M4 vs. 911 Performance Comparison Review in Car and Driver

[Dalko43]

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

It's because you come across as described in post 259. Reread your posts and see if it's possible that someone might have that perception.

Dubious. Hearsay. Unverified. These are the words that I used to describe my thoughts on EAS' dyno test. They indicate that I, as an individual, harbor some doubt about the results of EAS' dyno test. I didn't say that I dislike EAS or that they are full of crap. I didn't accuse them of having a malign intent or deliberately misleading anyone. I said that I wouldn't accept EAS' dyno test as valid until other sources verified the results.

Their results seemed inflated to me. Though I have nothing to indicate that EAS 'fixed' the results or that they used inaccurate testing methods, the delta between BMW's claimed 425HP at crank and EAS' 414HP at the wheel (implying some +480HP at the crank) is hard for me to accept and causes me to question the test result in general.

I believe I did a fairly good job of keeping my posts civil. But if you feel that I have become overly antagonistic in my posts, I can assure you that the feeling is mutual (please refer back to your earlier posts).

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

The important takeaway from the MT results is the delta between the E9X and F8X. Brosef summarized well above.

The fact that you think you've "got me" with the MT results indicates you haven't actually read my posts. I don't care where the M4 lands on power. Based upon the available dyno, comparison dyno, and acceleration data I've seen so far, it looks to me to be underrated. If it isn't, oh well.

I didn't post the Motor Trend test results to "get you." I posted them to show that there was validity to my questioning of EAS dyno test. Just because one dyno test shows certain results doesn't mean those results are accurate or valid.

And the important takeaway is not just the delta between the E9X and F8X. The Motor Trend test does show the M4 getting substantially lower HP than what EAS showed. So obviously there is more testing that needs to be done in order to reach a consensus.

Originally Posted by FormulaMMM

All of this started with me providing a dyno graph in response to a request. You as described in post 259 took it from there.

Happy trolling.

I responded to your post with skepticism about the results, skepticism which was validated by the fact that there are other dyno tests that conflict with the info you presented.

If you really want to label my skepticism as trolling, fine go ahead. Though I think this "trolling" has been far more two-sided then you are willing to acknowledge.

Edit: To extend some semblance of an olive branch...I don't care how much HP the M4 truly has either, and I believe like you that BMW under rated their engine (because they've been known to do that). I simply think the delta between BMW's and EAS' claims is somewhat big for the S55. I think additional dyno testing will yield an average result and give us all a much better understanding of the M4's power.

But there are a whole lot of M4 fans who believe EAS' dyno results are rock solid and believe this car truly has something north of 480HP at the crank. Maybe it does. Maybe not.

[camabron]

This base Carrera beats the M4 around a track. Any thoughts?

[CalSE]

I was at EAS with some secret race fuel when they performed the tests. jk!