M3 v M4 VBOX Comparison

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

It's never that easy.

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

Its also significantly heavier.

Looking at past S/C E92 M3 1/4 times and the guys who have dipped into the 10's, I would guess that this car with DPs, exhaust, tune, better fuel (or even race gas), and DRs can get there as well considering being similarly or more powerful and significantly more torque.

[s62]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

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

If in Chrome, do a right-click 'open image in a new tab'. Once you get the url of the image, it's easy

[onatuesday]

Honestly, it's not that it's not unbelievable. It's just a question of how repeatable is it in other cars? Maybe you got a factory freak? The only reason I say this is because these numbers are much faster than every other magazine out there. So no doubt you hit those times, but it doesn't really matter to the general population of F8X owners if your car is an outlier? And since it's DCT (and looks like your launch wasn't superb) the impact of driver variability is limited.

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by 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?

Best one in the "uphill" was 1/4 mile in 11.95s @ 122.3 with a 0-60 of 4.4s

Worst one in the "uphill" was 12.22s @ 121.9 w/ a 4.55s 0-60

One run in the "downhill direction" I got 11.83s @ 123.1 but the 0-60 was 4.25s

Overall the runs are pretty consistent. On some I upshifted early since I'm not used to the car yet. I also changed around the suspension settings between runs from comfort to sport to see if that made a difference. Not sure what settings corresponded to what run though. Obviously DSC was a factor and as I did more runs the tires warmed up more which helped the later runs.

[ASAP]

I am not doubting these results albeit I have a friend w an M4 who has raced many 119-120 mph trap cars that are track verified at both MIR and Capitol... and he lost everytime...

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by trinim3

Honestly, it's not that it's not unbelievable. It's just a question of how repeatable is it in other cars? Maybe you got a factory freak? The only reason I say this is because these numbers are much faster than every other magazine out there. So no doubt you hit those times, but it doesn't really matter to the general population of F8X owners if your car is an outlier? And since it's DCT (and looks like your launch wasn't superb) the impact of driver variability is limited.

In fact, he would need to have two factory freaks, the E9x also made a record setting trap speed for an N/A FBO E9x with it's 120mph trap speed!

[turbo8765]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

Its also significantly heavier.

It also has a lot more power, larger tires, and more room for larger tires. It's also a longer wheelbase with more weight transfer.

But I digress…. It's never as easy as you thought it was going to be.

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

In fact, he would need to have two factory freaks, the E9x also made a record setting run for an N/A FBO E9x with it's 120mph trap speed!

I know my e92 was a factory freak for sure. EAS said it was one of the highest theyve ever dynoed. I'm running evolves newest tune and i noticed the biggest power increase was from the GT4 x pipe versus regular akra

FWIW i only weigh 160 lbs and both cars had 1/4 tank of 91 octane left

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by turbo8765

It also has a lot more power, larger tires, and more room for larger tires. It's also a longer wheelbase with more weight transfer.

But I digress…. It's never as easy as you thought it was going to be.

The E92's did it. I could care less about the M6 tbh. Not even in the same category to me.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

I know my e92 was a factory freak for sure. EAS said it was one of the highest theyve ever dynoed. I'm running evolves newest tune and i noticed the biggest power increase was from the GT4 x pipe versus regular akra

FWIW i only weigh 160 lbs and both cars had 1/4 tank of 91 octane left

91 octane on top of that

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

91 octane on top of that

it must be the atmospheric pressure or wind direction or tide level in newport beach California thats resulting in the freakish behavior of these vehicles.....

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

it must be the atmospheric pressure or wind direction or tide level in newport beach California thats resulting in the freakish behavior of these vehicles.....

Love it.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

The E92's did it. I could care less about the M6 tbh. Not even in the same category to me.

E92s with +650hp did it, the lack of torque and linear power delivery from the S/C S65s probably helped a little on the launch also, but who knows what the f8x will reach as far as power level!

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

E92s with +650hp did it, the lack of torque and linear power delivery from the S/C S65s probably helped a little on the launch also, but who knows what the f8x will reach as far as power level!

Here's what I see:

10.65 @ 131.79 MPH - 1.72 60' - 1SICKM / E92 M3 DCT / ESS VT 625 / 93/100 mix octane / 150 lbs. Weight Reduction /Nitto DR's / DA -1548'
10.69 @ 129.38 MPH - 1.63 60' - Mike@VAC, (Klevis@VAC - Driver) / E92 M3 DCT / VF620 SC / 93 Octane / MT ET DR's / DA -1300'
10.81 @ 135.12 MPH - 1.80 60' - DLSJ5/E92 M3 DCT/ESS VT750 SC / 96 octane / BFG / MDM / DA - +270'
10.84 @ 131.60 MPH - 1.82 60' - M33 / E92 M3 DCT/ ESS VT650 SC / 93 octane/ R888 / MDM / DA -1548'
10.87 @ 131.40 MPH - 1.87 60' - Mikewads / E92 M3 DCT / ESS VT600 - 100 shot / 93/100 Mix / MT ET DR's / DA +147'
10.91 @ 129.21 MPH - 1.73 60' - Smokeyob / E92 M3 DCT / ESS VT625/ Akrapovic Evolution / 93 Oct / MT ET DR's / DA -755'
11.00 @ 129.23 MPH - 1.84 60' - EAS (Mr. 5 driver) /E92 M3 DCT / ESS VT625 / Akra Exhaust/ 98 Oct / ~175 lbs. Weight Reduction / Hoosier DR's / DA +415'

I know someone who just made 560.4whp/585.1wtq yesterday (probably STD, but still up there) on just some different fuel and his JB4 yesterday. Hell, even mine made ~500/500 STD and 480/484 SAE on Friday mid-afternoon in LA on 93/E20 alone. That's just ~80whp less and ~125 more wtq than a respected member's good VT2-625 run 7.15psi, 95 Octane, catless, and Xpipe.

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

it must be the atmospheric pressure or wind direction or tide level in newport beach California thats resulting in the freakish behavior of these vehicles.....

Not sure what it could be but it sure looks to me like there's an anomaly with those trap speeds(not saying that in a mean way, I know all you're trying to do is provide some data to the community and we're gratefull for that! ), specially if it was on 91octane. If I remember correctly, the fastest that an E9x has passed on the 1/4 mile is 118mph and that was a FBO DCT car on a mix of race and pump gaz with drag radials and rear seats removed!

here's the link for the record olding N/A E9x:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328679

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by jc05e46m3

Here's what I see:

10.65 @ 131.79 MPH - 1.72 60' - 1SICKM / E92 M3 DCT / ESS VT 625 / 93/100 mix octane / 150 lbs. Weight Reduction /Nitto DR's / DA -1548'
10.69 @ 129.38 MPH - 1.63 60' - Mike@VAC, (Klevis@VAC - Driver) / E92 M3 DCT / VF620 SC / 93 Octane / MT ET DR's / DA -1300'
10.81 @ 135.12 MPH - 1.80 60' - DLSJ5/E92 M3 DCT/ESS VT750 SC / 96 octane / BFG / MDM / DA - +270'
10.84 @ 131.60 MPH - 1.82 60' - M33 / E92 M3 DCT/ ESS VT650 SC / 93 octane/ R888 / MDM / DA -1548'
10.87 @ 131.40 MPH - 1.87 60' - Mikewads / E92 M3 DCT / ESS VT600 - 100 shot / 93/100 Mix / MT ET DR's / DA +147'
10.91 @ 129.21 MPH - 1.73 60' - Smokeyob / E92 M3 DCT / ESS VT625/ Akrapovic Evolution / 93 Oct / MT ET DR's / DA -755'
11.00 @ 129.23 MPH - 1.84 60' - EAS (Mr. 5 driver) /E92 M3 DCT / ESS VT625 / Akra Exhaust/ 98 Oct / ~175 lbs. Weight Reduction / Hoosier DR's / DA +415'

I know someone who just made 560.4whp/585.1wtq yesterday (probably STD, but still up there) on just some different fuel and his JB4 yesterday. Hell, even mine made ~500/500 STD and 480/484 SAE on Friday mid-afternoon in LA on 93/E20 alone. That's just ~80whp less and ~125 more wtq than a respected member's good VT2-625 run 7.15psi, 95 Octane, catless, and Xpipe.

560whp that's A LOT, and 585wtq, well that's almost too much! JK

[solstice]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

Best one in the "uphill" was 1/4 mile in 11.95s @ 122.3 with a 0-60 of 4.4s

Worst one in the "uphill" was 12.22s @ 121.9 w/ a 4.55s 0-60

One run in the "downhill direction" I got 11.83s @ 123.1 but the 0-60 was 4.25s

Overall the runs are pretty consistent. On some I upshifted early since I'm not used to the car yet. I also changed around the suspension settings between runs from comfort to sport to see if that made a difference. Not sure what settings corresponded to what run though. Obviously DSC was a factor and as I did more runs the tires warmed up more which helped the later runs.

Thanks, that should be the end of the discussion of the down slope or wind direction and speed as "explanations" to the 122 mph trap speed. The car just makes big power, that's the explanation

Thanks again!

[jc05e46m3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

560whp that's A LOT, and 585wtq, well that's almost too much! JK

Pretty insane on an otherwise stock car.

[MRSSIIM3]

Originally Posted by Alex07M3

Not sure what it could be but it sure looks to me like there's an anomaly with those trap speeds(not saying that in a mean way, I know all you're trying to do is provide some data to the community and we're gratefull for that! ), specially if it was on 91octane. If I remember correctly, the fastest that an E9x has passed on the 1/4 mile is 118mph and that was a FBO DCT car on a mix of race and pump gaz with drag radials and rear seats removed!

here's the link for the record olding N/A E9x:
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=328679

not sure what else i can do to prove this. whole purpose of the vbox was so i dont have to go to the strip lol

[Alex07M3]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

not sure what else i can do to prove this. whole purpose of the vbox was so i dont have to go to the strip lol

LOL, I feel you!

[///MCFC]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

not sure what else i can do to prove this. whole purpose of the vbox was so i dont have to go to the strip lol

nobody has called you a liar so maybe try to relax? all that the so-called "haters" have said is that your numbers are substantially better than previous results. does it mean that your numbers are wrong or that yourcar is a freak? who knows. without an *actual time slip* it is pure speculation.

[gmd2003]

Originally Posted by MRSSIIM3

not sure what else i can do to prove this. whole purpose of the vbox was so i dont have to go to the strip lol

Don't worry about it , people are comparing a -1% slope valid Vbox run to the strip . They are apples to oranges especially a true trap speed which can only happen at the track with the speed avg over the last 60 feet . There are a lot of people who don't understand even simple principles like what trap speed is vs an instaneous Vbox speed at the 1/4 mile much less the effect going downhill even a little bit has on cars performance . I for one appreciate you taking you're time to do this , as it is very telling on a DCT m4's performance and can be compared to other cars Vbox times in similar conditions and slope . Including you're FBO m3 was awesome too . Can't make some people happy, and you can't educate a LOT of people here.