BMW M4 Car and Driver Lightning Lap times are out

[Jockey]

Originally Posted by BenchRacerYo

To be honest, I haven't checked where the M3 and C63 stand in a while. How new is that C63 time? I must have been looking at the old sedan time.

2011

[FogCityM3]

LCI E92 M3 was never tested on the ring, that was a 2007 test that everyone cites. ZCP, DCT and 240e ECU software update would likely be around 8 min mark given results at other shorter tracks (ie Hockenheim) where ZCP and DCT provided some advantages.

While the prior gen Vette did outhandle the prior gen M3 on the track, the % spread today is alot greater, which is a good achievement given it gets harder and harder to extract extra secs when times come down. A real testament how the 'Vette is a substantial leap forward vs an incremental improvement.

Originally Posted by gthal

Do some research... E92 M3 was 8:05. C63 coupe was 8:01. I'm waiting for the "if it was a short track the M3 would have been faster" reply.

Man, it's amazing how bias around here can skew perspective. Although I suppose I'm included in that too

[FogCityM3]

Think it was some in the 'vette forums mentioning that they were getting 2+ sec times quicker at these various racing events. No question tarmac does come into play. 5 secs for the ST probably seems like too much, but due to tarmac improvement, I highly doubt difference would be zero.

Originally Posted by trinim3

In regards to the Focus ST time being so much quicker it actually has very little to do with repaving. At All. C&D specifically cited that last year they got very little seat time because they accidentally ran over the keyfob for the Focus ST very early on in the first day. This time around they had a full 3 days to get the time down by 4 seconds.

And that's another point to keep in mind, these times are the best times from several runs over three days of testing not just a single flying lap.

Please stop making claims if you haven't read the entire article.

[gthal]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

LCI E92 M3 was never tested on the ring, that was a 2007 test that everyone cites. ZCP, DCT and 240e ECU software update would likely be around 8 min mark given results at other shorter tracks (ie Hockenheim) where ZCP and DCT provided some advantages.

It doesn't really matter if the LCI M3 was as fast (i.e. closed the 4s gap) with the C63... I was rebutting the idea that MB doesn't handle well. The fact that the C63 and M3 are so close in performance (whether the C63 is 4s faster, 2s, faster or the same) means that it must be a decent handling car.

So, the LCI E92 M3 might have completely closed the gap but, given the C63 was so similar, would suggest it handles well too.

[FogCityM3]

Don't disagree, the Mercedes does handle pretty well but on longer tracks with broad sweeping turns, a higher power car will make up more of the time advantage. On shorter tracks, the Merc doesn't handle as well, but it is still very very good and will hold its own on any track in amateur hands, where any differences will be negligible. Auto-x is probably a different story, where weight is a big penalty and power alone isn't going to get you faster.

Originally Posted by gthal

It doesn't really matter if the LCI M3 was as fast (i.e. closed the 4s gap) with the C63... I was rebutting the idea that MB doesn't handle well. The fact that the C63 and M3 are so close in performance (whether the C63 is 4s faster, 2s, faster or the same) means that it must be a decent handling car.

So, the LCI E92 M3 might have completely closed the gap but, given the C63 was so similar, would suggest it handles well too.

[FTS]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

Think it was some in the 'vette forums mentioning that they were getting 2+ sec times quicker at these various racing events.

I checked out the NASA race results between 2013 and 2014 for multiple months to see the difference, particularly for drivers that I personally know to be consistently fast, and their qualifying lap times at VIR Full Course improved 3.5 to 5 seconds during the races held in spring and 2.5 to 3.5 secs during the summer months.

However, I don't know if we can conclude that similar gains will be seen on street tires, especially with the GE Course's unpaved in-field, which amounts to about 50-60 secs of the total lap time.

[turbo8765]

Originally Posted by FTS

I checked out the NASA race results between 2013 and 2014 for multiple months to see the difference, particularly for drivers that I personally know to be consistently fast, and their qualifying lap times at VIR Full Course improved 3.5 to 5 seconds during the races held in spring and 2.5 to 3.5 secs during the summer months.

However, I don't know if we can conclude that similar gains will be seen on street tires, especially with the GE Course's unpaved in-field, which amounts to about 50-60 secs of the total lap time.

I've done the same.

But you have to keep in mind, different course, New Tires have been released, and generally drivers and cars both continue to develop.

Think about it this way, if the track were not repaved, would there be no PBs or records? Of course not.

Far too much emphasis has been placed on the repaving.

[FTS]

I agree.

[atopa2002]

Originally Posted by FogCityM3

LCI E92 M3 was never tested on the ring, that was a 2007 test that everyone cites. ZCP, DCT and 240e ECU software update would likely be around 8 min mark given results at other shorter tracks (ie Hockenheim) where ZCP and DCT provided some advantages.

While the prior gen Vette did outhandle the prior gen M3 on the track, the % spread today is alot greater, which is a good achievement given it gets harder and harder to extract extra secs when times come down. A real testament how the 'Vette is a substantial leap forward vs an incremental improvement.

I think top gear tested the ZCP and determined not much handling advantage of the ZCP .I believe the got similar times, may be the heavier ZCP wheels

how many more HP will a240e ECU software get you over the pre LCI?
And whets the time difference between MT and DCT on other race tracks with the same driver?

check out this top gear clip:http://www.streetfire.net/video/bmw-...?__federated=1

[TSM330i]

I'm trying to pick a different topic for this comparison rather than the tire discussion.

I flat out do not believe Nissan's claim of 7:08 at the 'Ring. No one outside of Nissan can ever seem to replicate any type of phenominal lap time as one would expect from a car that can lap the 'Ring that fast.
The NISMO ran a 2:49.4 at this years Lightning Lap.
This year VIR is said to be about 2 seconds quicker than past times (if we're going to compare past results). Fact is, a 2008 Viper SRT ACR ran a 2:48.6. The standard Ferrari 458 Italia in 2013 ran a 2:49.9. The ZR1 in 2012 ran a 2:50.7.
If we deduct the 2 seconds off these times, they are all quicker than the NISMO with two of them costing less than the Nissan.

The completely analog Z/28 with 95 less HP and similar weight ran a 2:50.9. It also costs half of what the NISMO costs.

Is the GT-R quick? Of course. Is it as quick as they advertise it to be? I don't think so.

[FogCityM3]

TG test of ZCP the track was wet vs the regular M3. Sportauto did one of ZCP and was faster on hockenheim, which is a short track. Also TG SouthAfrica tested a precursor to ZCP in the special edition (but was effectively ZCP suspension) and was faster. Moreover at the M school, the instructors did say ZCP has faster times than non-ZCP. I believe in all tests none has the PSS at the time either.

Originally Posted by atopa2002

I think top gear tested the ZCP and determined not much handling advantage of the ZCP .I believe the got similar times, may be the heavier ZCP wheels

how many more HP will a240e ECU software get you over the pre LCI?
And whets the time difference between MT and DCT on other race tracks with the same driver?

check out this top gear clip:http://www.streetfire.net/video/bmw-...?__federated=1

[Mthrice]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

I flat out do not believe Nissan's claim of 7:08 at the 'Ring.

Get out your stopwatch and time it yourself, the video is all over the internet

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by Mthrice

Get out your stopwatch and time it yourself, the video is all over the internet

Because Nissan couldn't drop weight off the car and have a special tune to give it more HP and we'd never know (basically modify the car)? Nissan couldn't supply a (excuse the expression) 'Ringer?

Sorry, but no lap times that I've ever seen outside of the Nissan factory drivers/team has come close to the WOW factor that this car is supposed to be capable of. This years' Lightning Lap is a perfect example. The track "should" be quicker than it was in the past, yet there are cars, as I stated, that were outright quicker than the NISMO on the old track.

Until some other head-to-head proves this to not be the case, I do not believe it.

[Divexxtreme]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

Because Nissan couldn't drop weight off the car and have a special tune to give it more HP and we'd never know (basically modify the car)? Nissan couldn't supply a (excuse the expression) 'Ringer?

Sorry, but no lap times that I've ever seen outside of the Nissan factory drivers/team has come close to the WOW factor that this car is supposed to be capable of. This years' Lightning Lap is a perfect example. The track "should" be quicker than it was in the past, yet there are cars, as I stated, that were outright quicker than the NISMO on the old track.

Until some other head-to-head proves this to not be the case, I do not believe it.

A longer track like the 'ring favors a heavier high HP, fast accelerating car like the NISMO, so trying to extrapolate ring times from lightning lap times isn't accurate at all. Regardless, the thing is, no one cares what you believe. Especially the people who will be buying NISMOs. Just like no one would care if you thought the world was flat.

[onatuesday]

Motortrend did a comparison test by swapping the Z28's tires with that of the 1LE. The result was that the Z28 still kicked ass even with far less sticky tires. In fact, the acceleration times were actually faster on the less sticky rubber...

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._make_the_car/

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by Divexxtreme

A longer track like the 'ring favors a heavier high HP, fast accelerating car like the NISMO, so trying to extrapolate ring times from lightning lap times isn't accurate at all. Regardless, the thing is, no one cares what you believe. Especially the people who will be buying NISMOs. Just like no one would care if you thought the world was flat.

It's a debate on a forum. It's full of opinions. If you don't care about my opinion, I don't care.

[Divexxtreme]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

It's a debate on a forum. It's full of opinions. If you don't care about my opinion, I don't care.

Cool.

[Mthrice]

Originally Posted by trinim3

Motortrend did a comparison test by swapping the Z28's tires with that of the 1LE. The result was that the Z28 still kicked ass even with far less sticky tires. In fact, the acceleration times were actually faster on the less sticky rubber...

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._make_the_car/

So they switched tires and both cars got faster? What a bunch of BS

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by trinim3

Motortrend did a comparison test by swapping the Z28's tires with that of the 1LE. The result was that the Z28 still kicked ass even with far less sticky tires. In fact, the acceleration times were actually faster on the less sticky rubber...

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._make_the_car/

I'm not sure you understand what the benefits of these tires are. It's not acceleration, it's grip and cornering. See the link below for how much time is lost on the figure 8.

the z28, meanwhile, was hobbled, but not as much as you'd expect. On its stock Pirellis, the Z/28 runs around the figure eight in 23.6 seconds at 0.84 g average. On the 1LE's Goodyears, the Z/28 ran the figure eight in 24.1 seconds at 0.84 g average.

What's going on here? Test driver Kim Reynolds has an answer. In stock form, Kim says, the 1LE is razor-sharp. With the Z/28's tires, it just felt mushy. The precision was gone, and for no measureable gain. Conversely, Kim says the stock Z/28 is predictable and balanced. On the 1LE's tires, it became much less predictable and much more prone to oversteer.

[onatuesday]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

I'm not sure you understand what the benefits of these tires are. It's not acceleration, it's grip and cornering. See the link below for how much time is lost on the figure 8.

I'd expect acceleration, grip, braking, cornering, and all of the above to be faster. So yes it was a surprise to me that acceleration was slower - though I'd assume that's because it's harder to launch. I know most of the delta is going to be in cornering. The point is the Z28 isn't just fast around a track cuz of the tires. It's just fast regardless.

[Black Gold]

Originally Posted by trinim3

I'd expect acceleration, grip, braking, cornering, and all of the above to be faster. So yes it was a surprise to me that acceleration was slower - though I'd assume that's because it's harder to launch. I know most of the delta is going to be in cornering. The point is the Z28 isn't just fast around a track cuz of the tires. It's just fast regardless.

Who said it was fast "only" because of the tires? Fwiw the accerlation times were basically identical, not measurably slower.

What people said is that they are a significant reason why it laps as fast as it does, and why it outlaps cars that would be faster than it should they also have the same tires (991 turbo, gtr and 991 gt3)

.5 seconds is a big difference in figure 8 speed, and the lap times would likely be 2-3 seconds slower on the same tires everyone else is running. It also matched the z28 figure 8 when put on the same tires, though I'm certain it handles better than a z28.

You can't compare a street slick / semi racing tire to a max performance summer, even if it's a pss tire.

Finally, I can't figure out why they didn't just do some laps on a track.

[Divexxtreme]

Originally Posted by KennyPowers

Who said it was fast "only" because of the tires? Fwiw the accerlation times were basically identical, not measurably slower.

What people said is that they are a significant reason why it laps as fast as it does, and why it outlaps cars that would be faster than it should they also have the same tires (991 turbo, gtr and 991 gt3)

.5 seconds is a big difference in figure 8 speed, and the lap times would likely be 2-3 seconds slower on the same tires everyone else is running. It also matched the z28 figure 8 when put on the same tires, though I'm certain it handles better than a z28.

You can't compare a street slick / semi racing tire to a max performance summer, even if it's a pss tire.

Finally, I can't figure out why they didn't just do some laps on a track.

Exactly right. Watch the below video. The Viper TA beats the ZR1's production car record at Laguna Seca on stock (but extremely sticky) Corsa tires. Then, for fun, they toss on a set of Hoosiers on the Viper at the very end of the video and Pobst runs almost 3 second quicker. Keep in mind that Laguna is a short track compared to VIR, and the longer the track, the bigger the difference. If they had optimized the Viper's suspension to run slicks or R-compounds (like the Z/28's is), you'd gain even more of an increase in speed with the race tires.