S55 vs. S65

[CanAutM3]

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



And in this data sheet from C&D the E9x M3 has a 0-150MPH time of 26,1 seconds.... A mere 1,7 seconds quicker than the E46 M3...

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

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

Be serious Boss. I loved my E46 and really enjoyed it in the 7 years of ownership, but my E92 does not even compare in terms of acceleration. It is also obvious on the race track, E46s just cannot keep up on the straights .

Not really fare comparing bad E9X times against the best of E46s...

For instance in R&T the best E46 0-60mph and 0-100mph are 4.6 and 11.6 while for a 6MT E92, they are 4.1 and 9.4. There is a lot of variability in magazine testing...

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Not really fare comparing bad E9X times against the best of E46s...

Which is exactly what Mr.Metak2you did, just the other way around. He took the worst E46 time and compared with the best E9x time (or rather that's what C&D did).

I believe my videos show that the E9x is quicker, but not by a mile and that in the real world it can be quite close...

The F8x DCT does 0-1000m in 21,9 Seconds (MT 6 in 22,2 sec)


Performance:
M3 E46
0-100 km/h: 5,2 sec
0-1000 m: 23,7 sec @ 222km/h - 139 MPH (24,5 sec with MT 6)
Vmax: 250 km/h
N-Ring: 8:13 min

M3 E92
0-100 km/h: 4,6 sec
0-1000 m: 23,3 sec @ 228km/h - 143 MPH (24,4 sec with MT 6)
Vmax: 280 km/h
N-Ring: 8:00 min

M3 CSL
0-100 km/h: 4,9 sec
0-1000 m: 23,5 sec
Vmax: 280 km/h
N-Ring: 7:50 min

M3 GTS
0-100 km/h: 4,4 sec
0-1000 m: 22,5 sec
Vmax: 305 km/h
N-Ring: 7:40 min

M4 F82 DCT
0-100 km/h: 4,1 sec
0-1000 m: 21,9 sec (22,2 sec with MT 6)
Vmax: 250 km/h
N-Ring: ??? min

E92 was 0,4-0,9 sec quicker than the E46 from 0-1000m
E92 was 0,2sec quicker than the E46 CSL from 0-1000m
F82 is 1,4-2,2 sec quicker than the E92 from 0-1000m

So, to me it seems the F8x will actually deliver a larger difference from it's predecessor than what the E9x did over the E46...

The E46 CSL is 10 sec quicker than the E92 around the N'ring btw...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=415833

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/360...0-m-times.html

http://www.rsiauto.com/bmw/2000-m3-(e46)-253.php

http://www.rsiauto.com/bmw/2008-m3-sedan-(e90)-974.php

http://forum.roadfly.com/threads/228...M3-GENEVA-2000

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Which is exactly what Mr.Metak2you did, just the other way around. He took the worst E46 time and compared with the best E9x time (or rather that's what C&D did).

I believe my videos show that the E9x is quicker, but not by a mile and that in the real world it can be quite close...

The F8x DCT does 0-1000m in 21,9 Seconds (MT 6 in 22,2 sec)


Performance:
M3 E46
0-100 km/h: 5,2 sec
0-1000 m: 23,7 sec @ 222km/h - 139 MPH (24,5 sec with MT 6)
Vmax: 250 km/h
N-Ring: 8:13 min

M3 E92
0-100 km/h: 4,6 sec
0-1000 m: 23,3 sec @ 228km/h - 143 MPH (24,4 sec with MT 6)
Vmax: 280 km/h
N-Ring: 8:00 min

M3 CSL
0-100 km/h: 4,9 sec
0-1000 m: 23,5 sec
Vmax: 280 km/h
N-Ring: 7:50 min

M3 GTS
0-100 km/h: 4,4 sec
0-1000 m: 22,5 sec
Vmax: 305 km/h
N-Ring: 7:40 min

M4 F82 DCT
0-100 km/h: 4,1 sec
0-1000 m: 21,9 sec
Vmax: 250 km/h
N-Ring: ??? min

E92 was 0,4-0,9 sec quicker than the E46 from 0-1000m
E92 was 0,2sec quicker than the E46 CSL from 0-1000m
F82 is 1,4 sec quicker than the E92 from 0-1000m

So, to me it seems the F8x will actually deliver a larger difference from it's predecessor than what the E9x did over the E46...

The E46 CSL is 10 sec quicker than the E92 around the N'ring btw...

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=415833

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/360...0-m-times.html

http://www.rsiauto.com/bmw/2000-m3-(e46)-253.php

http://www.rsiauto.com/bmw/2008-m3-sedan-(e90)-974.php

http://forum.roadfly.com/threads/228...M3-GENEVA-2000

A 6MT E92 is only 0.1 quicker than a 6MT E46 on the standing km ?

If this is what you want to believe, I will not even try to argue with you .

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I believe my videos show that the E9x is quicker, but not by a mile and that in the real world it can be quite close...

I find your line of reasoning very puzzling here. If you want to talk about CARS no they just are not close. If you want to include the effects of drivers of completely unknown skills, as well as unknown mods, you can find videos showing about anything you want from a full spectrum of results. You can find a Civic besting a Ferrari I bet on youtube.... Although not perfect and unable to match a wide spectrum of results with just a single result, simulation provides the most apples to apples comparison possible. 20 car lengths to 150 mph, as well as any other metric chosen from the simulations shows a serious beat down by the E92 M3, completely consistent with known power to weight ratios.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I find your line of reasoning very puzzling here. If you want to talk about CARS no they just are not close. If you want to include the effects of drivers of completely unknown skills, as well as unknown mods, you can find videos showing about anything you want from a full spectrum of results. You can find a Civic besting a Ferrari I bet on youtube.... Although not perfect and unable to match a wide spectrum of results with just a single result, simulation provides the most apples to apples comparison possible. 20 car lengths to 150 mph, as well as any other metric chosen from the simulations shows a serious beat down by the E92 M3, completely consistent with known power to weight ratios.

The E46 24,5 sec 0-1000m MT 6 time was from the Geneva BMW press info. How much faster is the E9x with MT 6 according to official spec?

And how many races are won on the PC with software simulation? Do you really tell people after a close race that "on my simulation programme my car beat yours by a much larger margin". I agree that races have variables such as driver etc. But just a quick search on YouTube came up with the videos I posted. Strange that in every video the driver "problems" was in the E9x cars???

Yes, the E9x is faster, we all agree on that. But by how much?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

A 6MT E92 is only 0.1 quicker than a 6MT E46 on the standing km ?

If this is what you want to believe, I will not even try to argue with you .

The E46 24,5 sec 0-1000m MT 6 time was from the Geneva BMW press info. How much faster is the E9x with MT 6 according to official spec?

Please let's keep this on a fact based level and no personal insults. I have posted times available from reliable sources, please post substantiated numbers not just your personal opinion on my beliefs

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

A 6MT E92 is only 0.1 quicker than a 6MT E46 on the standing km ?

If this is what you want to believe, I will not even try to argue with you .

Originally Posted by swamp2

I find your line of reasoning very puzzling here. If you want to talk about CARS no they just are not close. If you want to include the effects of drivers of completely unknown skills, as well as unknown mods, you can find videos showing about anything you want from a full spectrum of results. You can find a Civic besting a Ferrari I bet on youtube.... Although not perfect and unable to match a wide spectrum of results with just a single result, simulation provides the most apples to apples comparison possible. 20 car lengths to 150 mph, as well as any other metric chosen from the simulations shows a serious beat down by the E92 M3, completely consistent with known power to weight ratios.

Here is the official press release for the E46 M3 CSL, stating a 0-1000m time of 23,5 sec (page 19):

http://m3forum.com/pressrelease/2003/csl.pdf

In this Autocar review the std E46 M3 is listed as having a 24,2 sec 0-1000m time:

http://www.bmw-driver.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8754

Please show me that the E9x is substantially quicker than what I have posted previously and that the difference between the E9x vs E46 was substantially larger than the difference between F8x vs E9x is.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The E46 24,5 sec 0-1000m MT 6 time was from the Geneva BMW press info. How much faster is the E9x with MT 6 according to official spec?

And how many races are won on the PC with software simulation? Do you really tell people after a close race that "on my simulation programme my car beat yours by a much larger margin". I agree that races have variables such as driver etc. But just a quick search on YouTube came up with the videos I posted. Strange that in every video the driver "problems" was in the E9x cars???

Yes, the E9x is faster, we all agree on that. But by how much?

I was never talking about the CSL...

Again, one can find nearly any results they like. How many GT-R besting the Veyron videos can you find? What do those mean (answers should be painfully obvious)? Also would it make sense that many E92 vs. E46 M3 videos are posted by big E46 fans who either didn't like or couldn't afford the updated E92 model? Perhaps they just want to brag about besting an obviously faster car. How many E92 owners would like to brag on youtube about taking down a mean nasty (stock!) E46 M3? Is the only way one should believe that car X is faster than car Y be by the presence of youtube or magazine results demonstrating it? I think you know darn well that is nonsense. Physics either works and is predictive or it isn't...

It is easy to minimize and poke fun at simulations, but don't forget their key intrinsic strength. They provide perfectly controlled experiments under absolutely identical conditions and remove an absolute plethora of uncontrolled, random and systematic variables from a performance comparison. Furthermore they do absolutely compare (when care is taken) with a wide variety of the top results from various journalists testing. Like it or not, in many ways simulation is a more true measure of the actual CARS than the "real world" is. I know that statement will likely draw immense skepticism, perhap even ridicule, but for those that understand basic statistics and anything about cars will realize it is in fact true.

And again, simulation shows us the margin between the new and current model is definitely narrowing compared to that between the current and prior model. I can't wait until the videos start showing up "proving" that an E92 M3 is as fast or faster than an F82 M4...

It's time to step back and not miss the forest for the trees here.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I was never talking about the CSL...

Again, one can find nearly any results they like. How many GT-R besting the Veyron videos can you find? What do those mean (answers should be painfully obvious)? Also would it make sense that many E92 vs. E46 M3 videos are posted by big E46 fans who either didn't like or couldn't afford the updated E92 model? Perhaps they just want to brag about besting an obviously faster car. How many E92 owners would like to brag on youtube about taking down a mean nasty (stock!) E46 M3? Is the only way one should believe that car X is faster than car Y be by the presence of youtube or magazine results demonstrating it? I think you know darn well that is nonsense. Physics either works and is predictive or it isn't...

It is easy to minimize and poke fun at simulations, but don't forget their key intrinsic strength. They provide perfectly controlled experiments under absolutely identical conditions and remove an absolute plethora of uncontrolled, random and systematic variables from a performance comparison. Furthermore they do absolutely compare (when care is taken) with a wide variety of the top results from various journalists testing. Like it or not, in many ways simulation is a more true measure of the actual CARS than the "real world" is. I know that statement will likely draw immense skepticism, perhap even ridicule, but for those that understand basic statistics and anything about cars will realize it is in fact true.

And again, simulation shows us the margin between the new and current model is definitely narrowing compared to that between the current and prior model. I can't wait until the videos start showing up "proving" that an E92 M3 is as fast or faster than an F82 M4...

It's time to step back and not miss the forest for the trees here.

I get that you defend the E9x no matter what official specs from BMW says... See my edited post above with the 24,2 sec time for the std E46 M3, which makes sense compared with the 23,5 sec CSL time.

Are you saying that BMW isn't telling the truth, and that we should rather believe some simulations done by a E9x owner???
I follow F1 and there have been multiple times where the teams simulations on performance doesn't match up with real world data... Those teams include Ferrari and McLaren. If their simulations aren't allways spot on, then I choose to have some reservations on amateur simulations as well

Not sure I follow you on the "videos posted by E46 owners who couldn't afford the E9x" comment. Surely that was a low blow and shows insecurity and immaturity on your part

GTBoard isn't a "poor E46 owner" and where is the evidence that the videos I posted was made by the group you mention? Comments like that just show how biased you are, rationalizing every evidence not falling in line with your own view... It's really hard to take comments like that seriously.

Please show me BMW, or verified, numbers that shows the E9x is indeed faster than the F8x from 0-1000m.

I'm also looking forward to videos of races between the E9x and F8x

[Jockey]

I think he's saying that the gap between the F8X/E9X will be smaller than that of the E9X/E46. Looking at the numbers here and in other posts, it seems we're measuring by hairs here. The F8X is definitely going to be faster though no matter how you shape the argument.

Where the F8X is really going to shine even more is on the track. Looking forward to some Ring times.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Jockey

I think he's saying that the gap between the F8X/E9X will be smaller than that of the E9X/E46. Looking at the numbers here and in other posts, it seems we're measuring by hairs here. The F8X is definitely going to be faster though no matter how you shape the argument.

Where the F8X is really going to shine even more is on the track. Looking forward to some Ring times.

Yes, I know that's what's he's saying. And I agree, it's "measuring hairs". But he also implies that the E46 isn't as fast as the videos show, or BMW numbers indicate, because simulations show that it isn't...

But my point is that the E46 has a 23,5 sec (CSL) and 24,2 sec (std M3) time from 0-1000m. The E9x has a best 0-1000m time of 23,3 sec.

That means a 0,9 sec improvement over the E46.

The F8x has a 21,9 sec (22,2 sec MT6) 0-1000m time. Which means a 1,1-1,4 sec improvement over the E9x.

Yes, it's measuring hairs. But so far it seems the difference between the F8x and E9x will be larger than it was between the E9x and E46 on that distance... But so far it doesn't seem that the E46 BMW times are to be believed...

[solstice]

0-60 times is where the F8X should bury the E9X and it's also where the E46 can run closer to the E9X but at high speeds where power to wind resistance rules instead of power to weight the E9X creams the E46 and here the difference between the E9X and the F8X should be rather marginal due to similar peak power and wind resistance.

I do suspect though that in hands of professionals the F8X will cream the E9X as much as the E9X cream the E46 around the ring with ~20s difference.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by solstice

0-60 times is where the F8X should bury the E9X and it's also where the E46 can run closer to the E9X but at high speeds where power to wind resistance rules instead of power to weight the E9X creams the E46 and here the difference between the E9X and the F8X should be rather marginal due to similar peak power and wind resistance.

I do suspect though that in hands of professionals the F8X will cream the E9X as much as the E9X cream the E46 around the ring with ~20s difference.

Agreed, and this is reflected at the 0-1000m distance where the speed is 222km/h and 228km/h respectively (139 MPH vs 143 MPH). Where the E46 still has 11 MPH to Reach 150 MPH, the E9x only has 7 MPH. And the E9x should be a b it quicker getting there, whereas the E46 struggles more and more as the speed rises.

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by Boss330

Agreed, and this is reflected at the 0-1000m distance where the speed is 222km/h and 228km/h respectively (139 MPH vs 143 MPH). Where the E46 still has 11 MPH to Reach 150 MPH, the E9x only has 7 MPH. And the E9x should be a b it quicker getting there, whereas the E46 struggles more and more as the speed rises.

Agreed.

Wait, are we all in agreement?

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by Jockey

Agreed.

Wait, are we all in agreement?

I think swamp2 and CanAutM3 don't believe the 0-1000m times of the E46 being as close to the E9x times...

I think that the 0-1000m times stated by BMW for the E46 backs up what my videos show. The E9x is faster, but not by a mile

In fact it seems like the distance in the GTBoard video represents allmost exactly the 1sec distance between the two cars. The other videos also show a fairly similar distance as indicated by official BMW numbers (but apparently not by simulation).

[Jockey]

Well, that's because it's all part of larger conspiracy by BMW.


Did you know BMW bases some of their technology from the UFO crash at Roswell? True story.

[Boss330]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The E92 M3 pretty clearly decimates the E46 M3. I don't trust any results showing otherwise for any contest as "apples to apples". Have a look at these CarTest sims. As you can see most results are right on the money with known/accepted best times (or within a couple of tenths or mph here or there). 0-150 has the E92 ahead by 20 car lengths (not shown below but calculated by CarTest) and nearly 8 seconds. And no the margin between the F82 and E92 will certainly not be as large as the margin between the E46 and E92. It just takes "exponentially" more power to squeak out the same sized performance gains. Thus the M4 will still in my proper view of the word decimate the E92 M3, but certainly by less than that between the prior generation.

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!

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

The E46 24,5 sec 0-1000m MT 6 time was from the Geneva BMW press info. How much faster is the E9x with MT 6 according to official spec?

Please let's keep this on a fact based level and no personal insults. I have posted times available from reliable sources, please post substantiated numbers not just your personal opinion on my beliefs

Sorry, I did not intend any insult. I do respect you a lot; you bring good insight to this forum .

It is just that this thread has derailed a bit trying to compare the E46 to the E92 when the starting point was to compare the S55 and the S65. By trying to prove a point, it was hinted that the E92 barely improved on the performance of the E46. Which is simply not the case. I could dig out plenty of track videos where I pass E46 like they are standing still. Further, I did post R&T best numbers for 6MT E46 and E92. But this is beside the point.

I see what you are trying to demonstrate though. It is the relative improvement in performance of the F8X over the E9X. The thing is, from the advertised power to weight, the F8X does not have that much going for it: +10hp and 132lb less for DCT cars (best performing option). Looking at it from this perspective only, one could conclude that the F8X does not provide an as great leap forward.

IMO, there are important counterpoints though. As I and others have stated many times in other threads, the F8X advantage resides in the fact that it is most likely underated by 30+ hp. Another important advantage is the broad power plateau, where the F8X will be putting down much more average power during an acceleration run compared to the E9X. Looking at BMW advertised acceleartion numbers, it is clear that they do expect a significant leap forward. Hopefully it isn't only marketing hype and the performance will be there.

I can't wait to see independent test results. I am personnaly convinced the F8X will be quite the performer .

For me, the most important uncertainty regarding the S55 is the throttle response. Since I do track my cars a fair bit, this has been one of my favorite characteristic of ///M engines. Hopefully, all the anti-lag tech will be working its magic. I can't wait to test drive one .

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Boss330

I think swamp2 and CanAutM3 don't believe the 0-1000m times of the E46 being as close to the E9x times...

I think that the 0-1000m times stated by BMW for the E46 backs up what my videos show. The E9x is faster, but not by a mile

In fact it seems like the distance in the GTBoard video represents allmost exactly the 1sec distance between the two cars. The other videos also show a fairly similar distance as indicated by official BMW numbers (but apparently not by simulation).

If we are talking 1.0sec, we are in agreement .

The 0.1sec quoted in the this post got me worked up

Originally Posted by Boss330

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

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

[Ezio]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

IMO, there are important counterpoints though. As I and others have stated many times in other threads, the F8X advantage resides in the fact that it is most likely underated by 30+ hp. Another important advantage is the broad power plateau, where the F8X will be putting down much more average power during an acceleration run compared to the E9X. Looking at BMW advertised acceleartion numbers, it is clear that they do expect a significant leap forward. Hopefully it isn't only marketing hype and the performance will be there.

I can't wait to see independent test results. I am personnaly convinced the F8X will be quite the performer .

For me, the most important uncertainty regarding the S55 is the throttle response. Since I do track my cars a fair bit, this has been one of my favorite characteristic of ///M engines. Hopefully, all the anti-lag tech will be working its magic. I can't wait to test drive one .

everything M is doing to me seems better for daily driving over the track. making a better MPG engine with more low end power.

if you track your car often i wouldn't dream of getting a any M car on the market today ( new models). i have heard of F10 M guys having heating problems at the track. IMO its simply the nature of the beast to be more prone to heating issues over a N/A engine. i am sure BMW will put some nice tec into the engine to help with this. but there is only so much you can do. time will tell.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by Ezio

everything M is doing to me seems better for daily driving over the track. making a better MPG engine with more low end power.

if you track your car often i wouldn't dream of getting a any M car on the market today ( new models). i have heard of F10 M guys having heating problems at the track. IMO its simply the nature of the beast to be more prone to heating issues over a N/A engine. i am sure BMW will put some nice tec into the engine to help with this. but there is only so much you can do. time will tell.

The thing that is annoying about your posts is that you just really don't know what you are talking about. The m5 may have issues but it's over 1000 lbs heavier than the new m3. It's turbo and cooling system is completely different than the s55.

Not to mention plenty of other turbo cars that are beasts on the track

-McLaren mp4-c
-Nissan gtr
-evo
-sti
-Porsche turbo
-Porsche gt2

Do you even track your car?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Ezio

everything M is doing to me seems better for daily driving over the track. making a better MPG engine with more low end power.

if you track your car often i wouldn't dream of getting a any M car on the market today ( new models). i have heard of F10 M guys having heating problems at the track. IMO its simply the nature of the beast to be more prone to heating issues over a N/A engine. i am sure BMW will put some nice tec into the engine to help with this. but there is only so much you can do. time will tell.

Three of my track buddies run 1Ms. One of them is an instructor and pushes quite hard. Not one of them ever complained about overheating problems .

What they do mention is heat soak though. On hot days they complain they don't have all the power they usually have.

Reading about the F8X, it seems considerable effort has been invested in heat management and turbo "margin" to avoid power loss on hot days and at altitude. Hopefully it will be paying off. Only time will tell.

What I do dislike about the 1M, is the lag in throttle response. Again here, BMW promised they worked some magic to fix this.