11-24-2013, 10:46 AM | #67 | |
General
21170
Rep 20,754
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
It was the same when the E46 M3 came out compared to E39 M5. I still have those brochures . I don't see why it could not be the case with this new generation Last edited by CanAutM3; 11-24-2013 at 02:29 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2013, 02:58 PM | #68 | |
Lieutenant General
644
Rep 10,404
Posts |
Quote:
t(100km/h) = t(60mph) * 1.036 This simply assumes that the acceleration from 60 mph to 100 km/h (about 2 mph change in speed) occurs at a constant acceleration and is equal to the average acceleration during the 0-60 mph portion. This is accurate to only about 25% for the M3, it predcts 0.15 s but the actual result is about 0.2 s. The largest error is due to the fact that most of the 0-60 time is in 1st gear but the 60 mph to 100 km/h is in second gear. For cars of this rough power to weight 0.2 - 0.3 is a very good rule of thumb and better than the formula.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2013, 05:39 PM | #69 | |
Brigadier General
1891
Rep 3,027
Posts |
Quote:
The e39 m5 consistently ran faster and trapped higher. Not by much though. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2013, 06:28 PM | #70 | |
General
21170
Rep 20,754
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
I expected 4.1-4.2 0-60mph from the advertised 4.4 0-100km/h. Not 4.3 as the OP posted. This is why I asked what formula he used. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2013, 06:29 PM | #71 |
General
21170
Rep 20,754
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
We are talking 0-100 km/h here. Not ¼ mile trap speed.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-24-2013, 11:48 PM | #72 | |
Lieutenant General
644
Rep 10,404
Posts |
Quote:
But an easy/reliable 4.1-4.2 seconds or a best? IIRC BMW speced the E92 M-DCT at 4.7 s to 100 km/h. In reality it's best time was 3.9 s to 60 mph (thus about 4.1 to 100 km/h). With that simple math transferred to the new model we would predict a best 0-100 km/h of 3.5 s (4.1 - (4.7 - 4.1)). That could be as low as 3.3 s to 60. Now before anyone get's too excited, not that is clearly not the best way to predict this! This really crude extrapolation is probably not very accurate at all and almost for sure under predicts the time. I've predicted (through simulation) a 3.4 - 3.8 s for its 0-60 mph run (here). Either way it's darn clear it will be a sub 4.0 s car to 60 mph (some still actually don't believe this...)
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2013, 08:54 AM | #73 |
Brigadier General
1891
Rep 3,027
Posts |
Swamp - I think your 0-60 time and quarter mile ranges are way too optimistic on the the aggressive end of things.
Vehicles getting 0-60 in 3.4-3.6 seconds are doing it by AWD+launch control, gearing to hit it in 1st gear, and/or a lot more power. I've followed your analyses closely and love a lot of them. However, on the acceleration front, your linked analysis appears to favor using linear increases to acceleration times when it's truly exponentially harder to drop a tenth of a second at these stages. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2013, 01:08 PM | #74 |
Second Lieutenant
115
Rep 220
Posts |
Awesome. I hope they make the launch control as easy as other competitors... sport mode for engine and traction control, mash both pedals, lift brake... *cough* C63, RS5 *cough*...
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2013, 02:16 PM | #76 |
Colonel
107
Rep 1,997
Posts |
Sub 4 second is going to be tough. Even if the power/torque is there traction will be the biggest issue. Maybe if you used drag radials on a perfect surface. Now if it had AWD that magically added no weight...
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2013, 02:22 PM | #77 |
Brigadier General
1891
Rep 3,027
Posts |
Exactly. We are well into the power range where dropping a tenth of a second has less to do with power and more to do with traction.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2013, 02:59 PM | #78 |
Lieutenant
170
Rep 444
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-25-2013, 07:43 PM | #79 | |||
General
21170
Rep 20,754
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
The math I used is quite simple. Most magazine test data suggest a 1 to 1.2 sec time for the 60 to 70mph on a DCT M3 ("similar" power to weight). Doing a linear interpolation yields a 0.22-0.26 sec time from 60 to 62.15mph. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2013, 02:16 AM | #80 |
Banned
222
Rep 7,298
Posts |
Im not liking some of the responses here in terms of an "enthusiast" community. As others have mentioned, and argued against me that bmw indeed reads these forums and delivers to "enthusiasts" in this way. But its sad that these types of "wants" exist in this community that i would expect the "other" 99% of bmw owners out there to care about eg. mpg, city usable torque, comfort, blah blah. Hence this is what we are getting. I need a supercharger and call it a day.
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2013, 06:32 AM | #81 | |
Banned
1136
Rep 4,686
Posts
Drives: L'Orange
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Brooklyn, NYC
|
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2013, 11:34 AM | #82 |
Private First Class
26
Rep 126
Posts |
Thanks for the link. It was interesting to read. I'm excited. There is definitely a lot of technology that went into the M4/M3. It's important to me how all of that translates into the road.
Definitely, this M4 pique my interest. |
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2013, 11:44 AM | #83 | |
Lieutenant
170
Rep 444
Posts |
Quote:
I have asked for more power, more than anything else, and I am being told that I should buy a muscle car if all I care about is straight-line performance. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2013, 12:41 PM | #84 | |
Banned
222
Rep 7,298
Posts |
Quote:
i think the new m3/4 is going to be more muscle car like...c63ish perhaps. since everyone complains about tq, which i still can't understand. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-26-2013, 04:11 PM | #85 | |
Brigadier General
131
Rep 4,147
Posts |
Quote:
Just for comparison... Vette: 3444 lbs / 460 hp = 7.49 lbs/hp M4: 3306 lbs / 430 = 7.69 lbs/hp The best time I've seen recorded for the C7 Vette is 3.7 seconds to 60. The M4 has more weight to horsepower. But also note that, IRL, some are reporting the 1/4 for the vette running 11.4 @ 119 mph, and 11.5 @ 120, which are pretty respectable. Cheers.
__________________
2017 F80 YMB.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-27-2013, 03:27 AM | #86 | |
Lieutenant General
644
Rep 10,404
Posts |
Quote:
Can you expand on the important bold part above? I don't understand that at all. My estimates for all performance results in the new M4 are based on CarTest physics based vehicle performance simulation software. It generally handles vehicle launch, wheel spin and the differences between friction coefficients for spinning vs. non-spinning conditions all quite well. It it a perfect launch algorithm, certainly not but the essence of the physics is captured. Now why have I reported a range of numbers? Again that was from a simple bracketing approach allowing for reasonable estimates of the uncertainties associated with underrating and vehicle weight. The current M3 has already done a 3.9 s 0-60 (with standard US 1 foot roll out). What makes you think that with a significantly improved power to weight ratio, significantly more power at low rpm, very likely a new improved tire and also very likely improved LC software that at least a couple tenths better than that won't occur? Look I am not saying that your average everyday M4 driver will consistently get 3.5 second 0-60 runs. However, I am also virtually guaranteeing we will see one or more magazines run 3.8 s or less. Not entirely directed at you but: 0-60 certainly is not the "end all be all" or the most important metric I care about. However, good results do show a combination of good engineering and design all working together, engine, transmission, differential, software, chassis, tires, etc (and of course driver). Some other metrics indeed are better at "displaying" the true power to weight of the car (and not much else...).
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-27-2013, 07:01 AM | #87 | |
General
21170
Rep 20,754
Posts
Drives: 2021 911 turbo
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Montreal
|
Quote:
Last edited by CanAutM3; 11-27-2013 at 08:00 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
11-27-2013, 08:38 AM | #88 | ||
Captain
48
Rep 611
Posts |
Quote:
As a side note, thinking about the area under torque vs RPM curve is still eating away at me. If we integrate force vs time, do we get work?? Do we need to integrate twice with respect to time in order to find power??? |
||
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|