Close

    • Insideline tests the 1M coupe, runs 13.0@107.4 - Specs and Video

      Most of the automotive press has been heaping praise on the new 1M coupe. Insideline is no different although they at least inject a shred of honesty compared to the other reviewers so infatuated they forgot what an M car is supposed to be. Their test numbers also shed serious doubt on the claims Autocar made of the 1M tearing the Cayman R "to shreds." The full specs, details, and review video are below but what struck us was this quote:

      Finally, a professional reviewer who kind of gets it.


      Specs and test results:




      Video:

      This article was originally published in forum thread: Insideline tests the 1M coupe, runs 13.3@107.4 - Specs and Video started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 41 Comments
      1. 1cleanAMG's Avatar
        1cleanAMG -
        Click here to enlarge
      1. Karo's Avatar
        Karo -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        If you know so much about racing history you would have known BMW had a V8 in the E46 so moving to one in the E92 was not a shock to anyone since it had already been done. Also, you would have known E30's raced around with 4 cylinders so there was no precedent set for inline 6's only in M3's which means your statement made no sense. The precedent set was that of a naturally aspirated high revving engine so the blasphemy you are referring to is breaking from that tradition hence the cirticism of the 1M as well as the quote by InsideLine which they got completely correct.
        Thanks so I am not crazy. Long time ago I saw a V8 E46 M3. I mentioned this and everyone called me an idiot and I was holding my ground but then said ya I must be wrong. It was in Glendale, CA and it was yellow. It said V8 on the side maybe around 2002 or 2003 (long time ago).
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Karo Click here to enlarge
        Thanks so I am not crazy. Long time ago I saw a V8 E46 M3. I mentioned this and everyone called me an idiot and I was holding my ground but then said ya I must be wrong. It was in Glendale, CA and it was yellow. It said V8 on the side maybe around 2002 or 2003 (long time ago).
        It was never sold in the US, might have been a custom swap.
      1. fastgti69's Avatar
        fastgti69 -
        Good video, this guy actually said some valid points with the car and It really looks sharp. Even tho its still the N54, I guess its REALLY that good of an engine with some HPFP problems that have kinda been solved.
      1. Forced Air's Avatar
        Forced Air -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        lol, so the 1M is one thing, but noone else caught on to the fact that the MPH stayed the same while the ET changed? Meaning what ive been saying this whole time, that trap speed is dependent on the back half, not the front half Click here to enlarge
        It really depends. The front half is as you say, but for the 60' which can greatly affect trap speed. Spin off the line hard and you will increase trap compared to a good launch. Which is why I don't buy into the whole "fastest vs quickest" 1/4 mile stuff.
      1. Forced Air's Avatar
        Forced Air -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        If you know so much about racing history you would have known BMW had a V8 in the E46 so moving to one in the E92 was not a shock to anyone since it had already been done. Also, you would have known E30's raced around with 4 cylinders so there was no precedent set for inline 6's only in M3's which means your statement made no sense. The precedent set was that of a naturally aspirated high revving engine so the blasphemy you are referring to is breaking from that tradition hence the cirticism of the 1M as well as the quote by InsideLine which they got completely correct.

        So what your saying is that M3s have been blasphemous in all variations following the E30? Click here to enlarge

        Sorry, couldn't help myself
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forced Air Click here to enlarge
        It really depends. The front half is as you say, but for the 60' which can greatly affect trap speed. Spin off the line hard and you will increase trap compared to a good launch. Which is why I don't buy into the whole "fastest vs quickest" 1/4 mile stuff.
        nope, we can start a new thread on the topic, but your 60' has less than .5 mph variance to do with your end trap speed Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forced Air Click here to enlarge
        So what your saying is that M3s have been blasphemous in all variations following the E30? Click here to enlarge

        Sorry, couldn't help myself
        Nope, although the E30 should always be on a pedestal.

        No M3 has broken tradition yet until the F30 when it hits with the new turbo motor whatever that may be (likely tweaked N55).
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        nope, we can start a new thread on the topic, but your 60' has less than .5 mph variance to do with your end trap speed Click here to enlarge
        I don't know about .5, as some guys who spin can get a couple mph.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I don't know about .5, as some guys who spin can get a couple mph.
        lol, the 60' time in itself, will only affect mph about .5

        traction issues after the 60 will affect the mph more, but maybe another .5
        so in total, we are talking MAYBE 1 mph variance

        traction issues past the 1/8 will GREATLY affect it. but tht requires horrible conditions or way more power than most of us make
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        lol, the 60' time in itself, will only affect mph about .5

        traction issues after the 60 will affect the mph more, but maybe another .5
        so in total, we are talking MAYBE 1 mph variance

        traction issues past the 1/8 will GREATLY affect it. but tht requires horrible conditions or way more power than most of us make
        How will the 60 foot time itself only affect .5? A 1.8 vs. 2.4 can have the 2.4 trapping a few mph higher. Don't know what you are basing .5 on.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        we should take this somewhere else, but 2.4 has nothing to do with the mph. id like to see proof of this
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        we should take this somewhere else, but 2.4 has nothing to do with the mph. id like to see proof of this
        I'd like to see proof of .5.

        Make a new thread if you wish, I just threw those numbers out there as an example as if a car runs 1.8 and then 2.4 it's obvious which 60 foot is the one it is spinning.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'd like to see proof of .5.

        Make a new thread if you wish, I just threw those numbers out there as an example as if a car runs 1.8 and then 2.4 it's obvious which 60 foot is the one it is spinning.

        ive already made a thread, and i believe its even sticky'd. im not exact on the .5, thats just a SWAG, as is the other .5, but it sure does sound good. my point being that claims of higher traps with more wheelspin are overused and always over exagerated
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        ive already made a thread, and i believe its even sticky'd. im not exact on the .5, thats just a SWAG, as is the other .5, but it sure does sound good. my point being that claims of higher traps with more wheelspin are overused and always over exagerated
        I do agree with that completely as it never worked in my case with the E92 (better 60 better trap) but with the E46 when I spun I would get a higher trap vs. lower 60.

        I hate to use the hotrod example but you will notice his higher traps come with higher 60 foots. There really is no formula that will work but you will often see inflated traps ranging more than .5 mph with higher 60 foots.

        I also have seen higher traps with better 60 foots and totally agree it is overused.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I do agree with that completely as it never worked in my case with the E92 (better 60 better trap) but with the E46 when I spun I would get a higher trap vs. lower 60.

        I hate to use the hotrod example but you will notice his higher traps come with higher 60 foots. There really is no formula that will work but you will often see inflated traps ranging more than .5 mph with higher 60 foots.

        I also have seen higher traps with better 60 foots and totally agree it is overused.
        the thing is most people equate the higher trap/mph and 60' as a fluke, when in actuallity the highest trap is usuall what the car is capable of, and somehting else went wrong to get a lower trap with the lower 60. now of course, there is always a variance, but thats usually about 1 mph. id use my car, but im never consistant with boost used and once logs look good, i up it, obvioulsy giving me a better trap.

        but if you scavenge over every other consistant car, that can't change its power at the push of a button, and doesnt drop weight between runs, you will see what i mean, regardless of 60' trap is within 1 mph of eachother if clean runs up to and past the 1/8 mile. NA cars are a good example, and so are s/c cars, but usually need a cool down or meth to showcase that as heatsoak sets in.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        the thing is most people equate the higher trap/mph and 60' as a fluke, when in actuallity the highest trap is usuall what the car is capable of, and somehting else went wrong to get a lower trap with the lower 60. now of course, there is always a variance, but thats usually about 1 mph. id use my car, but im never consistant with boost used and once logs look good, i up it, obvioulsy giving me a better trap.
        Actually, I do consider the higher trap spinning a fluke because the car sort of gets a head start spinning place with the tires going up to higher speeds and then moving. Usually people who do that can't recreate the trap when they hook, they trap less consistently.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        but if your spinning your not going anywhere, and you still have the exact same total distance to move, so you really cant build "more" speed
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
        but if your spinning your not going anywhere, and you still have the exact same total distance to move, so you really cant build "more" speed
        Your tires are at say 25 mph when you get going.

        It's similar to when a guy burns out in second gear to his tires to a higher speed.
      1. LostMarine's Avatar
        LostMarine -
        I think i understand what your trying to say, but, the tires are rotating faster but the car is not moving at that speed,