BMW M4 vs Audi RS5 Compared on Nurburgring GP track by Autozeitung (Update)

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

Marginally. The whole "different days, different drivers" is getting blown out of proportion here. We're not looking at tenths of seconds, we're looking at multiple seconds. It's not like one of the cars was driven by a novice group DE driver and the other Hans Stuck. They're all driven by typical journalists. (90% of these guys will be within 2 sec of one another.)

The M4 will be quicker than the e92, but in the same league.



Stop giving BMW a pass. If you DON'T OFFICIALLY QUOTE LAP TIMES THEN DON'T BOTHER QUOTING LAP TIME DELTAS !!!!!!!

10-15s faster than unknown = unknown

If they step up and actually quote a lap time, fine, but they DID NOT say 10-15 sec faster than the Sport Auto Test result of 8:05.

Unknown - 10 sec = Unknown !!!

Sorry for rant, but BMW get no respect for not quoting lap times. The good news is the Sport Auto test is around the corner.

The big unknown is conditions. Top level drivers should be able to put up consistent lap times, but it's well known that some drivers are better at that than others. You're right that it should be measured in tenths of a second though (for professionals). What we don't know are conditions. Was it damp? Was it the dead of summer or winter when the test was run? Summer can cause overheat issues, and winter can make it hard to get heat in the tires.

The disparity in multiple seconds makes the data very hard to use. There are two E9x M3 results on that website -- one for an E90 and one for an E92 -- which are a couple of seconds apart. What are we to make of that? I'd say we make of it what we can: that different laps on different days with different drivers under different conditions will be different Depending upon the delta in any one of those factors, you might see a wildly different result.

If we had enough data, we'd look at the stddev and look at the times in the middle. For smaller sample sizes, we'd do something like throw out the fastest and the slowest, then examine what's left. We'll only get a sense of how fast the F8x is relative to the E9x when we get more than one point of data. I think that's the thing to keep in mind.

For my part, I'd be amazed if over time the F8x wasn't proven to be faster than the E9x given the improvement in power, chassis, and marginal weight decrease.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

The big unknown is conditions. Top level drivers should be able to put up consistent lap times, but it's well known that some drivers are better at that than others. You're right that it should be measured in tenths of a second though (for professionals). What we don't know are conditions. Was it damp? Was it the dead of summer or winter when the test was run? Summer can cause overheat issues, and winter can make it hard to get heat in the tires.

The disparity in multiple seconds makes the data very hard to use. There are two E9x M3 results on that website -- one for an E90 and one for an E92 -- which are a couple of seconds apart. What are we to make of that? I'd say we make of it what we can: that different laps on different days with different drivers under different conditions will be different Depending upon the delta in any one of those factors, you might see a wildly different result.

If we had enough data, we'd look at the stddev and look at the times in the middle. For smaller sample sizes, we'd do something like throw out the fastest and the slowest, then examine what's left. We'll only get a sense of how fast the F8x is relative to the E9x when we get more than one point of data. I think that's the thing to keep in mind.

For my part, I'd be amazed if over time the F8x wasn't proven to be faster than the E9x given the improvement in power, chassis, and marginal weight decrease.

I agree. If you spend any time at a track, you know that all of these factors make a meaningful difference. I can be several seconds faster or slower myself based on weather, how many heat cycles my tires have had, etc.

Discount the conditions and drivers but those things make a real difference.

[Paul-Bracq-BMW]

Scans of the article below...

[VCP]

Originally Posted by enricob

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/autoze...est_track.html

26. M3 1'38"70

30. M4 1'38"90

I'm sure the M4 will be the best M BUT Bmw Marketing said it'd be much much faster and much lighter then e92 . I think that's not true

I agree that lighter will be an issue. With all the extra tech in these cars and added TQ(parts will need to be strengthened), weight will be hard to lessen. It is worthy of a nod if they even keep weight at same point as E92. That being said, I believe the added tech, rigidity, and weight placement(this is a big one) will give the feel of a much lighter and sharper handling M. I will find out on June 23 in Munich. I also am keeping a E92 so I look forward to track time with each on the same day same track. I have good feelings about the F82. I can't give up the sound of the S65 though.

[bradleyland]

Love the red valve covers on the RS5. Love the engine bay in general. Less plastic, more mechanical bits.

[Kurt_OH]

Originally Posted by enricob

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/autoze...est_track.html

26. M3 1'38"70

30. M4 1'38"90

I'm sure the M4 will be the best M BUT Bmw Marketing said it'd be much much faster and much lighter then e92 . I think that's not true

More HP and more torque, poor throttle response and similar weight. Sounds like "a little faster lap times" overall to me. Probably depends on the track. More time to stay on throttle = more advantage new car. More required off throttle/on throttle transitions = less advantage new car.

[turbo8765]

Basically, some of you guys are saying there is no point in ever publishing a lap time at all…

Because we don't know… density altitude, driver, track temp, tire temp, engine coolant temp, ambient temp, relative cloud cover, tire tread depth and condition, tire pressures, alignment settings (have they slipped slightly after having been driven by several journalists), fuel quality, spark plug gap, long term fuel trims, oxygen sensor calibration… and the relative position of the moon.

In the end, most of the noise averages out and the lap times published by a competent journalist are likely c/w with what most journalist and typical advanced DE drivers would run under most conditions most of the time +/-1 sec. (Assuming it's dry. Most publications will note if times are run under non-dry conditions.

I spend A LOT of time at the track.

If a the lap times for two cars driven in dry conditions by a competent journalist are with in +/-1 sec, then the cars can be considered roughly equal.

The e92 M3 Comp/DCT will be very close to the M4. The M4 will be faster but the gains will be small.

Keep in mind that the current PSS is better than what came on the e92.

[VCP]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

Basically, some of you guys are saying there is no point in ever publishing a lap time at all…

Because we don't know… density altitude, driver, track temp, tire temp, engine coolant temp, ambient temp, relative cloud cover, tire tread depth and condition, tire pressures, alignment settings (have they slipped slightly after having been driven by several journalists), fuel quality, spark plug gap, long term fuel trims, oxygen sensor calibration… and the relative position of the moon.

In the end, most of the noise averages out and the lap times published by a competent journalist are likely c/w with what most journalist and typical DE intermediate to advanced DE drivers would run under most conditions most of the time +/-1 sec. (Assuming it's dry. Most publications will note if times are run under non-dry conditions.

I spend A LOT of time at the track.

If a the lap times for two cars driven in dry conditions by a competent journalist are with in +/-1 sec, then the cars can be considered roughly equal.

The e92 M3 Comp/DCT will be very close to the M4. The M4 will be faster but the gains will be small.

Keep in mind that the current PSS is better than what came on the e92.

Yes sir! What I am curious of is, how much( less actually ) driver effort will be required to achieve similar laps to the E92. With all notable changes it should require far less effort. Then when you start turning your M3/4 into the track mule the outcome should far exceed the E92. Does this sound unrealistic?

[FTS]

Originally Posted by enricob

http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/autoze...est_track.html

26. M3 1'38"70

30. M4 1'38"90

I'm sure the M4 will be the best M BUT Bmw Marketing said it'd be much much faster and much lighter then e92 . I think that's not true

If true, very disappointing. However, this must be an anomaly, #47 is also a '07 M3 with lower listed weight and time difference makes more sense.

[enricob]

Originally Posted by FTS

If true, very disappointing. However, this must be an anomaly, #47 is also a '07 M3 with lower listed weight and time difference makes more sense.

is the manual version

[Holset]

Originally Posted by Paul-Bracq-BMW

Scans of the article below...

Thanks!
Need someone who knows german here too translate.

[M6-Coupe]

Originally Posted by Holset

Thanks!
Need someone who knows german here too translate.

He is saying BMW is MUCH better than AUDI that's it ...

[Holset]

Originally Posted by M6-Coupe

He is saying BMW is MUCH better than AUDI that's it ...

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

Basically, some of you guys are saying there is no point in ever publishing a lap time at all…

Because we don't know… density altitude, driver, track temp, tire temp, engine coolant temp, ambient temp, relative cloud cover, tire tread depth and condition, tire pressures, alignment settings (have they slipped slightly after having been driven by several journalists), fuel quality, spark plug gap, long term fuel trims, oxygen sensor calibration… and the relative position of the moon.

In the end, most of the noise averages out and the lap times published by a competent journalist are likely c/w with what most journalist and typical advanced DE drivers would run under most conditions most of the time +/-1 sec. (Assuming it's dry. Most publications will note if times are run under non-dry conditions.

I spend A LOT of time at the track.

If a the lap times for two cars driven in dry conditions by a competent journalist are with in +/-1 sec, then the cars can be considered roughly equal.

The e92 M3 Comp/DCT will be very close to the M4. The M4 will be faster but the gains will be small.

Keep in mind that the current PSS is better than what came on the e92.

No, what we're saying is that the times on Fastestlaps.com don't provide any of the information you're assuming.

Here's a simple question: how do you explain the 2s difference between the E90 and E92 in their results? Once you explain that, point out how we're supposed to know that from their list.

In the end, most of the noise averages out and the lap times published by a competent journalist are likely c/w with what most journalist and typical advanced DE drivers would run under most conditions most of the time +/-1 sec.

Agree 100%. I'm not saying lap times are useless, I'm saying that everyone should pause before drawing broad conclusions using a single lap time.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

No, what we're saying is that the times on Fastestlaps.com don't provide any of the information you're assuming.

Here's a simple question: how do you explain the 2s difference between the E90 and E92 in their results? Once you explain that, point out how we're supposed to know that from their list.

Agree 100%. I'm not saying lap times are useless, I'm saying that everyone should pause before drawing broad conclusions using a single lap time.

I think one was DCT and one was non DCT, should help explain discrepancies. Besides the E9X M3 isn't the only one on the list that has different times. Look up and down and you will see same model with lap times. Like you said diff drivers, weather and possibly DCT. In the end it put down those numbers. So what if the current and new cars made similar times. Some are too numbers obsessed, just enjoy the new car.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by JRV

I think one was DCT and one was non DCT, should help explain discrepancies. Besides the E9X M3 isn't the only one on the list that has different times. Look up and down and you will see same model with lap times. Like you said diff drivers, weather and possibly DCT. In the end it put down those numbers. So what if the current and new cars made similar times. Some are too numbers obsessed, just enjoy the new car.

Yes, but how can we tell any of that from the information given? We can't. We can only speculate.

So what if the current and new cars made similar times.

What I'm arguing against is people drawing "knee jerk" conclusions that the F8x is inferior to the E9x because of one test result. That's all.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Yes, but how can we tell any of that from the information given? We can't. We can only speculate.

What I'm arguing against is people drawing "knee jerk" conclusions that the F8x is inferior to the E9x because of one test result. That's all.

I hear ya, so far it's a wash. Not sure why the coupe was slower but I'm sure there's a logical explanation.

[Holset]

Okay people
Some of you talked about that they tested the cars on Autozeitung test track not Nurburgring GP and some of you said that the Autozeitung test track is a part of Nurburging GP.

I thought that sounded a bit strange so i did some searching and found Autozeitung test track http://burntire.ru/tracks/autozeitung-test-track which clearly is not Nurburging GP were they tested the cars in the article (written in the article text and you can see that in the pictures).
Autozeitung test track owned by one of the largest German automotive publications - Autozeitung. Located near the city of Cologne.

Nurburgring GP http://www.nuerburgring.de/en/fans-i...ml#prettyPhoto

The question is what kind of Nurburging GP track layout did they test the cars on?

Also i think my original post need to be changed back again.

Edit my first post back.

[bradleyland]

That's pretty hilarious. I had no idea what Autozeitung was when I came to this thread. This whole thread takes on a new level of hilarity when you consider that we may all have been debating track times on a completely different set of tracks.

[Holset]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

That's pretty hilarious. I had no idea what Autozeitung was when I came to this thread. This whole thread takes on a new level of hilarity when you consider that we may all have been debating track times on a completely different set of tracks.

Hilarious indeed!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

That 0-200km/h 12.9s time is quite faster than the advertised BMW numbers of 13.4/13.6 for DCT/6MT

Don't want to burst your bubble but these numbers for time to speed are suspiciously high.

Up to 140 km/hr they are completely consistent with a 440 hp car, with an 11-12% drivetrain loss, around 1615 kg with driver included, M-DCT and no rollout. Such a car is also able to pull off the standing 1 km in 22.0 seconds. However, the numbers above 140 km and including 12.9 seconds to 200 km/hr are simply way too good. A more reasonable time is about 13.6 seconds (that's my value WITH the DCT). Hate to sounds like the tin-foil hat crowd... but it would take about 470 hp and 440 ft lb of torque to achieve this kind of number. Sure a couple of tenths either way based on differences between simulation and test and perhaps even real errors with either but 0.7 seconds?

Could that have been delivered a ringer of sorts?

[Just_me]

Autozeitung always get better times than other german carmagazines and this with all sorts of cars. M4 in this test is no more "ringer" than other cars being tested by AZ or an exception or whatever you want to call it.