AMS claims M3/M4 Nurburgring Lap Time of ~7.50min !

[FogCityM3]

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble but the Sport Cup + is not the same as Sport Cup, and yes as someone else mentioned, ZCP/DCT LCI with PSS more than "makes up" for the inferiority of PSS vs Sport Cup + (which really isn't that inferior given the advancements in the PSS technology since 2007). The same test that everyone likes to quote actually has the M3 ZCP beating the M3 MT with Sport+ Cup tires on a short track like Hockenheim (SportAutos own test .1 ZCP/DCT + PSS = 0.1secs faster) where it matters the most. On a long track like the Nurburgring, the differences will become even more apparent.

M3 ZCP DCT + PSS probably is more like an 8.00 minute Nurburgring time. No way 1M is faster on the ring.

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

I was also not aware that 2007 Sport Auto time for the E92 M3 was with semi slicks! That now pretty much explains the 10 sec. difference between Sport Auto times of the 1M (was naturally with PS2) and the M3, both manual of course. With same tires that difference should not be more than 5 sec. max. Most of us always felt off and sceptical with the N-ring time of Sport Auto (especially when our member Advevo started clocking impressive and seemingly faster times chasing E46 M3 CSLs and E92 M3 GTSs, and in traffic; he also claimed that stock car should be able to turn a sub 8 sec. with ideal conditions and no traffic); so that 'official' time never added up compared to many other track results where 1M was either very close or sometimes ahead (Hockenheim comes to mind) of M3s, manual to manual and sometimes even against the DCT (Sachsenring by Auto Bild). All this, depending on the track (i.e. the shorter and more technical the track more likely to see the 1M ahead and with longer straights M3 has the upper hand).

In case of new M3 vs. old M3 if F8X supertest also comes with a 7.50 the logical conclusion is to take it as it is somehow less than 15 sec. the difference, maybe more like 10 sec. faster with same tires and same type of transmission.

Finally, if 7.50 is legal we should also take it as the fastest stock M3 to date because of the tire difference again (of the E46 M3 CSL as the record holder, not counting the late GTS as it was a very limited run prepared for race with wings and so).

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble but the Sport Cup + is not the same as Sport Cup, and yes as someone else mentioned, ZCP/DCT LCI with PSS more than "makes up" for the inferiority of PSS vs Sport Cup + (which really isn't that inferior given the advancements in the PSS technology since 2007). The same test that everyone likes to quote actually has the M3 ZCP beating the M3 MT with Sport+ Cup tires on a short track like Hockenheim (SportAutos own test .1 ZCP/DCT + PSS = 0.1secs faster) where it matters the most. On a long track like the Nurburgring, the differences will become even more apparent.

M3 ZCP DCT + PSS probably is more like an 8.00 minute Nurburgring time. No way 1M is faster on the ring.

Just read my post you've quoted again. Where did I claim that 1M is faster on the ring?

I just said the tire difference of the two supertests (1M and E92 M3) explains (I mean clarifies) the 10 sec. difference (which always appeared to be slightly off) and said it should be more like 5 sec. (still M3 being the quicker car) with identical tires on both and that would be more in conformity with other lap results for these cars.

1M is actually faster on 'some' tracks but Ring is not one of them. Like I said because of its long straights which favor the M3.

[FogCityM3]

M3 10 seconds slower due to tires? no way. As I said SportAuto tested M3 ZCP DCT PSS and was faster by 0.1 secs vs the M3 MT with Sport Cup + at Hockenheim where tires will matter more. On Nurburingring M3 ZCP DCT PSS probably 8 flat, which also makes sense given similar power/weight vs several peer cars around that time (RS4, RS5, C63, CTS-V).

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Just read my post you've quoted again. Where did I claim that 1M is faster on the ring?

I just said the tire difference of the two supertests (1M and E92 M3) explains (I mean clarifies) the 10 sec. difference (which always appeared to be slightly off) and said it should be more like 5 sec. (still M3 being the quicker car) with identical tires on both and that would be more in conformity with other lap results for these cars.

1M is actually faster on 'some' tracks but Ring is not one of them. Like I said because of its long straights which favor the M3.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

M3 10 seconds slower due to tires? no way. As I said SportAuto tested M3 ZCP DCT PSS and was faster by 0.1 secs vs the M3 MT with Sport Cup + at Hockenheim where tires will matter more. On Nurburingring M3 ZCP DCT PSS probably 8 flat, which also makes sense given similar power/weight vs several peer cars around that time (RS4, RS5, C63, CTS-V).

Probably I shouldn't try it again but here we go: you make comparisons between cars with different transmissions and/or different tires. 1M was with PS2 not with PSS which is a newer and more performant tire (that I have on my car, I had both these tires on my car) and M3 was with PS Cup+ which is a semi-slick, different category tire with obvious superiority vs. PS2. They were also both manual transmission meaning that tires were only major factor which would make a difference. From this formula; how on earth tires were not a factor and 10 sec. lap time difference is 'apples to apples' between these two cars?

The only 'track' that M3 can put 10 sec. or even more difference ahead of a 1M (as long as they are similarly equipped and both stock) is actually the autobahn

And you should write M3 10 sec. 'faster' not 'slower', we are talking about 8.15 time of 1M and 8.05 time of M3.

Hope I am not gonna repeat this exercise again.

[FogCityM3]

Rest assured this is my last post on the subject as I don't mind not having the last word. Said another way, point I was trying to make is that if you put PSS or PS2s on E92M3 MT, no way is 10 secs slower vs the sportauto time recorded on Sport Cup + (which is not the same as Sport Cup, big difference). Also, similar weight/power ratio vehicles tend to have similar N-ring times, ie clustered around the 8:00 mark. An 8:15 n-ring time for an M3 with PS2 tires would be an outlier, especially considering is a lighter car vs the RS4/5, CTS-V, C63 and similar weight/power ratio.

As far as 1M having a better time with PSS vs PS2, don't dispute that, but in most cases on most tracks except for the shortest ones or auto-x, M3 apples to apples is faster than 1M. Just ask the guys who run the BMW M-school in the US

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

Probably I shouldn't try it again but here we go: you make comparisons between cars with different transmissions and/or different tires. 1M was with PS2 not with PSS which is a newer and more performant tire (that I have on my car, I had both these tires on my car) and M3 was with PS Cup+ which is a semi-slick, different category tire with obvious superiority vs. PS2. They were also both manual transmission meaning that tires were only major factor which would make a difference. From this formula; how on earth tires were not a factor and 10 sec. lap time difference is 'apples to apples' between these two cars?

The only 'track' that M3 can put 10 sec. or even more difference ahead of a 1M (as long as they are similarly equipped and both stock) is actually the autobahn

And you should write M3 10 sec. 'faster' not 'slower', we are talking about 8.15 time of 1M and 8.05 time of M3.

Hope I am not gonna repeat this exercise again.

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Rest assured this is my last post on the subject as I don't mind not having the last word. Said another way, point I was trying to make is that if you put PSS or PS2s on E92M3 MT, no way is 10 secs slower vs the sportauto time recorded on Sport Cup + (which is not the same as Sport Cup, big difference). Also, similar weight/power ratio vehicles tend to have similar N-ring times, ie clustered around the 8:00 mark. An 8:15 n-ring time for an M3 with PS2 tires would be an outlier, especially considering is a lighter car vs the RS4/5, CTS-V, C63 and similar weight/power ratio.

As far as 1M having a better time with PSS vs PS2, don't dispute that, but in most cases on most tracks except for the shortest ones or auto-x, M3 apples to apples is faster than 1M. Just ask the guys who run the BMW M-school in the US

I won't ask them, I'll ask internet and many owners who have and love both in our Forum. On shorter tracks 1M is as fast or faster which is normal and expected due to higher torque/shorter wheelbase/lower weight making the car more agile. On longer tracks M3 has the upper hand due to its higher peak power and better aero. Not rocket science really since they share many things.

Here is a simple comparison table from fastest laps site, showing lap results for both cars on 16 tracks around the World, I counted that on exact half of them (8) 1M has better times vs. E92 M3. As I posted before Sachsenring and Hockenheim Short are among these and tests were done by same magazines (Sport Auto and Auto Bild respectively) , as well as Top Gear Track, Auto Zeitung Test Track, Kyalami (new), Circuit de Nevers, Megara, Folembray.

Link:

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...r_m_coupe.html

The general tendency which is apparent from those results is (as expected) smaller car is quicker on smaller tracks and bigger one on longer ones.

Same driver, same tires, manual to manual and same day testing 1M would not (should not) be 10 seconds behind the M3 on the Ring or on any track and thanks to this thread I've finally learned that it was indeed not the 'full story', because there was a significant tire difference between those 'oficial' times. Like on all other tracks, result should be closer.

Peace now?

[M1E]

Originally Posted by ozinaldo

I won't ask them, I'll ask internet and many owners who have and love both in our Forum. On shorter tracks 1M is as fast or faster which is normal and expected due to higher torque/shorter wheelbase/lower weight making the car more agile. On longer tracks M3 has the upper hand due to its higher peak power and better aero. Not rocket science really since they share many things.

Here is a simple comparison table from fastest laps site, showing lap results for both cars on 16 tracks around the World, I counted that on exact half of them (8) 1M has better times vs. E92 M3. As I posted before Sachsenring and Hockenheim Short are among these and tests were done by same magazines (Sport Auto and Auto Bild respectively) , as well as Top Gear Track, Auto Zeitung Test Track, Kyalami (new), Circuit de Nevers, Megara, Folembray.

Link:

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...r_m_coupe.html

The general tendency which is apparent from those results is (as expected) smaller car is quicker on smaller tracks and bigger one on longer ones.

Same driver, same tires, manual to manual and same day testing 1M would not (should not) be 10 seconds behind the M3 on the Ring or on any track and thanks to this thread I've finally learned that it was indeed not because there was a significant tire difference between those 'oficial' times. Like on all other tracks, result should be closer.

Peace now?

1M is slightly faster than stock E92 on a short and flat track. E92M3 has advantage on straights and on Nordschleife with ups and downs jumps and bumbs. Suspension and longer wheelbase are way better than the standard (too stiff) setup of 1M.

this is my experience, having owned and driven E46M3 E46CSL Z4M E92M3 and now 1M.

Sportauto says 7:50 for the new F80M3 with (standard) Pilot Supersport.

That's quite impressive, I would say, especially for a huge car like a 4 door m3 with 5 seats.

My F80 should arrive in July, looking forward to it!!

[ozinaldo]

Originally Posted by M1E

1M is slightly faster than stock E92 on a short and flat track. E92M3 has advantage on straights and on Nordschleife with ups and downs jumps and bumbs. Suspension and longer wheelbase are way better than the standard (too stiff) setup of 1M.

this is my experience, having owned and driven E46M3 E46CSL Z4M E92M3 and now 1M.

Sportauto says 7:50 for the new F80M3 with (standard) Pilot Supersport.

That's quite impressive, I would say, especially for a huge car like a 4 door m3 with 5 seats.

My F80 should arrive in July, looking forward to it!!

All agreed, that's what I was saying all the way. Good luck with your new M

[LTJohn]

I just want to throw some real data in this fire! LOL!

Too much KoolAid.....

Seems that there are lots of experts on the PS2 Vs. Cup tire debate.

C&D has 2 tests where they had identical cars (E92M3) where they swapped the PS2 and the BMW tuned Cup tires.
On the track, (VIR)
Time difference=zero

Here is a blurb from the test of the M3:

"So we went looking for stickier, street-legal track tires—commonly referred to as “R compound”—but finding them in either the M3’s standard 18-inch size or the optional 19-inch dimension was difficult. However, Michelin has one, a BMW-specific version of its Pilot Sport Cup tires, in only the 19-inch size. In fact, these tires originated with the Euro-only, lightweight CSL edition of the previous-generation M3.

Available only as a replacement tire, this “Sport Cup +” version (fronts, $353 each; rears, $416) features additional grooving in the tread, which compromises stiffness to be friendlier in the rain (which it is) compared with an off-the-shelf Sport Cup. And these tires are also able to withstand higher temperatures than the stock PS2s. Unfortunately, skidpad results were no better with the Sport Cups (0.96 g), and braking (156 feet) was a bit worse. "

So there you have it.

Same/same. Not 10, 15 or 20 seconds per lap.

The advantage to these Cup tires, whether they are +(with the extra Sipes) or not, is that they remain more stable over the course of a race, with grip being more consistent. They heat cycle better....But, Lap times are not faster in a short 7-8 minute lap.

Data that I have when switching from PS2 to PSS shows immense improvement. I have no data on PS CUP-->PSS

Second point: the "Nürburgring" is a terrible place to compare lap times. And fools do it all the time. They compare data from a decade ago to today.

Here is why it is a general waste of time:

Weather-no one can "buy" the track for a month and wait until they get ideal weather. The track itself is so large that it often rains on one part and is sunny on the other. The fact is, even manufacturers can't afford to get coincident conditions on their tests. Also, temperatures vary pretty wildly on the track from month to month. Wanna imagine the difference in grip from a 50 degree day to an 85 degreeF day???

Crashes- magazines are not allowed to crash cars at will. Manufacturers can. with no run-off room, they can't push 10/10ths unless they own the car and have sacks of cash. It becomes a test of who can afford to stuff a car and walk away.

Cars- all manufacturer data is suspect. ferrari is famous for sending a "support team" to tune alignment& settings while the test is being done. They won't lend you a car without the team. How much difference can alignment make? more than anyone here (who does not drive real race cars) can imagine.

The Course-the actual track itself is bizarre. All sorts of cooky turns and a (too) long straight. Because the track itself is too long, most drivers will not be able to put together a perfect lap. Even walter Rohl. I would kill to see the 5-10 lap times as a session progresses. I bet they vary by 5-10 seconds (or more). And I bet they don't get the whole day with a known car like a race team does. can they be consistent? yes. But there is a world of difference between a 911 cup race and some guys showing up to "set a time"
Well....there goes all the good data you're quoting!

Wanna good track? head over to Laguna seca. Weather is same/same, track is just long enough, many awesome drivers can drive it like they know the back of their hands. For extra measure: All tests need to be actual purchased vehicles, set to factory alignment and run on same day.

Is the M4 faster that the E92? It better be! LOL! Probably right around what Chris harris found on that track. Most tracks it will be more like 2 seconds. It should not take away from how awesome the E92/90 M3 was, and should not take away from how great the new car is.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by DocJohn

I just want to throw some real data in this fire! LOL!

Too much KoolAid.....

Seems that there are lots of experts on the PS2 Vs. Cup tire debate.

C&D has 2 tests where they had identical cars (E92M3) where they swapped the PS2 and the BMW tuned Cup tires.
On the track, (VIR)
Time difference=zero

Here is a blurb from the test of the M3:

"So we went looking for stickier, street-legal track tires—commonly referred to as “R compound”—but finding them in either the M3’s standard 18-inch size or the optional 19-inch dimension was difficult. However, Michelin has one, a BMW-specific version of its Pilot Sport Cup tires, in only the 19-inch size. In fact, these tires originated with the Euro-only, lightweight CSL edition of the previous-generation M3.

Available only as a replacement tire, this “Sport Cup +” version (fronts, $353 each; rears, $416) features additional grooving in the tread, which compromises stiffness to be friendlier in the rain (which it is) compared with an off-the-shelf Sport Cup. And these tires are also able to withstand higher temperatures than the stock PS2s. Unfortunately, skidpad results were no better with the Sport Cups (0.96 g), and braking (156 feet) was a bit worse. "

So there you have it.

Same/same. Not 10, 15 or 20 seconds per lap.

The advantage to these Cup tires, whether they are +(with the extra Sipes) or not, is that they remain more stable over the course of a race, with grip being more consistent. They heat cycle better....But, Lap times are not faster in a short 7-8 minute lap.

Data that I have when switching from PS2 to PSS shows immense improvement. I have no data on PS CUP-->PSS

Second point: the "Nürburgring" is a terrible place to compare lap times. And fools do it all the time. They compare data from a decade ago to today.

Here is why it is a general waste of time:

Weather-no one can "buy" the track for a month and wait until they get ideal weather. The track itself is so large that it often rains on one part and is sunny on the other. The fact is, even manufacturers can't afford to get coincident conditions on their tests. Also, temperatures vary pretty wildly on the track from month to month. Wanna imagine the difference in grip from a 50 degree day to an 85 degreeF day???

Crashes- magazines are not allowed to crash cars at will. Manufacturers can. with no run-off room, they can't push 10/10ths unless they own the car and have sacks of cash. It becomes a test of who can afford to stuff a car and walk away.

Cars- all manufacturer data is suspect. ferrari is famous for sending a "support team" to tune alignment& settings while the test is being done. They won't lend you a car without the team. How much difference can alignment make? more than anyone here (who does not drive real race cars) can imagine.

The Course-the actual track itself is bizarre. All sorts of cooky turns and a (too) long straight. Because the track itself is too long, most drivers will not be able to put together a perfect lap. Even walter Rohl. I would kill to see the 5-10 lap times as a session progresses. I bet they vary by 5-10 seconds (or more). And I bet they don't get the whole day with a known car like a race team does. can they be consistent? yes. But there is a world of difference between a 911 cup race and some guys showing up to "set a time"
Well....there goes all the good data you're quoting!

Wanna good track? head over to Laguna seca. Weather is same/same, track is just long enough, many awesome drivers can drive it like they know the back of their hands. For extra measure: All tests need to be actual purchased vehicles, set to factory alignment and run on same day.

Is the M4 faster that the E92? It better be! LOL! Probably right around what Chris harris found on that track. Most tracks it will be more like 2 seconds. It should not take away from how awesome the E92/90 M3 was, and should not take away from how great the new car is.

Great reflection . You bring very good points and they should ground the debates.

Thank you also for reminding us about the C&D articles on the PS2 vs PSC+. It is also my experience that the PSC+ don't provide much more grip, but do resist heat mcuh better than the PS2 that just melted away at the track.

[stressdoc]

There is fairly high consistency among BMW test drivers on a given day with stable weather. E.g., Sabina can reportedly run multiple laps within several seconds of each other. IF (big if) a reliable BMW official states that f8x lap times are consistently 15 secs faster than E9x M, for multiple drivers, that is a highly reliable factoid IMO. OTOH, comparing times from fastlaptimes is way more problematic.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble but the Sport Cup + is not the same as Sport Cup, and yes as someone else mentioned, ZCP/DCT LCI with PSS more than "makes up" for the inferiority of PSS vs Sport Cup + (which really isn't that inferior given the advancements in the PSS technology since 2007). The same test that everyone likes to quote actually has the M3 ZCP beating the M3 MT with Sport+ Cup tires on a short track like Hockenheim (SportAutos own test .1 ZCP/DCT + PSS = 0.1secs faster) where it matters the most. On a long track like the Nurburgring, the differences will become even more apparent.

M3 ZCP DCT + PSS probably is more like an 8.00 minute Nurburgring time. No way 1M is faster on the ring.

Thing is, PSS was never an OE tire on the E9X M3...

I agree with your comments regarding the PSC, PSC+ and PSS though.

[turbo8765]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

There is fairly high consistency among BMW test drivers on a given day with stable weather. E.g., Sabina can reportedly run multiple laps within several seconds of each other. IF (big if) a reliable BMW official states that f8x lap times are consistently 15 secs faster than E9x M, for multiple drivers, that is a highly reliable factoid IMO. OTOH, comparing times from fastlaptimes is way more problematic.

Sabine is likely more consistent than several seconds per lap…. I would imagine less than 1 sec per lap variation if traffic is not a factor.

I think it's actually really weak the approach BMW is using when they say "15 sec faster" given that they DON'T QUOTE LAP TIMES! 15 sec faster than unknown is unknown. Just say what the damn thing runs.

[ss134]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Just an FYI-

Humongous difference between PSS/PS2 and Pilot Sport Cup. The latter aren't even recommended for street driving or adverse / cold weather conditions. Look at the profile of a Pilot Sport Cup.

Sorry but I can't take records done on the following tires for an all out street car... the perf difference is huge.

A greatly under used word!!

[dhoggm3]

So now a BMW official (different thread) is on record saying that the M3 and M4 run identical NS times of 7:50, regardless of which test driver is in the car. I presume this is with dct and the stock PSS tires. One less item to argue about.

[soooma]

Very nice and interesting thread -
I love the new M4
Congrats to everyone who got it

Edited - I said M5 by mistake before

[Racer20]

Originally Posted by soooma

Very nice and interesting thread -
I love the new M5
Congrats to everyone who got it

You win the "most relevant comment" award!

[soooma]

Originally Posted by Racer20

You win the "most relevant comment" award!

Sorry -
LOL
I meant the M4
My Autocorrect is trained to type M5 after any M letter as I have this car -

[solstice]

Originally Posted by dhoggm3

So now a BMW official (different thread) is on record saying that the M3 and M4 run identical NS times of 7:50, regardless of which test driver is in the car. I presume this is with dct and the stock PSS tires. One less item to argue about.

Link?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

Link?

I believe he refers to the Sport Auto thread that I posted a few weeks ago. They wrote that BMW said that several test drivers did allmost identical 7:50 lap times in both the M3 and M4.