M3 v M4 VBOX Comparison

[slalomfever]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

M5/6 guys said the same thing at about the same point in the development process.

Sorry, don't meant to be rude... But 11.8 and 10.9 are two VERY different things.

Originally Posted by DrtyJrze

I agree. Plus that is going to be a very expensive second (that will mainly be for bragging rights).

AGREED 100%....looking back at my Honda days, it cost thousands just to get a second shaved off

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Sorry it is blurry , can't read it .

click it it loads the image. i dont know how to embed photos directly. postimg doesnt let me

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Sorry it is blurry , can't read it .

Just click on it and it will open in full size.

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by gmcconn535

Just click on it and it will open if full size.

On my iPhone it's still blurry full size . What is the height delta lol

[MRSSIIM3]

109.70 meters to 105.85 meters.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

On my iPhone it's still blurry full size . What is the height delta lol

-3.85m

[gxman]

awesome times.

Did you actually try to employ the 1ft rolling start, or is that defaulted by VBox?

[M3NetNerd]

I have used the little brother to the Vbox the Performance Box for years. It is an incredible tool that I have verified time and time again with timing loops. Having seen the value of DAQ systems I am thankful that you are willing to take the time and effort to share your results with us.

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by gxman

awesome times.

Did you actually try to employ the 1ft rolling start, or is that defaulted by VBox?

vbox handles that

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

vbox handles that

Ok so it was a -1% slope run which explains the higher traps and 11.8 ET despite a non ideal launch . Still you def have a stronger than avg stock car and know how to drive it . I've done a ton of Vbox testing and it's not as easy as people think . Strong work !

[M4TW]

While the testing road isn't likely as level or straight as a sanctioned 1/4 track, there is usually some track compound left at 1/4 tracks for street legals to help with the launches. I bet the OP's M4 would also haul ass at a nice near sea-level track if he took it there.

What a car.

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

I would prefer he show the data so we don't estimate , but if it was 20 feet then it would be a -1.6% slope which would explain the fast ET despite a bad launch as well as the higher than expected trap . For a Vbox quarter mile to be valid it has to be less than 1% slope , and preferably be close to 0. In the same conditions on a NHRA track his car would prob be 12- 12.2 @ 119 -20 mph so consistent with previous fastest DCT data .

3.85 meters to feet = 12.63 feet

% grade:

( 12.63 feet / 1320 feet in a quarter mile ) * 100 = .96% grade which makes it valid according to your analysis

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by gmd2003

Ok so it was a -1% slope run which explains the higher traps and 11.8 ET despite a non ideal launch . Still you def have a stronger than avg stock car and know how to drive it . I've done a ton of Vbox testing and it's not as easy as people think . Strong work !

thanks! i can get back to work now lol. unless theres something else people want me to post to verify this...

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by slalomfever

it wont be long...someone will be in the 10 sec club

Originally Posted by turbo8765

M5/6 guys said the same thing at about the same point in the development process.

Sorry, don't meant to be rude... But 11.8 and 10.9 are two VERY different things.

I don't think you're being rude at all, but I will say that the difference between 11.8 and 10.9 can be made up with DRs and another ~120whp/wtq.

[IMrMark]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

thanks! i can get back to work now lol. unless theres something else people want me to post to verify this...

Where's the video????

... Totally not serious. Thanks for posting

[DrtyJrze]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

thanks! i can get back to work now lol. unless theres something else people want me to post to verify this...

Actually yes. If you could post the wind speed/direction, weight of car at launch, and the location of the moon in relation to the direction of travel during testing (its gravitational pull may account for +/- .0000003 seconds) I would appreciate it.

BTW, j/k.

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by IMrMark

Where's the video????

... Totally not serious. Thanks for posting

Originally Posted by DrtyJrze

Actually yes. If you could post the wind speed/direction, weight of car at launch, and the location of the moon in relation to the direction of travel during testing (its gravitational pull may account for +/- .0000003 seconds) I would appreciate it.

BTW, j/k.

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

thanks! i can get back to work now lol. unless theres something else people want me to post to verify this...

Ha , just trying to help you out man now nobody can say anything about the results not being valid . Thanks for posting this , it's a million times more useful than another damn STD correction dyno lol .

[M3 Esq]

Impressive numbers for the E92. Nice work OP. Good thread.

[solstice]

If you have it, maybe post a run in the opposite direction just to see the difference? You mentioned similar results, if you don't have the data maybe you remember? Was it still a +120 mph run?

[turbo8765]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

I don't think you're being rude at all, but I will say that the difference between 11.8 and 10.9 can be made up with DRs and another ~120whp/wtq.

It's never that easy.

There's an M6 with a 670 whp dyno with meth on drag radials in the low 11's.

[turbo8765]

Nice run!!!