AllsopS4

... according to the numbers he got to 24.8mph in 1.9 seconds while Road & Track (who achieved a 0-60mph sprint of 4.7 seconds for the M3) got the Bimmer up to 20mph in 1.7 seconds. To me, that sounds about right and it also sounds like this guy knew how to launch at least as good as R&T did.

As for whether or not it was the same driver, well I can only assume that any test that would be half reputable would use the same conditions for both cars: driver, location, temperature, etc.

Also, I'm not arguing that these numbers don't seem slow for the M3 - they do. But what I'm saying is that if they're slow for the M3, then they're also slow for the S4.

quickersilver

The differences are normally *exactly* 0.3 seconds or so for those extra 2 mph...

Also, consider this: if you look at the 0-60 time and 0-70 time for the M5 (from Motor Trend, March 2000), you have:

0-60: 4.7 sec.
0-70: 6.1 sec.

Difference: 1.4 seconds to pick up 10mph. Averaging this out gives 1.4 sec/10mph = 0.14sec/mph. So, at this rate, to go from 60 to 62 would take 2mph*0.14sec/mph = 0.28 sec. Entirely inline with what Matthew Z said.

Yes, I'm the one who always figured out the word problems (well, except in that #*@& vector calculus class, but... :-)

meem

as stated, with the m3 road and track got 4.7 seconds 0-60, and auto und sport got 4.8 seconds 0-62. where's the .3? sure it's not apples-to-apples, but it's the same car.

anyway, i think your logic is off because you fail to account for the fact that acceleration is not linear -- besides the "power curve" phenomenon, there is also the little issue of having to shift at certain points. in the case of the m5, you can reach 60 in second gear, but not 70.

meem

so that logic doesn't work. in fact, i was shocked by their conclusion since the m3 beat the s4 in every measurable attribute, and often by a wide margin.

quickersilver

And of course I realize that the acceleration is not perfectly linear, but I don't happen to have the equation for the car's acceleration in front of me, so that I can perform the calculus on it to get the actual figure. This is close enough, however, because the acceleration at these speeds is *relatively* linear, and it does demonstrate that 0.3 seconds from 60-62 mph is not out of line.

I'll also post test data from several Euro mags for the M3, wherein it miraculously didn't manage to pull the same time as the ringers BMW shipped to the US mags for testing.

meem

really, i do not feel strongly about this, but i feel forced to respond based on the absurdity of some of the statements being made.

quickersilver

I'll put $100 a race on it, and I'll win. I've beaten about 15 of those things now, proof to me that they're not even close in reality to the times the mags got. At Ennis, none of them ran better than a 13.7.

quickersilver

<ul><li><a href="http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp?useframe=comparison1_e.asp?Car1=2%26Car 2=43">http://www.track-challenge.com/main_e.asp?useframe=comparison1_e.asp?Car1=2%26Car 2=43</a</li></ul>

quickersilver

From EVO magazine (British) in 5/2001:

M3(EVO)
0-50-------3.9-------
0-60-------5.1-------
0-70-------6.6-------
0-80-------8.1-------

meem

i'm sure you're a better driver than i am, and that's all you'd be proving anyway.