Interview w/ M chief engineer Biermann hints at M3/M4 0-60 in 4.3 seconds and 26 MPG

[absoluteis350]

Originally Posted by aajami

What were the quoted times for the E9XM from BMW before launch, though? BMW always provides conservative HP estimates, so it's probably to be expected that they also provide conservative performance estimates.

The times published by the german manufacturers are ALWAYS conservative. RS4 was quoted at 4.8 when its more like 4.2. The e92 was published at 4.8 for the manual, which is a joke (meaning it was much faster).

Likewise, I *HOPE* they publish a time of 4.3 because in reality that should translate to 3.8 roughly

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by absoluteis350

The times published by the german manufacturers are ALWAYS conservative. RS4 was quoted at 4.8 when its more like 4.2. The e92 was published at 4.8 for the manual, which is a joke (meaning it was much faster).

Yes indeed, this is from 4/07:

[JoeFromPA]

It wasn't a joke. Those 0-60 times are normal, non-roll-out, non-totally abusive 0-60 times achievable by a reasonable driver on normal conditions. Consistently...

Now, if you want a 0-60 time by an exceptional driver, in the most ideal traction environment, with a 1 foot roll-out and total mechanical abuse....and that might have taken 10 tries to accomplish...

Sure, you can say the Germans are conservative.

[absoluteis350]

Joe, I agree with you, your points are obvious. However, it is assumed by most that the 0-60 times are the maximum achievable, when we know that its a conservative figure published by the company. So it -is- a joke if you think that the published or official car manufacturer times are representative of peak times, which is what people are taking them to be. People are comparing two different figures. They are taking an m4 time quoted by a company rep, and comparing that to a 'best of' time pulled by a magazine on an e92. The assumption is that the rep is quoting the conservative time, so it will be under that.

[xlover]

For the US i think if the vehicle exceeds 18mpg combine no guzzler tax... case in point the 420 hp 5.0 in the mustang gets 15/26 in manual with no guzzler tax and the 662HP gt500 gets 15/24.. no guzzler tax. i think BMW should be able to meet or beat those numbers with a twin turbo 3.0.

moral of the story is: highly unlikely there will be a guzzler tax on the M3/M4

[CanAutM3]

I am curious on the mathematical formula you used to calculate 0-60mph from a 0-100km/h number

[GregW / Oregon]

Originally Posted by xlover

For the US i think if the vehicle exceeds 18mpg combine no guzzler tax... case in point the 420 hp 5.0 in the mustang gets 15/26 in manual with no guzzler tax and the 662HP gt500 gets 15/24.. no guzzler tax. i think BMW should be able to meet or beat those numbers with a twin turbo 3.0.

moral of the story is: highly unlikely there will be a guzzler tax on the M3/M4

You are a bit off. Takes 20.5 mpg (55% City/45% Highway) to avoid the tax.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by ersin

Here's one from Car and Driver: http://media.caranddriver.com/ez/ori...af8a28559a.pdf

Some other rag did the same 3.9 sec for a DCT M3 too. I just can't find it right now.


Cheers.

Just curious, do those times include a 1-foot rollout? and would it really be better than using launch control?

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by Sapper_M3

I don't think anyone is disputing that; his point seemed to be that the F8X M3/4 will definitely be sub-4 seconds from 0-60, given that reviewers have timed the E9X M3 at sub-4 seconds

4 seconds flat is what a Corvette Stingray runs 0-60. No chance, no way that a M3 is going to be as fast as that car. I don't give a hoot what some car magazine got with a previous generation M3.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by basscadet

4 seconds flat is what a Corvette Stingray runs 0-60. No chance, no way that a M3 is going to be as fast as that car. I don't give a hoot what some car magazine got with a previous generation M3.

I also believe it will have a hard time beating a car like that, but on the other hand the power to weight ratio of the Stingray and the M3/M4 is nearly identical (in favour of the Stingray).

The Stingray has 460hp and weighs 1565kg
The M3/M4 has 430hp and weighs under 1500kg (in base version)

The Stingray has more torque though (630Nm vs 560Nm).

[Sapper_M3]

Originally Posted by basscadet

4 seconds flat is what a Corvette Stingray runs 0-60. No chance, no way that a M3 is going to be as fast as that car. I don't give a hoot what some car magazine got with a previous generation M3.

Let me get this straight: You're having difficulty understanding how a 3450 lb RWD car with 460 hp and 285 section rear tires could be matched by a 3300 lb RWD car with 430 hp and 275 section rear tires?

The new corvette has a slight power advantage, but from 0-60 the M4's weight (depending on whether they deliver on the still reported "sub-3307 lb" figure) makes up for this to an extent (although over 1/4 mile, it will not).

More importantly, these cars each put enough torque to the ground to be traction limited here--making that 30 hp bump even less relevant from a dig.

I don't believe the new M4 will be faster from 0-60 than the new corvette (although when comparing the M4 DCT to rhe corvette's MT, it may be interesting), but it certainly isn't "unbelievable" to think the numbers will be close.

In fact, based on the specs we know, it would be fairly unbelievable if the new M4 ISN'T close to the corvette in 0-60 acceleration--and remember, the new 'vette is posting better than 4.0 seconds with some reviewers.

[jbockrd]

Originally Posted by ixse

26mpg wow..i get 28mpg combined in 328 right now.. thats impressive

The 328 that I owned w/ xdrive was a tank and I barely got 26

[solstice]

I bet the M4's M differential, DCT and Launch control working together will easily make up for the power to weight deficiency to the Vette making it a close race.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by solstice

I bet the M4's M differential, DCT and Launch control working together will easily make up for the power to weight deficiency to the Vette making it a close race.

The vette also has a good launch control ssytem but I agree, should be close

Typically turbo motors are quicker than their specs suggest.

I'm very anxiously awaiting the full unveiling of the car. Too much hearsay and rumors around. I want to see the real deal

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I also believe it will have a hard time beating a car like that, but on the other hand the power to weight ratio of the Stingray and the M3/M4 is nearly identical (in favour of the Stingray).

The Stingray has 460hp and weighs 1565kg
The M3/M4 has 430hp and weighs under 1500kg (in base version)

The Stingray has more torque though (630Nm vs 560Nm).

I have strong doubts of a an F80 M4 weighing less than a C7 Corvette.

[basscadet]

Originally Posted by Sapper_M3

Let me get this straight: You're having difficulty understanding how a 3450 lb RWD car with 460 hp and 285 section rear tires could be matched by a 3300 lb RWD car with 430 hp and 275 section rear tires?

No, I am having difficulty believing that the M3/M4 will be anywhere close to 3300lbs. I would wager a large sum of money that it will weigh no less than 3550lbs as commonly optioned in the US market.

If you have ever seen a C7 up close you will realize it is a much smaller car than a BMW 3 series car. It's not Lotus-small but almost.

[solstice]

Originally Posted by basscadet

No, I am having difficulty believing that the M3/M4 will be anywhere close to 3300lbs. I would wager a large sum of money that it will weigh no less than 3550lbs as commonly optioned in the US market.

If you have ever seen a C7 up close you will realize it is a much smaller car than a BMW 3 series car. It's not Lotus-small but almost.

Remember, 1500kg for the M4 is EU Kerb weight without a driver. It will as you say very likely be +3500 lbs US Curb weight including driver. I think the Vette has a sub 3300 lbs US Curb weight.

[swanson]

Originally Posted by basscadet

I have strong doubts of a an F80 M4 weighing less than a C7 Corvette.

BMW quotes dry weight, meaning no fluids. I bet the M3/M4 weighs more like 34XXlbs

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by swanson

BMW quotes dry weight, meaning no fluids. I bet the M3/M4 weighs more like 34XXlbs

I'll also jump on the bandwagon here

Personally I'll be thrilled of it weighs 3450 or less with all fluids as weighed by us car magazines.

The e9x usually weighed between 3550-3650

[ersin]

Originally Posted by Powaup

Just curious, do those times include a 1-foot rollout? and would it really be better than using launch control?

All American mags use the 1-foot rollout, unless they state they don't (which they sometimes do). When the Europeans talk about 0 - 60 they probably are not using a 1-foot rollout. But you'll have to read carefully to find out and sometimes cannot find out for sure.

Launch control should make the times better. However, some drivers are good enough to be able to best this, but likely not routinely. A DCT transmission also gets to 60 faster just because it can shift faster than most humans. LC + faster shifting - weight penalty = faster 0 - 60.


Cheers.

[xlover]

Originally Posted by GregW / Oregon

You are a bit off. Takes 20.5 mpg (55% City/45% Highway) to avoid the tax.

Interesting.... In that case both of the aforementioned vehicles would be subject to the tax, but are not. I wonder if there is a different calculation for the tax.

[ersin]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The Stingray has more torque though (630Nm vs 560Nm).

Engine torque means nothing for performance. The number that completely trumps peak engine torque is hp to weight ratio. If you want to bring torque into the equation it has to be wheel torque where you take into consideration gearing.

Also note that the single engine torque figure is the peak torque number only at the engine speed (rpm) that gives this figure. At all other rpms the torque is lower depending on the torque curve. For performance you want the engine torque to keep this peak for as wide a range as possible, that is the torque times the range of rpm that it works over, or as they put it, the area under the torque curve. All torque curves are different for different engines and you would need calculus or a computer to figure out the real engine potential. And this can be done if you get the torque figures for the whole rpm range. However, as it turns out, the maximum horsepower IS the area under the torque curve. And this is why horsepower is the more meaningful number.

So, let me repeat this: a single, maximum torque number for an engine in a specific car alone is meaningless as an indication of performance. Horsepower has more meaning in this context and horsepower per weight happens to be one of the best single number indicators of acceleration and speed.


Cheers.