S55 vs. S65

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Yes, that's probably correct. 1 sec is the gap. And 1 second @ 150 MPH is roughly a gap of 66 metres, so it visually is a HUGE gap.

BTW I also respect your input on these forums

You seriously need to stay away from the math and physics arguments here. You keep saying 66m "gap" as though one car traveling is 150mph and the other car is static for a single second which creates this 66m gap. That is just plain incorrect. Some famous physicist, I can't remember his name right now, once said, "it's all relative!" You absolutely have nothing to support your claim of 1sec difference 0-150 between the E46/E92. It's simply delusional to think that it's only 1sec 150mph.

Originally Posted by Boss330

Car & Driver has a significantly quicker 0-150MPH E46 M3 time posted here:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take-road-test

With the "auto" option the 0-150MPH is done in 27,8s, just 3,2 seconds slower than the E9x M3...

One more data sheet for the E46 M3 from C&D:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2001-bmw-m3.pdf

Compare the 0-100MPH time with the E9x (also from C&D) here:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...tory-final.pdf

E46 M3: 0-100MPH 11,2 sec, 1/4-mile: 13,1 sec
E9x M3: 0-100MPH 10,4 sec, 1/4-mile: 12,9 sec

So it seems your article compares C&D's best E90 time with their worst E46 time...

In reality there is (according to C&D test data):

Only 0,2 sec in the 1/4-mile
Only 0,8 sec in the 0-100MPH time
Only 1,7s to 3,2s gap in the 0-150MPH time


Will be interesting to see how much the F8x is able to improve on the E9x times Let's wait and see if the "decimation" will be on the same level as between E46 and E9x, or perhaps even more noticeable than between those two generations
.....

First I'll address the auto vs. manual test you reference. I think you might have misread that. The "auto" is slower than the 6mt. This particular test has been heavily debated, because both the SMG and 6mt cars make it to 130mph within 0.7 seconds of each other but the gap from 130-150 increase to 4.7sec in favor of the 6mt? Just doesn't add up.

Second, not sure why you are bringing in 0-60 and 0-100 data to make your argument to me. There are many cars that are fast to 60, some to 100, but stretch it out to 150 and it really starts to separate cars from the rest of the pack. My whole premise and original point/post was every generation the performance gain gap got bigger from the previous generation, with the M4 we will definitely see substantial gains but nothing like what we saw with the E46-E92.

[Never Convicted]

Dillisional? Miss read? Premace?

ok...let the debate continue.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

You seriously need to stay away from the math and physics arguments here. You keep saying 66m "gap" as though one car traveling is 150mph and the other car is static for a single second which creates this 66m gap. That is just plain incorrect. Some famous physicist, I can't remember his name right now, once said, "it's all relative!" You absolutely have nothing to support your claim of 1sec difference 0-150 between the E46/E92. It's simply dillisional to think that it's only 1sec 150mph.

Second, not sure why you are bringing in 0-60 and 0-100 data to make your argument to me. There are many cars that are fast to 60, some to 100, but stretch it out to 150 and it really starts to separate cars from the rest of the pack. My whole premace and original point/post was every generation the performance gain gap got bigger from the previous generation, with the M4 we will definitely see substantial gains but nothing like what we saw with the E46-E92.

Boss' physics are correct. The 1 sec time gap in the 0-1000m does translate to an approximate distance gap of 66m for cars traveling around 150mph.

Assume 2 cars both travelling at 150mph with one of them 1 sec behind the other one. You are standing still on the side of the road at the 1000m marker. The first car passes in front of you. You wait 1 second and the second car passes in front of you. At that moment, since you are standing still, the first car has traveled 67m in that 1 second time and is now 67m away from you. Hence the 67m gap between the two car. This remains approximate because after the standing km, the first car is still accelerating and is not travelling at the exact 150mph speed. But 66m is a fairly decent approximation.

You cannot compare time to speed and time to distance. A 1 sec difference in the 0-1000m has no direct correlation to the 0-150mph time. For example, if a car is faster by 8 seconds to 150mph, in no way does not imply that it is 536m (8sec x 67m/s) ahead of the other one.

0-60mph and 0-100mph are important because the faster a car accelerates in the earlier portion of the run, the less time it will need to travel the entire distance, even if both cars have the same trap speed at the end. A car could even be slower to 150mph but still be faster to 1000m. It is the same logic as with the tradeoffs between ET and trap speed for 1/4 mile runs.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Boss' physics are correct. The 1 sec time gap in the 0-1000m does translate to an approximate distance gap of 66m for cars traveling around 150mph.

Assume 2 cars both travelling at 150mph with one of them 1 sec behind the other one. You are standing still on the side of the road. The first car passes in front of you. You wait 1 second and the second car passes in front of you. At that moment, since you are standing still, the first car has traveled 67m in that 1 second time and is now 67m away from you. Hence the 67m gap between the two car. This remains approximate because after the standing km, the first car is still accelerating and is not travelling at the exact 150mph speed. But 66m is a fairly decent approximation.

You are asking me to assume both cars are traveling 150mph at the same time, which will certainly not be the case in a 0-150 situation. I NEVER mention the 0-1000m so I don't know why you and Boos keep bringing it up. You talk about velocity and distance as though they are interchangeable.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

You cannot compare time to speed and time to distance. A 1 sec difference in the 0-1000m has no direct correlation to the 1-150mph time. For example, if a car is faster by 8 seconds to 150mph, in no way does not imply that it is 536m (8sec x 67m/s) ahead of the other one.

I am not. You might be confusing my posts with someone else.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

0-60mph and 0-100mph are important because the faster a car accelerates in the earlier portion of the run, the less time it will need to travel the entire distance, even of both cars have the same trap speed at the end. A car could even be slower to 150mph but still be faster to 1000m. It is the same logic as with the tradeoffs between ET and trap speed for 1/4 miles runs.

That's why I am sticking to 0-150 for arguments sake.

Originally Posted by Never Convicted

Dillisional? Miss read? Premace?

ok...let the debate continue.

I fixed it just for you. It's called typing on my phone and autocorrect. You add so much to this thread with your spelling police post.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

You seriously need to stay away from the math and physics arguments here. You keep saying 66m "gap" as though one car traveling is 150mph and the other car is static for a single second which creates this 66m gap. That is just plain incorrect. Some famous physicist, I can't remember his name right now, once said, "it's all relative!" You absolutely have nothing to support your claim of 1sec difference 0-150 between the E46/E92. It's simply dillisional to think that it's only 1sec 150mph.

"Thanks" for the physics lesson

The 1 sec difference is for the 0-1000m distance that we where discussing, not the 0-150 MPH run you talked about

As CanAutM3 explained a 1 sec gap between two cars travelling at 150 MPH is roughly 66 metres. Because at 150 MPH you are travelling at 66 m/s, so every second you cover a distance of 66 metres. So a car trailing another with a 1 sec gap is 66 metres behind the first. It's "only" 1 sec but it's a huge distance and visually would appear to be much more ( humans have difficulty judging speed and distance). Going at 50 MPH a 1 sec gap would only be 22 metres.

Any more physics and math I should stay away from

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by Boss330

"Thanks" for the physics lesson

The 1 sec difference is for the 0-1000m distance that we where discussing, not the 0-150 MPH run you talked about

As CanAutM3 explained a 1 sec gap between two cars travelling at 150 MPH is roughly 66 metres. Because at 150 MPH you are travelling at 66 m/s, so every second you cover a distance of 66 metres. So a car trailing another with a 1 sec gap is 66 metres behind the first. It's "only" 1 sec but it's a huge distance and visually would appear to be much more ( humans have difficulty judging speed and distance). Going at 50 MPH a 1 sec gap would only be 22 metres.

Any more physics and math I should stay away from

You seem confused and all over the map. You've keep referring to the 150mph not the 0-1000m when discussing the 1sec "gap". You even claimed only 0.1sec differential with the 0-1000m.

Originally Posted by Boss330

.....
Performance:
Performance:
M3 E46
0-1000 m: (24,5 sec with MT 6)

M3 E92
0-1000 m: (24,4 sec with MT 6)

Originally Posted by Boss330

....And as I said yesterday as well, a 1 sec gap at 150 MPH is a distance of roughly 66 metres. So visually a HUGE gap. My point has been that the decimation between E46-E9x-F8x might be on a fairly equal level, where some seem to make a point of the E46 being much more decimated by the E9x than what the F8x will manage.......

You are making claims that this "decimation" will be equal between the E46-E92-F82 but the facts don't agree with you. You made this reply(below) directly to a 0-150mph post Swamp made where no 0-1000m was even mentioned. It clearly shows you don't understand what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by Boss330

BTW how long is a car length?

And remember that going 150 MPH you are travelling at roughly 66 m/s. So a 1 sec distance at 150 MPH is 66 meters!

[solstice]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

It sounds like some people want the F8X to fail just for the sake of it.

I see just as much if not more malicious comments aimed at people with late model E9X M3s about how their cars value will collapse, how weak the engine is and how it sounds like an american muscle car and will be decimated by the new car. And insinuation that any negative comment E9X owners make about the new car is to try to justify their purchase.

The difference here is that the E9X M3 is a known quantity. It is a car that has been the darling of the auto world until it stopped production. It's a fantastic car, period. No one owns the new car so no one is a target when it's critisized. The new car is also unknown in all subjective measures and many objective measures and taken the direction of other new BMWs including the M5 there are valid cause for concern. Not sure where the fierce defense of it comes from.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by solstice

I see just as much if not more malicious comments aimed at people with late model E9X M3s about how their cars value will collapse, how weak the engine is and how it sounds like an american muscle car and will be decimated by the new car. And insinuation that any negative comment E9X owners make about the new car is to try to justify their purchase.

The difference here is that the E9X M3 is a known quantity. It is a car that has been the darling of the auto world until it stopped production. It's a fantastic car, period. No one owns the new car so no one is a target when it's critisized. The new car is also unknown in all subjective measures and many objective measures and taken the direction of other new BMWs including the M5 there are valid cause for concern. Not sure where the fierce defense of it comes from.

Well I think we have a few different camps here....

• Those with no allegiance to one or the other
• Those whose allegiance is to the E9X
• Those who discount the new car because it isn't N/A
• Those who discount the old car because it is N/A
• ..etc.

I think that the overall point that most are trying to drive home is one of the points you mentioned: the new car is an unknown. The conjecture starts to become annoying.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

I NEVER mention the 0-1000m so I don't know why you and Boos keep bringing it up.

Actually you have, by responding in this post

In the post you replied to, we settled that a 1sec difference between the E46 and the E92 on the 0-1000m is probably a good ballpark figure. And that 1 sec is significant because it equates to "about" 66m.

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

You are asking me to assume both cars are traveling 150mph at the same time, which will certainly not be the case in a 0-150 situation.

I marely assumed both cars traveling at 150mph for the clarity of the explanation. The speed of the second car does not matter in establishing the distance that sperates them when the second one passes the 1000m mark (this even if the second car is traveling faster than 150mph). Further, as I mentioned in my previous post, since the first car is still accelerating, the distance will likely be more than 67m.

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

You talk about velocity and distance as though they are interchangeable.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that this is exactly the point I am making. So we are in agreement here.

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

That's why I am sticking to 0-150 for arguments sake.

IMO, it is the sum of multiple metrics that gives a good appreciation of a vehicle's overall performance. 0-60mph, 0-100mph, 0-150mph, 0-1320ft, 0-1000m, 30-130mph are all relevant.

However, time to distance is easier to correlate to real life. The car with the fastest time will be ahead of the other, period. This is not necessarily the case with time to speed.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Actually you have, by responding to this this post

In the post you replied to, we settled that a 1sec difference between the E46 and the E92 on the 0-1000m is probably a good ballpark figure. And that 1 sec is significant because it equates to "about" 66m.

Again, I responded to the 0-130 and 0-150mph data and NOT the 0-1000m for a reason.

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I marely assumed both cars traveling at 150mph for the clarity of the explanation. The speed of the second car does not matter in establishing the distance that sperates the two cars when the second one passes the 1000m mark (this even if the second car is traveling faster than 150mph). Further, as I mentioned in my previous post, since the first car is still accelerating, the distance will likely be more than 67m.

But this is where you guys lose me. You are both assuming equal velocity on both cars throughout the run and taking a snapshot at 1000m and that is just incorrect. The E92 M3 has ~19-20 car legnths on the E46 150 mph with a 0-150 run. I don't have any PCA software here at work but maybe Swamp can calculate the distance for the 0-1000m?
I have no doubt the F82 is going to be a beast. I still stand by my original point, that the F car will not see the huge leap in preformance 0-150mph that the E92 did with the E46. Having owned a 1M, I can imagine how the F82 "in gear" performance will be light years over the E92. So it will be less critical for the F car to be in the correct gear. The E92 has been one of the greatest over achievers recently given it's power compared to other cars. The combination of gearing and engine characteristics has enabled it to keep up with cars that have better power to weight ratios.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

You seem confused and all over the map. You've keep referring to the 150mph not the 0-1000m when discussing the 1sec "gap". You even claimed only 0.1sec differential with the 0-1000m.






You are making claims that this "decimation" will be equal between the E46-E92-F82 but the facts don't agree with you. You made this reply(below) directly to a 0-150mph post Swamp made where no 0-1000m was even mentioned. It clearly shows you don't understand what you are talking about.

Let's make this as easy as possible

The 66 metre gap is when going 150 MPH and I used that as an EXAMPLE to illustrate how large a 1 sec gap is at that speed (and the E9x is not that far away from 150 MPH at the 1000m mark). It was for ILLUSTRATION purposes only. Ok?

The 0,1 sec gap was referred to ONCE based on info retrieved from several sources. We have later agreed that a 1 sec gap seems correct on the 0-1000m distance.

Maybe you just misunderstood me?

But do we agree that a 1 sec gap at a steady 150 MPH is 66-67m? Or do you still don't believe that?

BTW, the famous physicist was Einstein.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

-

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

Again, I responded to the 0-130 and 0-150mph data and NOT the 0-1000m for a reason.

But this is where you guys lose me. At 1000m the E46 is traveling about ~100mph and the E92 ~105mph. You are both assuming equal velocity on both cars throughout the run and taking a snapshot at 1000m and that is just incorrect. The E92 M3 has ~19-20 car legnths on the E46 150 mph with a 0-150 run. I don't have any PCA software here at work but maybe Swamp can calculate the distance for the 0-1000m?

We are talking 1000m here, 1km, not a 1000ft...

The cars we are discussing here are travelling in the 140-150mph range at the end of one km.

No, we are not assuming constant velocity throughout the run. To get an approxmation of the distance between two cars at the end of a given distance, only the speed of the faster car is required and the time difference between the two. Re-read my example in the previous post.

BTW, 66m is about 14 car lengths.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

Again, I responded to the 0-130 and 0-150mph data and NOT the 0-1000m for a reason.


But this is where you guys lose me. At 1000m the E46 is traveling about ~100mph and the E92 ~105mph. You are both assuming equal velocity on both cars throughout the run and taking a snapshot at 1000m and that is just incorrect. The E92 M3 has ~19-20 car legnths on the E46 150 mph with a 0-150 run. I don't have any PCA software here at work but maybe Swamp can calculate the distance for the 0-1000m?

I have no doubt the F82 is going to be a beast. I still stand by my original point, that the F car will not see the huge leap in preformance 0-150mph that the E92 did with the E46. Having owned a 1M, I can imagine how the F82 "in gear" performance will be light years over the E92. So it will be less critical for the F car to be in the correct gear. The E92 has been one of the greatest over achievers recently given it's power compared to other cars. The combination of gearing and engine characteristics has enabled it to keep up with cars that have better power to weight ratios.

The 66 m gap is an illustrative example of how large a 1 sec gap is when travelling at 150 MPH. No one has ever said that there would be exactly a 66 m gap at the end of the 0-1000m or 0-150 MPH run! Where did you get that from?

CanAutM3 also took the time to explain this in his previous post to avoid confusion on your part

BTW, a 66 m distance equals about 16 "car lengths" if we use 4 m as one car length. So that shouldnt be too far off

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

We are talking 1000m here, 1km, not a 1000ft...

The cars we are discussing gere are travelling in the 140-150mph range at the end of one km.

Yeah my bad. i corrected/omitted that.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

Yeah my bad. i corrected/omitted that.

But since the cars are travelling at around 140-150 MPH at 1000m the gap should be not that different... And a 66 m gap is around 16 "car lengths" if we use 4m as one car length...

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

But since the cars are travelling at around 140-150 MPH at 1000m the gap should be not that different... And a 66 m gap is around 16 "car lengths" if we use 4m as one car length...

I was anal and used 4.618m

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

BTW, 66m is about 14 car lengths.

[mPlasticDesign]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The 66 m gap is an illustrative example of how large a 1 sec gap is when travelling at 150 MPH. No one has ever said that there would be exactly a 66 m gap at the end of the 0-1000m or 0-150 MPH run! Where did you get that from?

CanAutM3 also took the time to explain this in his previous post to avoid confusion on your part

BTW, a 66 m distance equals about 16 "car lengths" if we use 4 m as one car length. So that shouldnt be too far off

Originally Posted by Boss330

Let's make this as easy as possible

The 66 metre gap is when going 150 MPH and I used that as an EXAMPLE to illustrate how large a 1 sec gap is at that speed (and the E9x is not that far away from 150 MPH at the 1000m mark). It was for ILLUSTRATION purposes only. Ok?

The 0,1 sec gap was referred to ONCE based on info retrieved from several sources. We have later agreed that a 1 sec gap seems correct on the 0-1000m distance.

Maybe you just misunderstood me?

No I don't think I misunderstood you at all. From my very first post that you replied to I was talking 0-150mph. You replied with a string of references from 0-60, 0-100, 1/4mile, Youtube videos and 0-1000m to counter my claim that 0-150 comes ~8sec faster in the E92 than in the E46. At 1000 meters the E46 is probably going ~135mph and the E92 is going ~145mph. Both not 150mph. Saying the E92 is "not that far away" at 1000m and using a velocity conversion to "illustrate" the distance as though both cars are traveling 150 is flawed and meaningless. Fact is seconds and meters are getting chewed as the E46 is pulling from 135-150mph.

Originally Posted by Boss330

.....In reality there is

Only 0,2 sec in the 1/4-mile
Only 0,8 sec in the 0-100MPH time
Only 1,7s to 3,2s gap in the 0-150MPH time

You still stand by this? If so, can you explain how an E46 can go from 135mph at the 1000m point to 150mph in avg time of 1.5sec (0.7sec to 2.2sec)?

Originally Posted by Boss330

But do we agree that a 1 sec gap at a steady 150 MPH is 66-67m? Or do you still don't believe that?

BTW, the famous physicist was Einstein.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity

-

I never disputed your velocity conversion. Yes, 150mph = 67m/sec = 220ft/sec = etc.... At a "steady 150mph" is just not reality. The E46 is going ~135mph so when you keep using this 67m and 1sec gap at 1000m, not sure what you think you are illustrating?

And as far as the Einstein reference, sorry you missed my sarcasm.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Mr.Metak2you

No I don't think I misunderstood you at all. From my very first post that you replied to I was talking 0-150mph. You replied with a string of references from 0-60, 0-100, 1/4mile, Youtube videos and 0-1000m to counter my claim that 0-150 comes ~8sec faster in the E92 than in the E46. At 1000 meters the E46 is probably going ~135mph and the E92 is going ~145mph. Both not 150mph. Saying the E92 is "not that far away" at 1000m and using a velocity conversion to "illustrate" the distance as though both cars are traveling 150 is flawed and meaningless. Fact is seconds and meters are getting chewed as the E46 is pulling from 135-150mph.



You still stand by this? If so, can you explain how an E46 can go from 135mph at the 1000m point to 150mph in avg time of 1.5sec (0.7sec to 2.2sec)?


I never disputed your velocity conversion. Yes, 150mph = 67m/sec = 220ft/sec = etc.... At a "steady 150mph" is just not reality. The E46 is going ~135mph so when you keep using this 67m and 1sec gap at 1000m, not sure what you think you are illustrating?

And as far as the Einstein reference, sorry you missed my sarcasm.

The times I posted for 0-150 MPH was from the same source as yours, C&D... The 0-1000m times show the E46 doing 139 MPH and the E9x doing 143 MPH.

The illustration is to show how large 1 sec is at 150 MPH, not sure how that is so hard to understand????

And isn't it allowed to talk about different acceleration numbers?

Sorry, but it seems you don't WANT to understand. No one else seems to have a problem with understanding the points we are making...

[Killerfish2012]

Originally Posted by Ezio

the C7 is pretty much a updated LS3 engine. GM V8 cars are kind of boring if you ask me. slow revving motors, with a 6200RPM redline. sure the power is there though. if thats all you care about.

Did you just compare your M3 to a C7 vette? Wow!

[Killerfish2012]

Originally Posted by I am Earl

Corvette is an american car.... Do you need more reason?

Huh? Have you actually seen what corvettes can do on a race track?

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Killerfish2012

Did you just compare your M3 to a C7 vette? Wow!

You can't take him (..nor I am Earl) seriously. I realized that after only reading a few of their posts.

[Killerfish2012]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Car & Driver has a significantly quicker 0-150MPH E46 M3 time posted here

FYI, caranddriver together with most magazines, were really really cooking their accelerations times last decade. Especially in the early part of the decade that you are citing. For instance they were all reporting 0-60 times using rollout, without disclosing this.