Close

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    I wonder if sticky can still sleep quietly these days after this humiliating defeat of his beloved S65 vs just a "factory tuned" N54 Click here to enlarge
    What motor did the fastest car around the track have?

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    79
    Rep Points
    49.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    I wonder if sticky can still sleep quietly these days after this humiliating defeat of his beloved S65 vs just a "factory tuned" N54 Click here to enlarge
    the 1M is good fore sure, but immagine how good it could have been, with a real M motor Click here to enlarge
    It could have been a real dreamcar... (at least it was mine until i found out it was N54 powered)

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    917.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by cisi Click here to enlarge
    the 1M is good fore sure, but immagine how good it could have been, with a real M motor Click here to enlarge
    It could have been a real dreamcar... (at least it was mine until i found out it was N54 powered)
    I agee with the real M engine thing. But not the torque-lacking, over-thirsty, soul-lacking S65. V8 and 3-series just don't go together well IMO.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    6,217
    Rep Points
    6,741.9
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    68


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    What motor did the fastest car around the track have?
    Put the 1M on semi slicks as well and it will probably beat that GTS's time.
    There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    soul-lacking S65. V8 and 3-series just don't go together well IMO.
    Soul lacking? Wind it out to 8400 rpm and bang off a perfectly timed shift with the needle flying to the rev limiter with all 8 cylinders singing and tell me that.

    V8 and 3 series don't go together well? Somebody forgot to tell the M3 in ALMS.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DavidV Click here to enlarge
    Put the 1M on semi slicks as well and it will probably beat that GTS's time.
    No, it won't. I think the GTS may even be lighter than the 1M, I'll have to check.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    917.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    What motor did the fastest car around the track have?
    Srsly?? The semi-slicks account for at least one to two seconds of the time advantage!!

    The GTS is an epic fail in my book. It would have been great at $75.000. But the price tag puts it in 911 GT3RS territory, to which it's simply no match.

    It does sound great though! I saw one on the Nurburgring for test drives.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    917.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    V8 and 3 series don't go together well? Somebody forgot to tell the M3 in ALMS.
    Oh my gosh. Maybe BMW had to respect some sort of regulations , which seem to be common in most racing series Click here to enlarge

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    369
    Rep Points
    442.3
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Was the track wet? Because this track gets tight and has lots of weight transfer "sections" as well as elevation change which would favor torque but not weight and a high center of gravity. If the track isn't wet the only real explanation i'd believe would be different conditions or drivers in the X5M vs M5 comparisons. An E60 M5 is still a very quick road course car and not all that heavy for it's size. An 8:13 on the ring with Contact 2's is moving, and even in 2006 that was not the greatest tire.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,914
    Rep Points
    1,353.5
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14



    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    They drove the current M fleet and the e60 M5 time is from their testing after its launch. The track back then was a bit damp and e60 can do better than that.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    286
    Rep Points
    291.7
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I have not read all 30+ comments, but this is so much bull$#@! that the X5M and X6M lap faster than an E60M5.. unless it was raining frogs or in snow conditions.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Srsly?? The semi-slicks account for at least one to two seconds of the time advantage!!

    The GTS is an epic fail in my book. It would have been great at $75.000. But the price tag puts it in 911 GT3RS territory, to which it's simply no match.

    It does sound great though! I saw one on the Nurburgring for test drives.
    Are you really buying GT3RS or a GTS? Who knows what the price would be if it was brought to the USA. Converting Euros straight to dollars doesn't ever approximate the cost correctly.

    You have no idea how much time the tires account for except that they are a factor.

    The M3 has a longer wheelbase, is right at a similar weight with the 1M, has a carbon roof for lower center of gravity, has more power, better suspension, etc. It simply is superior around the track.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Oh my gosh. Maybe BMW had to respect some sort of regulations , which seem to be common in most racing series Click here to enlarge
    It seems BMW decided to be at their best in this series a V8 was necessary. Did you forget they switched from a 6? And did it over a decade ago?

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
    They drove the current M fleet and the e60 M5 time is from their testing after its launch. The track back then was a bit damp and e60 can do better than that.
    Thanks for this. I'm not sure why they would include it then as it wasn't tested in the same conditions, not fair.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    917.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    You have no idea how much time the tires account for except that they are a factor.

    The M3 has a longer wheelbase, is right at a similar weight with the 1M, has a carbon roof for lower center of gravity, has more power, better suspension, etc. It simply is superior around the track.
    You should read the german mag SportAuto more oftenly Click here to enlarge They often test cars on the Hockenheimring (small course) where they generally claim that semislicks account for a 1-1.5 seconds advantage over street tires. Lap times are in the 1.15 minutes range on that course. So admitting the same time advantage on the slightly longer Sachsenring is certainly not a stretch!

    If the M3 is "superior" on the track vs the 1M, why is it slower then? Click here to enlarge

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    You should read the german mag SportAuto more oftenly Click here to enlarge They often test cars on the Hockenheimring (small course) where they generally claim that semislicks account for a 1-1.5 seconds advantage over street tires. Lap times are in the 1.15 minutes range on that course. So admitting the same time advantage on the slightly longer Sachsenring is certainly not a stretch!

    If the M3 is "superior" on the track vs the 1M, why is it slower then? Click here to enlarge
    Earlier you said 1 to 2 seconds. 2 seconds being a half second more than what you are now claiming. So, which is it? I get the impression you were trying to inflate the difference as if to say the tires account for most of the difference.

    Well, I think the ring shows a bit more than a shorter track.

    Secondly, I don't read SportAuto but am familiar with various tire compounds. Yes, they make a difference, but putting R-comps on a 1M doesn't turn it into an M3 GTS which is the best track car in the BMW lineup today, period. It also happens to be the M car BMW execs stated they would choose themselves for a lap around the ring.

    How is it slower? We have had several tests now some of which show the M3 as faster and some which show the 1M close on tight tracks. You are reading a bit much into one set of numbers on one track.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    6,217
    Rep Points
    6,741.9
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    68


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The M3 has a longer wheelbase, is right at a similar weight with the 1M, has a carbon roof for lower center of gravity, has more power, better suspension, etc. It simply is superior around the track.
    Mmm, wait. Why do you claim a longer wheel base would be better on a track???
    I would prefer a shorter wheel base on a track every time. It is not drag racing, it is track racing.
    Longer wheel base creates better stability al higher speeds in a straight line, shorter wheelbase makes a car turn better. The more square a wheel setup is the better the handling.
    There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    917.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge

    Secondly, I don't read SportAuto but am familiar with various tire compounds. Yes, they make a difference, but putting R-comps on a 1M doesn't turn it into an M3 GTS which is the best track car in the BMW lineup today, period. It also happens to be the M car BMW execs stated they would choose themselves for a lap around the ring.
    Erm, I thought you'd be smarter to fall for such marketing hype Click here to enlarge

    The GTS is barely (if at all) faster than the E46 CSL, depending on the track. At double the price, and with a stripped interior, rollcage etc. So where's the progress in that? Just shows that M Gmbh have taken a wrong turn in designing the current M3.

    Luckily Audi and Merc did even worse, with their cars (RS5, C63 AMG) being even heavier and handling less good. But the latest C63 AMG seems to be on par handlingwise, with more power! Let's see how the next-gen M3 (or M4) will turn out.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by DavidV Click here to enlarge
    Mmm, wait. Why do you claim a longer wheel base would be better on a track???
    I've been noticing the 1M's short wheelbase makes it almost twitchy. It seems to go past the limit pretty quick and want to hang its tail out all the time. The M3 appears more composed and these tendencies I brought up regarding the 1M seem to be mentioned frequently in reviews.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,716
    Rep Points
    31,537.8
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    Erm, I thought you'd be smarter to fall for such marketing hype
    The ring time is marketing hype? Even the E46 M3 CSL with less power the wheels is outlapping the 1M on the ring.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Autobahn335i Click here to enlarge
    The GTS is barely (if at all) faster than the E46 CSL, depending on the track. At double the price, and with a stripped interior, rollcage etc. So where's the progress in that? Just shows that M Gmbh have taken a wrong turn in designing the current M3.
    No debate from me there, both the CSL and GTS are better track cars tahn the 1M. The GTS is simply a more hardcore version of the M3 like the CSL. They made the M3 better, that doesn't mean anything was wrong with it. What, Ferrari releasing the Scuderia means there is something wrong with the regular F430? Illogical.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    286
    Rep Points
    291.7
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    The track seems to be
    1slow and
    2twitchy,
    3wet and
    4cold,
    Either all above or a mix .. which will favour the more torque cars, and those with 4x4.On almost any other track the E92M3 will be faster than the 1M in decent conditions, well it is a bit interesting to see how the "newer models" fair better than the older. The E60M5 is a very quick car, on most tracks, and this test really does not tell me anything.The conditions must have been damp or conditions very cold or both.., because the tires alone on the GTS should like Autobahn335i states, give a bigger advantage alone than the total. Then you have -more power (both hp/torque) than the CRT along -with less weight-faster shifting... and all of this only gives you a margin of 1.5seconds... on a 1:40 lap.. The test is making less sense as I read through it.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    6,217
    Rep Points
    6,741.9
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    68


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I've been noticing the 1M's short wheelbase makes it almost twitchy. It seems to go past the limit pretty quick and want to hang its tail out all the time. The M3 appears more composed and these tendencies I brought up regarding the 1M seem to be mentioned frequently in reviews.
    The nr 1 cause for the 1M wanting to oversteer is the amount of torque delivered by the N54 at lower rpm.
    With a M3 you really have to rev the engine to get to the higher powerband. The N54 does not need high rpm to get much torque.
    Again, Joseph, maybe you should first try to drive a 1M before shooting down this car for what it says om paper.
    And the 1M still only has 265 size rubber on the rear wheels as standard tire size versus the 285 (? not sure) of a standard M3.
    That would break it out a little more easy with the same carweight.
    There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Luxembourg
    Posts
    1,191
    Rep Points
    917.6
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The ring time is marketing hype? Even the E46 M3 CSL with less power the wheels is outlapping the 1M on the ring.

    No debate from me there, both the CSL and GTS are better track cars tahn the 1M. The GTS is simply a more hardcore version of the M3 like the CSL. They made the M3 better, that doesn't mean anything was wrong with it. What, Ferrari releasing the Scuderia means there is something wrong with the regular F430? Illogical.
    Yes, Bmw made the M3 better (for tracking) with the GTS, but the fact that it can't even beat its predecessor, the CSL, shows there's something wrong. It's just too damn heavy. Strip out a CSL the same way and you're looking at what, maybe 1200kg? That would drive circles around all E9x M3s...

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    286
    Rep Points
    291.7
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Not sure a stripped CSL would drive circles around the GTS, even with the added weight it has so much more power and a better gearbox.Talking about driving circles around CLS's.. check out 2:40 on this video from SPA Click here to enlarge

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,914
    Rep Points
    1,353.5
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14



    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    You can speculate all you want with the ridiculous and uncomfortable limited edition models that do not even exist in real life, but in your dreams and in collectors' garages. And those few cars are way overpriced to be driven anyways.

    Now, comparing cars that actually run in the rain, have aircon, and even radio, just compare the regular M-versions. e92 M3 is way quicker than e46 M3. Moreover, the e92 M3 performance comes with the modern safety standards and the related weight addition.

    e92 M3, unlike its predecessor, can compete even with the newer cars such as 1M and M5.

    M5 is the king for now though. It is surprisingly fast taking into account its official weight and power figures. Well, those are just figures in paper.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •