Quote:
Originally Posted by ///ADMAN
Um. Okay.  I'll let the other iS owners pipe in on that one. |
You really got me with your anecdotal facts. Bravo. Show me how a car that runs high 13's@ a lame 105mph is faster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozinaldo
It is what it is, and you forget other factors like 1M's refrigerator like aero vs. M3. Is this 4 miles an hour difference you talk about is tested at the same time, by the same driver by the way? Where did you get it? M3 should trap faster, no doubt about it though.
It is not the last time you will be hearing that these two engines have around 30 whp difference by the way, it is indeed curious that you heard about it first time. BMW's advertised 80 hp crank difference is simply not true.
|
I'm only going to tell you this one more time. It takes more than 30whp for a car to trap 4 mph faster. How you choose to deal with this information is up to you. Also anecdotal facts are meaningless. It would take 414 crank horsepower for a car that is 3,576 pounds to trap 114 mph. BMW did not lie, this is high school math and I rounded the figures so you would not be further confused. You are talking about things you know very little about. It's obvious.
Low end torque is completely meaningless for a tarmac race car. You do not spend your time driving in the 2,500-3,800 rpm band and you do not own a rally car or a diesel. The 1M is over 250 pounds lighter and uses much of the same suspension/chassis bits from the M3. It should be much faster on the track than it is over the M3 but it's not. I have no doubt if it had an S65 like the racing Z4 it would be faster than it currently is.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/viewall.html
I'm starting to see a trend in this forum of people who should know more than they pretend to. We need a sub forum for anecdotal facts and TORQUES!. We can call it advanced tech.