stock M3/M4 quarter mile prediction

[gee-m-w]

Should do an 11.9 or a 12.0 flat pretty easily, no? I suppose we can assume DCT for this discussion and add 0.2-0.3 seconds for 6MT.

[swamp2]

I did a braketing calculation and simulation for this based on unknowns of underrating and weight. I came up with 11.6-12.1 seconds here in this post. Thus I think your estimate is very close.

[e39>all]

I think the 1/4 mile times will be almost identical to the m5. They obviously fluctuate due to driver, conditions, etc., but all things equal I suspect it will be equal or possibly .1-.2 slower than the m5 in the 1/4. However I believe it will be .1-.2 seconds quicker from 0-60. I predict a ring time of 7:49. All of these times are almost identical to the m3 gts. Magazines and real world times tend to vary obviously (especially 0-60), but I predict....

3.6-3.7 0-60
11.9-12 1/4
7:49 Ring

[bm323]

On the straights, similar to the M5.

But the M4 will whip the M5 on the track; I predict 7:47

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

My guess,

1/4 12.1-12.4 @ 116-117 mph

0-100 8.8 sec

Ring: 7:50.

As for real world times by owners, likely mid to high 12s@114 mph or so

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by bm323

On the straights, similar to the M5.

But the M4 will whip the M5 on the track; I predict 7:47

Um on the straights? Maybe for the 1/4 and then m5 will just pull away. It has 2 extra cylinders durrr.

Which equals, on the hwy m5 will toast you

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

My guess,

1/4 12.1-12.4 @ 116-117 mph

0-100 8.8 sec

Ring: 7:50.

As for real world times by owners, likely mid to high 12s@114 mph or so

I think a dude here in the real world is already doing 12.6 in his dct e92.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

My guess,

1/4 12.1-12.4 @ 116-117 mph

0-100 8.8 sec

Ring: 7:50.

Given that the E92 M3 has already achieved 12.5 at 115, I think your 1/4 mi estimates are far too low/conservative. The same goes for the 0-100 time. It's not in line with the power to weight of the new car (even though the final ratio is a bit cloudy...)

[paddy335]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

0-100 8.8 sec

About 1 second slower than an F40....kind of puts the advances of the last 25 years in perspective

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Given that the E92 M3 has already achieved 12.5 at 115, I think your 1/4 mi estimates are far too low/conservative. The same goes for the 0-100 time. It's not in line with the power to weight of the new car (even though the final ratio is a bit cloudy...)

115 mph is far from the norm as was 12.5. That was also one test, corrected for perfect conditions.

Avg of all times seem to fall around 12.7-12.8 @ 112 mph. I am guessing a 5 mph increase gen over gen...

Ive seen a 997.2 S (385 hp) trap 117 mph but do not think that is the norm...

http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/roa..._porsche_911_s

My guesses are also dependant on M5/M6 numbers. Those two cars are ~12.0@120 mph. I highly doubt they are going to allow the M3 to beat these numbers in a car that is going to be 25-30K less.

[gee-m-w]

I've seen real world e90 M3 DCT models only wring out a 13.0 109MPH at 2000 ft elevation on a muggy day. They're good for high 12's. I think the new M3 should ship with Pilot Super Sports which would help.

The FI cars should do much better.

[markeh]

C7 Stingray did real world 12.23 @ 114.88
0-60 4.15

By the looks of it the M4 should beat both of those.

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Wolfinwolfsclothing

115 mph is far from the norm as was 12.5. That was also one test, corrected for perfect conditions.

Avg of all times seem to fall around 12.7-12.8 @ 112 mph. I am guessing a 5 mph increase gen over gen...

Ive seen a 997.2 S (385 hp) trap 117 mph but do not think that is the norm...

http://www.motorweek.org/reviews/roa..._porsche_911_s

My guesses are also dependant on M5/M6 numbers. Those two cars are ~12.0@120 mph. I highly doubt they are going to allow the M3 to beat these numbers in a car that is going to be 25-30K less.

I suppose it is really an issue of semantics. No one wants to use outlier data as the single best representative number. However, performance results from the real world are not normally distributed (i.e. not a bell curve) like many other phenomena riddled with so many random and systematic factors. These results tend to be finite/bounded at least on the upper end of the performance results, perhaps more qualitatively like a chi-square or gamma distribution. In other words there has never been an bone stock E92 M3 run a 12.0 1/4 mi. However, there have been incredibly rare runs of 20 seconds or even an infinite time (did not finish).

From my perspective I am much more interested in the upper echelon of the performance numbers achieved say at the far ends of the distribution (whether you are talking about wanting good=small number or good=big number). Why is this? This number more represents the true ultimate potential of the car itself. It is less about the driver, the track, the weather etc. This is all of course assuming that the number is not some type of outlier, which I do not believe the 12.5@115 numbers are for the current M3.

Now of course the "typical" numbers that typical drivers (non experts) are able to obtain are certainly also useful numbers to know. Knowing both gives one the best of both worlds!

I don't know precisely the "best" M5 numbers obtained, but am certainly somewhat interested in those. I would not be surprised if the best numbers from the M4 are extremely close or maybe even better than the M5. At high speeds there will obviously be no contest, but at lower speeds it is going to be close. Ultimately, they will be close at low to medium speeds simply because their power to weight ratios will also be very close.

Well that was pretty long winded but I hope clarifies my predictions and interests.

Cheers.

[bm323]

Originally Posted by pkim1079

Um on the straights? Maybe for the 1/4 and then m5 will just pull away. It has 2 extra cylinders durrr.

Which equals, on the hwy m5 will toast you

well, place your bets, on the 1/4 and nurburgring

[duk]

12.2 @ 118mph

[ixse]

Originally Posted by markeh

C7 Stingray did real world 12.23 @ 114.88
0-60 4.15

By the looks of it the M4 should beat both of those.

huh? c7 has more hp, more tq, same weight. how does m4 beat these again? with hopes and dreams?

[Carl L]

Originally Posted by ixse

huh? c7 has more hp, more tq, same weight. how does m4 beat these again? with hopes and dreams?

American cars usually fudge the official #s up. With European and Japanese it's the opposite. Has been a common observation in road tests for years.

[pkimM3r]

Originally Posted by bm323

well, place your bets, on the 1/4 and nurburgring

Umm i just said in a longer distance. 1/4 doesnt mean anything. On a big track with huge straightaways, coming out of the turn into the straight at the same miles per hour, expect that m5 to be hauling ass. Turns are a different story. The smaller more nimble car wins of course! But those m5/6 are animals on the straight.

And you drive an f10 m5!

[swamp2]

Originally Posted by Carl L

American cars usually fudge the official #s up. With European and Japanese it's the opposite. Has been a common observation in road tests for years.

Are you referring to the odd but totally traditional standard of US drag racing allowing 1 foot of travel before the timer starts? That's called a roll out and it contributes about 0.3 seconds to a faster 0-60 time. So that is not cheating it is just different standards. I don't know much about European 1/4 mi testing specs, I think they more often do 0-1000m.

[gee-m-w]

Originally Posted by duk

12.2 @ 118mph

I agree with this for DCT, real world regular guy numbers. Maybe a slightly lower trap like 115.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by swamp2

Are you referring to the odd but totally traditional standard of US drag racing allowing 1 foot of travel before the timer starts? That's called a roll out and it contributes about 0.3 seconds to a faster 0-60 time. So that is not cheating it is just different standards. I don't know much about European 1/4 mi testing specs, I think they more often do 0-1000m.

True 0-1000m is commonly used in Europe. But I do see more and more 0-400m quoted in European car magazines, which is very close to the 1/4 mile... I don't know if they use a 30cm roll out though

[Wolfinwolfsclothing]

Originally Posted by swamp2

I suppose it is really an issue of semantics. No one wants to use outlier data as the single best representative number. However, performance results from the real world are not normally distributed (i.e. not a bell curve) like many other phenomena riddled with so many random and systematic factors. These results tend to be finite/bounded at least on the upper end of the performance results, perhaps more qualitatively like a chi-square or gamma distribution. In other words there has never been an bone stock E92 M3 run a 12.0 1/4 mi. However, there have been incredibly rare runs of 20 seconds or even an infinite time (did not finish).

From my perspective I am much more interested in the upper echelon of the performance numbers achieved say at the far ends of the distribution (whether you are talking about wanting good=small number or good=big number). Why is this? This number more represents the true ultimate potential of the car itself. It is less about the driver, the track, the weather etc. This is all of course assuming that the number is not some type of outlier, which I do not believe the 12.5@115 numbers are for the current M3.

Now of course the "typical" numbers that typical drivers (non experts) are able to obtain are certainly also useful numbers to know. Knowing both gives one the best of both worlds!

I don't know precisely the "best" M5 numbers obtained, but am certainly somewhat interested in those. I would not be surprised if the best numbers from the M4 are extremely close or maybe even better than the M5. At high speeds there will obviously be no contest, but at lower speeds it is going to be close. Ultimately, they will be close at low to medium speeds simply because their power to weight ratios will also be very close.

Well that was pretty long winded but I hope clarifies my predictions and interests.

Cheers.

I agree with you...but there always tends to be some outliers and IMO the 12.5@114.8 is an outlier for the M3 given it was never replicated and given that the M3 has been tested probably a couple dozen times, data points to it being more in the 111-112 mph trap speed. If it truly was a 114-115 mph trap speed car, a 997.2S wouldnt run away from one (m3 was even modded) as badly as it did in the M5board m3 dct vs 997.2S pdk.

At the same time, I wouldnt count a test where someone was at the drag strip and didnt know what they were doing, becuase that too is not representative of the car either.

All in all, I would be suprised if it was able to match the m5, and would be more surprised if it beat it...so Im sticking with my guess that it will come in where I claimed in an earlier post.

I also did forget to mention, my numbers were for DCT, as the 6mt will not only be slower but trap less as well.