[onatuesday]

The M4 got 3:00.X lap time at VIR (Virginia International Raceway) in the 8th edition of the C&D Lightning Lap.

To put in context this is ~5 seconds faster than the e92 M3. However the base corvette stingray got 2:53 so significantly faster. The Z/28 got 2:50 I believe which is about what the GTR Nismo got. Porsche 918 set the all time record at 2:43.

[Jorgem2009]

wow, the big surprise here is the m235i, similar times to the CTV-V, beating the IS-F which sometimes gets compared to the m3

[mteele]

There is a big difference between an IS-F and IS350 F Sport....

[3.0L]

For me, the most interesting information is how the cars stacked up by cost vs performance. Some returned a lot of bang for the buck, yet others seemed over priced when compared to the overall group.

[sundaydriver]

Good numbers for the M235i, really impressed with the stingray for its price WOW. Can't wait to see what the z06 can do!

[chris719]

That isn't a CTS-V and it isn't an IS-F. It's a CTS "Vsport" and an IS-350 as someone above noted.

[nachob]

I love the lightning lap comparisons. Really well done.

[hyperzulu]

I read the post on the main forum where others talked about the track being repaved making it slightly faster, so comparing previous times is a little flawed.

[mike@tpc]

yeah, were all these times on the same weekend? They did repave last year, and the the track is at least 5 seconds faster now.

[chris719]

Yeah the times are for BMW not that impressive considering it was widened and repaved, at least 2 seconds better could be assumed. Meaning the car is not much faster than the old 335i they tested in 2007.

[mrbrett]

Originally Posted by chris719

Yeah the times are for BMW not that impressive considering it was widened and repaved, at least 2 seconds better could be assumed. Meaning the car is not much faster than the old 335i they tested in 2007.

They said it was 6.5 seconds faster than the 2008 135i they tested, so not bad.

[w3rkn]

Originally Posted by mrbrett

They said it was 6.5 seconds faster than the 2008 135i they tested, so not bad.

Again, it was resurfaced recently, so not really^.

Not really impressed, & how it's only 3s quicker than the STi. Having a 11:1 doesn't help either.. specially at $45k. Not-to-mention still no lsd.


But having a 135is, I wonder what wider tires on the M235i would do...

[BLK235iNJ]

I'd like to see a do-over here between the BMW and the Cadillac. Maybe the driver didn't have his coffee.

[CF22]

Comparing Motor Trend's figure eight, 0-60, and braking distances between the huge Caddy and M235i the latter comes out ahead. But then these are track times so...

[mrbrett]

Originally Posted by w3rkn

Again, it was resurfaced recently, so not really^.

Not really impressed, & how it's only 3s quicker than the STi. Having a 11:1 doesn't help either.. specially at $45k. Not-to-mention still no lsd.


But having a 135is, I wonder what wider tires on the M235i would do...

The track resurfacing might take off a couple of seconds at most for top tier race cars (we are talking about cars sprung for the street here). The racing line is the same, it was widened for better passing not a change in the racing line.

The conditions from year to year can be so different so take the numbers with a grain of salt. Weather, drivers, Tires (as you mention), etc. So it's hard to compare times. Having said that...

Mentioning the STi, a car that has pretty much received universal praise in the press for being better than the last generation and was only 3.3 seconds better than the last generation car with the repaved track.

Let's put this in perspective here:
-The new 911 Turbo S lopped off ~6.5 seconds from the previous gen.

-The new M4 lopped about ~5 seconds off the time of the e92 M3 coupe.

-The M235i lopped ~6.5 seconds off the 135i's time (they never tested a 135is, but considering the 335is didn't do much better than the regular 335i, probably wouldn't make too much of a difference).

-The M235i is about ~6.5 slower than the new M4. Impressive considering the M4 has at least a 100 more HP and a way better suspension setup, LSD and probably better wider tires.

-The M235i is about ~.5 second slower than the 1M (add a second at most for the pavement resurfacing) and I think that's pretty impressive considering the 1M has better wider tires, a better suspension setup, ~150 lbs lighter and an LSD.

Bring on the M2!

[nachob]

Originally Posted by w3rkn

Again, it was resurfaced recently, so not really^.

Not really impressed, & how it's only 3s quicker than the STi. Having a 11:1 doesn't help either.. specially at $45k. Not-to-mention still no lsd.


But having a 135is, I wonder what wider tires on the M235i would do...

That's 45K to start!.. loaded ones are more. I hear you! I am a big fan of the sti concept. They tend to focus a bit more on performance over gadgets than BMW but in all fairness it's not just about bottom line. How a car does it matters to many of us. We have been having this type of discussions with automatics. There is a huge camp that say the auto is quicker therefore better. Even though its heavier and probably less reliable long term but the final number is all that matters. I used to believe that there was a threshold where even automatic guys would not cross. I thought if BMW put a launch button like and like an F-18 you had to take your hands off the wheel and off the gas pedal a computer would launch you faster than you could do it with steering and throttle pedal that guys would say that's too far.. I don't believe that anymore. I believe that the majority of guys on this forum would just say, it's faster and give me a launch button and I will cede all control and thump my chest when I beat the dinosaur with the DCT that still wants to do antiquated stuff like holding the steering wheel or pressing the gas pedal. So while I absolutely agree that there is no reason the 235i should be so heavy and it should be a bit more leaning toward performance than comfort, we can't lose fact of the fact that the 235i still does it better! Chris Harris admitted that the Golf R was probably a better chassis and more flexible motor than the 235i, but the way it drives makes up for suspension deficiencies. The 1M was the same way. It is not the best track car, nor the fastest but the way it drives makes it stand out. If you go 100mph in the M5 or even e90 M3, you can almost fall asleep unless you are almost redlining the motor. The 1M is loud and bouncing and telling you...stay sharp master or I will bite you in the butt. This makes excitement so again, I fully agree with you just adding the thought that while slower, it is still has some traits that I prefer to the sti.

[nachob]

Originally Posted by mrbrett

-The M235i is about ~.5 second slower than the 1M (add a second at most for the pavement resurfacing) and I think that's pretty impressive considering the 1M has better wider tires, a better suspension setup, ~150 lbs lighter and an LSD.

Bring on the M2!

If you start accounting for re-paving then please note that the 1M came with PS2s. I would venture to sat that if you ran SuperSports like the 235i on the 1M, you would be closer to a full second. The SuperSports made a big difference when I switched them on the 1M. Wheel spin went from OMG turn off the smoke machine before I die to OMG can't Michelin make a tire that can cope with all this torque!

Also

[3.0L]

It's also pleasing to see that the M235i did not get waxed by anything in its price class except the CLA45 AMG, and even that wasn't by a huge amount.

[bladeomatic]

Originally Posted by 3.0L

It's also pleasing to see that the M235i did not get waxed by anything in its price class except the CLA45 AMG, and even that wasn't by a huge amount.

Entire Article Here:

http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=376054

The article's a fun read.

Agreed re the CLA.

As you read more about the track, you get a feel that it's long straightaways somewhat favor the cars that have generous hp, but generally aren't that good in corners. The AMG SL63 is a prime example of a sinisterly-powered cruiser that scored very highly here, even though it's not known to be stunning through the twisties.

Grab this same group of cars and put them on a curvier track and I'll bet a lot of the positions change. I'd bet that the M4 would be sitting above all the Jags and possibly all the MB's. And to be honest, the WRX STI could be above the M235i.

If you read the article, you'll see when they got to the CLA45 they jumped pretty hard on it's crappy understeer. Sounds like they respected the car's numbers but really didn't enjoy driving it.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by w3rkn

Again, it was resurfaced recently, so not really^.

Not really impressed, & how it's only 3s quicker than the STi. Having a 11:1 doesn't help either.. specially at $45k. Not-to-mention still no lsd.


But having a 135is, I wonder what wider tires on the M235i would do...

Car would be way better on the track with a stiffer suspension and wider tires. It only beats the STI in this comparison (where it has lost on shorter tracks) because VIR is a power track.

[w3rkn]

Originally Posted by mrbrett

The track resurfacing might take off a couple of seconds at most for top tier race cars (we are talking about cars sprung for the street here). The racing line is the same, it was widened for better passing not a change in the racing line.

The conditions from year to year can be so different so take the numbers with a grain of salt. Weather, drivers, Tires (as you mention), etc. So it's hard to compare times. Having said that...

Mentioning the STi, a car that has pretty much received universal praise in the press for being better than the last generation and was only 3.3 seconds better than the last generation car with the repaved track.

Let's put this in perspective here:
-The new 911 Turbo S lopped off ~6.5 seconds from the previous gen.

-The new M4 lopped about ~5 seconds off the time of the e92 M3 coupe.

-The M235i lopped ~6.5 seconds off the 135i's time (they never tested a 135is, but considering the 335is didn't do much better than the regular 335i, probably wouldn't make too much of a difference).

-The M235i is about ~6.5 slower than the new M4. Impressive considering the M4 has at least a 100 more HP and a way better suspension setup, LSD and probably better wider tires.

-The M235i is about ~.5 second slower than the 1M (add a second at most for the pavement resurfacing) and I think that's pretty impressive considering the 1M has better wider tires, a better suspension setup, ~150 lbs lighter and an LSD.

Bring on the M2!

Doesn't matter what you think... they resurfaced the track and also made it wider. If you don't want to believe that changes things... oh well. But please don't pollute the thread with data based off a "belief".

Most of us KNOW what happens when you resurface, or widen a track... more so, you've already been told that by several people and the Magazine that tested that the track is now more than a few seconds faster.



Comparing the results with each other, you'll see that 7 seconds is precious margin. The M235i is a $45k car... nearly $50k w/lsd and with //M emblems all over it. Against these rivals, I don't think it made a good showing, & wonder how it will compare to other RWD coupes not in the test.

And again, I don't think the 235i will touch a 1M, you are trying to compare old numbers, to new ones.

[CSBM5]

Originally Posted by mrbrett

The track resurfacing might take off a couple of seconds at most for top tier race cars (we are talking about cars sprung for the street here). The racing line is the same, it was widened for better passing not a change in the racing line.

You've obviously not driven the repaved circuit if you think the fastest line hasn't changed in turn 3 and 12. The course is without a doubt a good bit faster even if you drove the old "line" per se as the aggregate was worn down and polished on the old pavement after 14 years. The only caveat here is that the Patriot Course section which the Grand Course uses within the main course was not repaved, but that only accounts for about 15% of the total Grand Course distance.