M4 vs 04' SL600

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by ixse

sl is fast.. dont exactly remember but it had some crazy tq numbers.. straight line drag will prolly go to sl. i just dont see m4 getting anything better than 12.5 1/4 mile..

800Nm or so I think. Good for towing your M3 racecar to the track.

[BuLoOoSki]

Originally Posted by ixse

sl is fast.. dont exactly remember but it had some crazy tq numbers.. straight line drag will prolly go to sl. i just dont see m4 getting anything better than 12.5 1/4 mile..

I would say more like 12.0....my modified 2007 335i making 390rwhp ran a 12.0

So considering that the M4 will be making around 370rwhp but being significantly lighter, will have a DCT (my 335i had a regular 6AT), and launch control....i would be disappointed if it ran more than a 12.0

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by hudamang

Will this board allow outside links?

If so, http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...trumented-test

If not: caranddriver .com/reviews/mercedes-benz-sl600-instrumented-test

Thanks for that. Exactly as I suspected. There are two very clear conclusions here.

1. This C&D car was a serious underrated sleeper.
or
2. All SL600s are underrated sleepers.

Both the basic formula for 1/4 mi trap and speeds (LRT formulae) as well as a detailed physics based acceleration prediction method indicate that with a curb weight of about 4500 lb, such a car needs in excess of 600 (crank) hp to get a less then 12 second 1/4 mile (or to trap anywhere close to sub 12.0).

There is also anecdotal and dyno evidence of much closer to 580 crank hp in this car. Have a look here.

Below are the results of such a detailed physics based simulation comparison between a SL600 with stated power and torque vs. one with 630 hp and 750 ft lb torque...

Anyway, I was clearly wrong when I said the new M4 would be faster than one of these beasts. That was based on the clearly incorrect assumption that the car had the actual factory rated power. I say it is absolutely clear that this car is underrated and by a lot.

If the SL can consistently perform like the Car and Driver test is will probably close to or a bit faster than the new M4 in the straights (depending again on the final power and weight for the M4 - presently not precisely known). However, on either a fast or slow track (and of course given competent drivers in both) the M4 will best the SL. This is based on weight, suspension, tires and empirically on comparisons against car reasonably close to these.

[JRV]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Thanks for that. Exactly as I suspected. There are two very clear conclusions here.

1. This C&D car was a serious underrated sleeper.
or
2. All SL600s are underrated sleepers.

Both the basic formula for 1/4 mi trap and speeds (LRT formulae) as well as a detailed physics based acceleration prediction method indicate that with a curb weight of about 4500 lb, such a car needs in excess of 600 (crank) hp to get a less then 12 second 1/4 mile (or to trap anywhere close to sub 12.0).

There is also anecdotal and dyno evidence of much closer to 580 crank hp in this car. Have a look here.

Below are the results of such a detailed physics based simulation comparison between a SL600 with stated power and torque vs. one with 630 hp and 750 ft lb torque...

Anyway, I was clearly wrong when I said the new M4 would be faster than one of these beasts. That was based on the clearly incorrect assumption that the car had the actual factory rated power. I say it is absolutely clear that this car is underrated and by a lot.

If the SL can consistently perform like the Car and Driver test is will probably close to or a bit faster than the new M4 in the straights (depending again on the final power and weight for the M4 - presently not precisely known). However, on either a fast or slow track (and of course given competent drivers in both) the M4 will best the SL. This is based on weight, suspension, tires and empirically on comparisons against car reasonably close to these.

swamp, you are the king of theory and numbers! LOL. I mean this in a good way

[jsublime]

And we thought our bmws were underrated. Check out this original article where MB claims a 0-60 of 4.7. It seems unthinkable that the car is a full second quicker than that.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t-drive-review

Funny part is even with all that power its epa rating is about the same as the current gen m3. Just shows you what turbos can do.

[ixse]

Originally Posted by BuLoOoSki

I would say more like 12.0....my modified 2007 335i making 390rwhp ran a 12.0

So considering that the M4 will be making around 370rwhp but being significantly lighter, will have a DCT (my 335i had a regular 6AT), and launch control....i would be disappointed if it ran more than a 12.0

CnD just tested m5 comp pkg, and it ran 11.9. just dont see bmw making m4 only 0.1 sec behind their flagship. dont get me wrong, i would be happy if it did.. but its business for profit after all...

[Kuwen]

Originally Posted by ixse

CnD just tested m5 comp pkg, and it ran 11.9. just dont see bmw making m4 only 0.1 sec behind their flagship. dont get me wrong, i would be happy if it did.. but its business for profit after all...

Why is it that people consider the M5 the flagship? Sure it costs more but the M3 defines the 'M' brand.

The cars serve different purposes unlike the Cayman/911.

[ixse]

even if they serve diff purpose, as branding purpose it just wont happen. c63 will never be made faster than e63 out of box. cayman will never be faster than carrera.. although smaller lighter cars have higher pitential, companies will detune the less expensive vehicles.. nobody wants to hear that 110k m5 that you just bought is just as fast as 70k car on their line up. even if the m5 has more space and is more of a GT car

[buildbright]

Its going to come down who is the better driver and what type of speed contest.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by JRV

swamp, you are the king of theory and numbers! LOL. I mean this in a good way

Thanks, I always try to mix the science and the fun.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by ixse

even if they serve diff purpose, as branding purpose it just wont happen. c63 will never be made faster than e63 out of box. cayman will never be faster than carrera.. although smaller lighter cars have higher pitential, companies will detune the less expensive vehicles.. nobody wants to hear that 110k m5 that you just bought is just as fast as 70k car on their line up. even if the m5 has more space and is more of a GT car

With the reduced weight and increased low and mid rpm power in the new M4 as compared to the ever more and more porky M5 balancing this acknowledged "fact" above will be very difficult for BMW. All indications (again reliable physics based simulation as well as basic power to weight scaling) show that new car really pretty well neck and neck with the current M5 in many contests. Certainly the M5 will take things like 60-130 and most probably the 1/4 mi trap . However, the new M4 is going to get off the line really well and very well could best the M5s 1/4 mi time. It could also best its 0-60 and even 0-100 time.

Again it all depends on how much if any the car is underrated and what the final weight ends up at. And of course on the driver as many contests between these cars will absolutely be a drivers race.

Note: Unlike my mistake with the SL600 this analysis does include the widely acknowledged fact that the new M5 is significantly underrated.

[murrfan]

Originally Posted by ixse

even if they serve diff purpose, as branding purpose it just wont happen. c63 will never be made faster than e63 out of box. cayman will never be faster than carrera.. although smaller lighter cars have higher pitential, companies will detune the less expensive vehicles.. nobody wants to hear that 110k m5 that you just bought is just as fast as 70k car on their line up. even if the m5 has more space and is more of a GT car

Assuming you're referring to straightline only? As on 99% of road courses the M3 has always been the quicker car compared to the M5 gen to gen.

[pkancel]

Exactly right....what you said is spot on here. This is an open forum for anyone. What is pointless is when someone asks a simple innocent question and then someone else belittles that person. As said before, if you dont like the question or arent interested, then just mind your own business. Anyone that is in to cars can appreciate a race between two uncomparable cars just to see how close or not close the outcome would be.

Did you see where Top Gear took the Exotic cars to a local US race track and got their doors blown off by everything from Old Chevy Nova's to Mitsubishi Evos. Literally everything they raced, smoked those expensive exotics. Two completely different cars and the outcome was more surprising than I expected. Thats why people ask questions like this....

Originally Posted by BuLoOoSki

That's just your opinion man, and I respect that. However, if you are not interested in someone's question or thread just don't bother reading and replying. This is an open forum for everybody.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by murrfan

Assuming you're referring to straightline only? As on 99% of road courses the M3 has always been the quicker car compared to the M5 gen to gen.

Incorrect.

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...mw_m5_f10.html

9/13 tracks here show the M5 (F10) faster than the M3 (E92).

Of course that being said, there still are many tracks where the M3 can best the M5.

[Kuwen]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Incorrect.

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...mw_m5_f10.html

9/13 tracks here show the M5 (F10) faster than the M3 (E92).

Of course that being said, there still are many tracks where the M3 can best the M5.

Per his 'gen to gen' comment, I think you'd have to compare the E90/92 M3 to the E60 M5, no?

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Kuwen

Per his 'gen to gen' comment, I think you'd have to compare the E90/92 M3 to the E60 M5, no?

Thanks, huge brain fart on E60 vs. F10 (which I obviously do know the distinction...). The fastest laps comparison indeed shows the E92 M3 besting the F10 M5 on the vast majority of tracks, however, the M5 best the M3 in most straightline metrics by a hair, except 0-60.

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...mw_m3_e92.html

[JustBimmin]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Thanks, huge brain fart on E60 vs. F10 (which I obviously do know the distinction...). The fastest laps comparison indeed shows the E92 M4 besting the F10 M5 on the vast majority of tracks, however, the M5 best the M3 in most straightline metrics by a hair, except 0-60.

http://fastestlaps.com/comparisons/b...mw_m3_e92.html

E92 M4 xP

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by JustBimmin

E92 M4 xP

Ugh, one brain fart and typo after the other... I did correct that post.

[buildbright]

Originally Posted by ixse

CnD just tested m5 comp pkg, and it ran 11.9. just dont see bmw making m4 only 0.1 sec behind their flagship. dont get me wrong, i would be happy if it did.. but its business for profit after all...

I doubt BMW rates their cars by 1/4 mile times. The M3 is there most track focused car. Not to mention its there hottest M seller. The M6 and M5 are more GT cars.

[bm323]

Originally Posted by swamp2

The fastest laps comparison indeed shows the E92 M3 besting the F10 M5 on the vast majority of tracks

??? the link above shows otherwise (9/12 tracks, the F10 M5 is faster excluding the topgear track, since one is dry "d" and the other is very wet "vw"). But I agree the M4 will whip the F10 M5 on tracks.

[paddy335]

[QUOTE=buildbright;14825048]I doubt BMW rates their cars by 1/4 mile times. QUOTE]



Can you imagine the boardroom conversations in Germany.

[buildbright]

[QUOTE=paddy335;14825803]

Originally Posted by buildbright

I doubt BMW rates their cars by 1/4 mile times. QUOTE]



Can you imagine the boardroom conversations in Germany.

**Anger German Voice** "der m5 muss schneller sein!!!!"