...misleading when you compare it to the M4 which is some 30 hp and 60lb-ft short of the C7.

Except that from the few recent dyno tests reported, it is clear that BMW has underrated the S55.


Cheers.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by ersin

Except that from the few recent dyno tests reported, it is clear that BMW has underrated the S55.


Cheers.

1) I'd like to see official reviews that demonstrate that rather than rely on hearsay. So far I haven't seen any, so if you know of some, please feel free to sent them my way.

2) It's 3.0 Liter engine with forced induction. It may very well be underrated, but not to the magnitude of 30hp and 60lb-ft.

3) It's okay to acknowledge that the C7 is slightly faster than the M4. The world will not implode. The sky will stay blue. Both cars are awesome in their own right and have their distinct advantages. So no need to chime in with a fanboy defense every time you feel that your holier than holy M car is being 'disparaged.'

[48Laws]

Lmao

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

1) I'd like to see official reviews that demonstrate that rather than rely on hearsay. So far I haven't seen any, so if you know of some, please feel free to sent them my way.

2) It's 3.0 Liter engine with forced induction. It may very well be underrated, but not to the magnitude of 30hp and 60lb-ft.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

So they are saying that the new M4 gets 414HP at the wheels? With a 10-15% powertrain loss, that puts the engine output at anywhere from 460-487HP. I have a very hard time believing that BMW under rated their engine by that much.

Did they tune the car? Did they blow cold air into an open hood? I would give much more credibility to this test if it had been done by neutral auto journalist. But European Auto Sports is a BMW aftermarket shop.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

So they are saying that the new M4 gets 414HP at the wheels? With a 10-15% powertrain loss, that puts the engine output at anywhere from 460-487HP. I have a very hard time believing that BMW under rated their engine by that much.

Did they tune the car? Did they blow cold air into an open hood? I would give much more credibility to this test if it had been done by neutral auto journalist. But European Auto Sports is a BMW aftermarket shop.

They're a BMW aftermarket shop comparing 2 M3's. Dyno procedures btwn the 2 cars were the same I presume. Highly doubt Tom and crew are skewing the results to favor the M4. If anything the high #'s might convince prospective owners that power mods for the M4 are unnecessary.

Anyways, you asked for anything other than hearsay so thought I'd post the most definitive proof I've seen that the car is massively underrated.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

They're a BMW aftermarket shop comparing 2 M3's. Dyno procedures btwn the 2 cars were the same I presume. Highly doubt Tom and crew are skewing the results to favor the M4. If anything the high #'s might convince prospective owners that power mods for the M4 are unnecessary.

Anyways, you asked for anything other than hearsay so thought I'd post the most definitive proof I've seen that the car is massively underrated.

If I see Motor Trend, Car & Driver or some other respected auto journalist or magazine post similar results, I'll consider them definitive. Until then, I see this as just more hearsay.

Do you understand what European Auto Source is claiming? 414HP at the wheels would mean BMW under rated the S55 by a massive margin...that's certainly something I would expect auto reviewers and journalists to pick up on, but no one has so far.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

If I see Motor Trend, Car & Driver or some other respected auto journalist or magazine post similar results, I'll consider them definitive. Until then, I see this as just more hearsay.

Do you understand what European Auto Source is claiming? 414HP at the wheels would mean BMW under rated the S55 by a massive margin...that's certainly something I would expect auto reviewers and journalists to pick up on, but no one has so far.

See it as what you want fella. You asked for something other than hearsay, so I posted the comparison dyno. That too is hearsay though. K.

Reviewers and journalists do seem to be reporting the car is seriously quick. E9X owners (including those with power mods) who have driven F8X say it's clearly notably faster. 11 hp wouldn't be notably faster.

EAS data would match the trend -- current gen M's do seem to be underrated. MT dyno'd the F10 M5, results:

Either way, the M5 Competition sits 10mm lower than the regular car. There's a revised exhaust, too. As for power, we also subjected the big orange sedan to K&N's dyno, and we saw 508 hp and 452 lb-ft of torque at the wheels. Using 15 percent as our driveline loss correction (the M5 remains RWD only, for now), that's 598 hp and 531 lb-ft of torque. That's a lot of boost.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz36vviGHjW

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

See it as what you want fella. You asked for something other than hearsay, so I posted the comparison dyno. That too is hearsay though. K.

Yeah it is hearsay. I'm not going to waste time postulating why European Auto Sports would fix the results of a dyno test, but if credible authors in the auto journalist community achieve the same results, I'll consider the matter settled. That seems reasonable to me.

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

Reviewers and journalists do seem to be reporting the car is seriously quick. E9X owners (including those with power mods) who have driven F8X say it's clearly notably faster. 11 hp wouldn't be notably faster.

Reviewers have been saying that the LT1 in the new Stingray feels a lot faster than 460HP. In fact that seems to be a recurring theme in most of the Stingray reviews. I have heard many reviewers comment on how the M4 feels faster than its predecessor, but I haven't seen a majority of them claim that it feels faster than 425HP.

That's why I consider EAS' claim of 414HP dubious...I would expect a lot more journalists to comment on how much faster than 425HP the car feels.

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

EAS data would match the trend -- current gen M's do seem to be underrated. MT dyno'd the F10 M5, results:

Either way, the M5 Competition sits 10mm lower than the regular car. There's a revised exhaust, too. As for power, we also subjected the big orange sedan to K&N's dyno, and we saw 508 hp and 452 lb-ft of torque at the wheels. Using 15 percent as our driveline loss correction (the M5 remains RWD only, for now), that's 598 hp and 531 lb-ft of torque. That's a lot of boost.

Okay, with an assumed 15% power loss, a jump from the claimed 575HP to 598HP for the M5 is a lot more believable than a jump from the claimed 425HP to 487HP for the M4.

I know the math supports both dyno tests, but we are talking about a 62HP disparity here! I don't know which is considered a more accurate power loss factor, 15% or 10%. What I do know is that I have never heard of a car company under rating their engines by that much.

I'm sure when we get some actual reviews, in addition to these aftermarket shop tests, we'll get some resolution on this. Until then, I'll remain skeptical of EAS' claim.

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

Reviewers and journalists do seem to be reporting the car is seriously quick. E9X owners (including those with power mods) who have driven F8X say it's clearly notably faster. 11 hp wouldn't be notably faster.

Also, the new M4 easily has +100lb-ft over its predecessor. That would help explain why it feels so quick in relation to the E9X M3.

[FormulaMMM]

Originally Posted by Dalko43

Yeah it is hearsay. I'm not going to waste time postulating why European Auto Sports would fix the results of a dyno test, but if credible authors in the auto journalist community achieve the same results, I'll consider the matter settled. That seems reasonable to me.

Technically it's not hearsay. Straight from EAS's dyno posted to the forum by EAS. And suggesting that EAS fixed the dyno results without any basis is unreasonable, actually.

But anyways, this discussion is a waste of time. Was not and am not trying to argue with you. You seemed to be looking for information/data, I posted information/data, you don't accept information/data.

Wait for more results before you reach a conclusion. The acceleration data available now + the dyno results indicate to me that there is much > a 11 hp advantage for the F8X over the E9X.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=984354

Believe the forthcoming "official" and unofficial dyno and real world test results will support that idea, but we shall see.

edit: you did see page 1 of this thread with the acceleration results, right? 12.1 @ 119 mph. I see this started with you suggesting the C7 is faster in a straight line (due to hp advantage) with a 12.2 @ 117 mph.