Jon200

I think once again, you were kaned by Impro.

I am still waiting for a response as to why the article you provided said the M3 has a 3.4L engine

reggid

a typo?

Improviz,

If you race a car from 0-120mph and measure the 30-50mph speed increment for this test and compare it with a run from 30-50mph (when actually starting from a roll at 30mph) the difference in the times won't be anywhere near as different as the 5-60 and 0-60 phenomenon.
In a manual car at a launch the clutch slips and so you can get more rpms and hence hp but once you reach 30mph the clutch slip probably isn't significant anymore so whether you start at 0,10,20 or 30mph the 30-50 increment will be much the same. The only real difference will come from the throttle response and you can decide for yourself whether you think that is significant as full on clutch drop launch.

Improviz

Clutch slip has ZIP to do with a car's 5-60 times, reg, and it would seem that you're belaboring this point. Unless a car has clutch *problems*, the transmission would be fully engaged and the clutch would be fully out of the picture in any rolling-start race except, of course, at shift times if the driver in question messed up...and if clutch slip was a major contributor to the discrepancies between the cars' 5-60 times and 0-60 times, then how do you explain the fact that the RS6, which is an *automatic*, ran 0-60 in 4.4--but 5-60 took it 5.5??

Traction at launch is the issue here, not "clutch slip".

Further, as promised earlier, have a look at the RS6's acceleration times. Unfortunately, neither Car & Driver nor Road & Track published the complete suite of 0-xxx times, as it was only tested in comparison tests, wherein they normally publish only a subset. However, R&T did run it against the E55 in the 0-100-0 shootout, and from the graph they provided one can read the 0-xx times.

From the graph, I measure a standing-start 30-50 time for the RS6 of 2.0 seconds, and a 50-70 of about 2.4. Both of these are well off the times Car & Driver got for the car in its rolling-start 30-50 and 50-70 runs, which came in at 2.4 and 3.1 respectively.

And as I pointed out before: these times are nearly identical to those obtained by C&D in its rolling-start runs for the CLK55, which came in at 2.7 and 3.1 seconds respectively. Yet, if we compare the cars' 0-100 times, the difference is stark: the CLK55 was tested at 12.2 seconds, while the RS6 came in at 10.8.

And using standing-start runs to do a 60-100 mph split shows that, again, rolling start runs are markedly different. The CLK55 as tested by Car & Driver had a standing-start split of 7.2 seconds; the RS6 took 6.3--and yet the cars' 50-70 times were identical.

Speaking of the CLK55: we can also look at the rolling start CLK55 data from Car & Driver and compare it to the xx-xx times using Road & Track's 2001 test of the CLK55. They stated that they did not use an agressive launch, and in fact got their best times from just stepping on the gas. And yet...

Subtracting using the Road & Track numbers gives a standing-start 30-50 time of 2.0 seconds and a 50-70 time of 2.6 seconds. These are both significantly faster than the 2.7 and 3.1 obtained by Car & Driver in its rolling-start runs--yet Car & Driver tested their CLK55 0.1 *faster* in the 1/4 mile, and also tested it faster from 0-60 mph, and from 0-100 mph. But your methodology would have us believe that despite this, the Road & Track car accelerated 0.7 faster from 30-50, and 0.5 faster from 50-70--yet still was measured slower from 0-100 and through the 1/4 mile.

Hmm...so if this methodology works, why are the measured 30-50 & 50-70 times of a faster car off by 0.7 and 0.5 respectively from what this supposedly-reliable methodology calculates them to be on a slower car? Why did the car which supposedly accelerated 0.7 faster from 30-50 and 0.5 faster from 50-70 lose by 0.1 in the quarter mile, and why was it measured slower from 0-60 and 0-100?

I repeat: this methodology simply does not work, and I've shown data from three different cars to back it up.

M&M

Hey Jon, you right man. Impro sure got me. I'm shivering all over man.

And you also got me with the 3.4l thing. I mean we all know Autocar is junk. If you are hoping to win this argument based on a typo by Autocar then, I'm afraid you are in bad shape bud.

Anyway, besides the DAMP test, I have posted other mags (eg, Auto Bild), where the M3 has faster 30-70mph than the C55. Even the Track-challenge site has the M3 pulling away after 100mph.

But my personal feeling is that the cars are evenly matched after 100mph. If the M3 driver isn't in the right gear with his revs up, then the C55 slushbox will kickdown & C55 will get a lead. This might have a knock-on effect where the M3 has lost momentum until he gets in the powerband, but then it would be impossible to run a C55 down from behind.

I would honestly say, even though I am an M3 driver, that I would not be able to run a C55 down from behind at higher speeds. But the reverse also applies when I race my buddy's C55. If I get ahead he cannot run me down all the way to speed limiter.

But this 5-60 test in interesting. I agree with the results. The C55 will be faster. It has a 5.5 V8 with loads of torque from idle. An M3 has a power peak at 7900rpm & torque peak at 4900rpm. But in an actual on road encounter, I will kick the clutch & get the revs up. But the magazines won't do that in a test.

But such is life, an M3 is designed like that so it will lose an encounter like that. Just like the C55 loses a side-by-side run both cars in 4th gear.

Improviz

So damp roads don't affect traction at higher speeds, eh? OK, here's a little experiment for you to try: go find a nice, level, damp asphalt road which dead-ends at a cliff. Measure very carefully a distance of 156 feet back from the edge of the cliff, and put some markers there. Road & Track tested the M3's braking distance on *dry* pavement at 155 feet, so you should have one foot to spare.

Now then: hop in your beloved, paid-for-with-the-help-of your negative advertising campaign M3, and drive towards the cliff at exactly 70 mph on this nice, damp road.

Just before you hit the markers, hit the brakes with all you've got, and verify that the car's traction at high speed was not in any way, shape, or form affected by the road's being damp.

I can assure you, there are plenty of people here, including myself, who would dearly love to see you perform this experiment--and would pay extra for front-row seats.

M&M

Impro, c'mon, I was enjoying having a technical discussion with you. I just asked because on a damp surface (not wet), an M3 has no traction problems once in motion. I mean sure from a stop its bad, & the shift from 1st to 2nd can get a bit hair-raising. But if you are alread in 2nd gear & stomp it at 30mph I have no problem (provided the surface is not bumpy).

Now I asked you because obviously your car is different to mine. It's possible you may have traction issues. That's why I asked. No harm intended.

reggid

you failed to understand my post.

Clutch slip ( as occurs in a good launch) has zero to do with the 5-60 time is right, i never said otherwise, but it does affect the 0-60 time which is what i said is the reason for the large discreptancy for the m3 and rs6's 0-60 and 5-60 runs becasue they can slip the clutch /torque converter to give more rear wheel torque without breaking traction.

so great you use a graph where you could be out a tenth or two just reading it and compare it to values from a different source, very conclusive.

Improviz explain to me why the 50-70 time in a 0-100 run should be different from an actual rolling at 50-70 run (in a manual car) other than transient throttle response
note: i'm not talking about a 3rd gear or 4th gear rolling run but a through the gears rolling run which will probably involve some of 2nd and 3rd gear (the lowest gear available).

What about the 50-70 time in a run from a roll at 45-xx will this be the same time as the 50-70 increment in a 0-100 run (if you use the lowest possible gears)? You claim it wouldn't! Why?

Jon200

shame it took me so many times to get an answer from you even though u was trolling as usual If you are going to post how fast the M3 is quicker around the track, at least post an article that hasn't got a typo, read over before you post. Who said I am dissing Autocar

I am in a bad shape.. man look at the entire thread, including ALL the links of your trolling history, your sorry apology and your warnings in the Audi forum, your so-called stock M3s running 12s.

scovit

I can't believe how long this thread is!!!!!!

Keep going.......you are closing in on a record.....

No two stock M3's run the same....no two C55's run the same....all vehicles are variable in fact so many dynamics that play on test results.....1 car to 1 car stats mean nothing....

If you want to get a true statiscal aggregate....go out and buy 100 M3's and 100 C55's, run them under perfect lab condtions temp, calibrated dyno etc., etc., which is nuts!!!!!!

Perfect world stats aren't any good either! Because they are "perfect world"!!! No such thing!

Who's faster????? M3 or C55 Who's better????????Who cares......I think two completely different cars......2 door vs 4 door.....I don't even think its a good comparison.

S4-C55 closer better to compare, 4 doors 8 cyl, similar body types.

News flash---------M3 is gone and is being replaced!!!!!!!!!!

Another News Flash so will the C55-------in a couple of years!!!!!!!!

I hope by then you guys will not still be going at it..........

1313

M&M,

M3's 4th gear is much much shorter than C55. FYI M3's 6th is still shorter than C55's 5th. The best comparison is use the lowest possible gear for that given speed. i.e. 50-120 etc. C32 4th gear is good for 150mph, but not M3.

I'm quite sure Honda S2000 can pull away from M3 initially if you pulled both of them in 4th gear in a rolling start say from 60mph.

Improviz

Perhaps this is because it was less than crystal-clear.

Right, the key words here being "breaking traction". My point is that the added traction is what gets them the faster 0-xxx times.

That is hardly all I used, and you know it. Are you counting on people not reading my posts in their entirety, or are you not reading them in their entirety??

I used actual published test data for two different CLK55s, reg, *and* the RS6 and you have yet to explain how, despite the fact that the Car & Driver CLK55 was tested faster from 0-60, 0-100, and through the 1/4 mile, it somehow managed to run 0.7 and 0.5 slower in its rolling-start 30-50 and 50-70 runs than the 30-50 and 50-70 numbers obtained from using the methodology you're advocating (subtracting the times from the 0-xx data) on the Road & Track car..

Why is there such a large discrepancy if this method is oh so sound, reg??

How is it possible for the Road & Track car to be tested slower in all acceleration tests and yet still (supposedly) obtain superior 30-50 and 50-70 numbers than the Car & Driver car, unless the launch was a factor?

How is it possible for the RS6 to run so much faster from 50-100 than the CLK55, when the CLK55 tied it from 50-70, unless the launch was a factor?

Answer. I'm not going to play this game of you ignoring my questions and me answering yours. If you want to debate, do it fairly and honestly. My data compares rolling start runs with 0-xx runs, and there is a huge discrepancy which you ignore.

Explain it. YOU are the one claiming that this method works, **I** am merely pointing out that it does not. YOU are the one making the claim that this method works despite the numbers not coming out; I want an explanation. The numbers don't work, reg; why?

Until and unless you address this discrepancy and why we should all ignore it, I'm through wasting time with you, because "it's true because I say it is" doesn't wash. Present data or equations to support your argument, as I have, or find someone else to argue with.

Trekman

racing in 4th gear.. must be something they do in drag racing....

M&M

Errrm, its called a tractabilty test. Tests how tractable a car is. Hence the heading under which the results are posted is calles, SURPRISE SURPRISE, Tractability tests.

We all know that the universal was of testing 2 cars is to race from a stop.

ultraseven

Insecurity has taken on a whole new meaning.

Seriously M&M, have you ever spoken to a woman without telling her how powerful your M3 is?

Trekman

man you have to be a nerd to do and to read all this test! thats like comparing an intel chip to a AMD chip. maybe the AMD is a little faster but intel chips sell more. So M&M you must not have a life. my advice is take your M3 out and look for a nice girl, maybe you might score.

M&M

Hey dudes, I'm married & have a kid.

But I still don't see why everyone get's so upset here. I'm not saying which car is better. Hell I'm not even saying which car is faster. I'm just saying that the majority of evidence appears to show the M3 has a slight edge on the C55. That's all.

But if you guys want to take that personally, .......

Trekman

Man I think you are the one that's taking it personally. we are just making fun of you! Does everyone here have to spell it out for you? you have not learned that this 2 cars are different. 2 door vs 4 door sedan, not in the same Class, maybe the S4 and the C55. for me M3 are nice cars but I see them all the time! I wonder if you do this on the Audi Forum's? I think you use to get beat'n up when you were a kid. LOL

reggid

forget about comparing car a to car b for a minute thats not what any of my recent posts have focused on.

Just look at my attachment originally posted by agent1313 the test data from auto car give 0-xx and xx-yy times for the c32 and m3.

eg.
c32 standing start 30-50 increment = 1.6s Vs 1.5s from rolling
c32 standing start 40-60 increment = 1.9s Vs 1.9s from rolling
c32 standing start 50-70 increment = 2.4s Vs 2.4s from rolling
c32 standing start 60-80 increment = 2.7s Vs 2.7s from rolling
c32 standing start 70-90 increment = 3.1s Vs 3.1s from rolling
c32 standing start 80-100 increment = 3.5s Vs 3.4s from rolling

have to choose the right increment for comparing so that when you compare the standing start to the rolling run the rolling run is taken in the lowest gear possible

m3 standing start 40-60 increment = 1.9s Vs 2.0s from 2nd gear rolling (2nd starts at end of 1st at 41mph in standing start but they started at 40 in the rolling run).

m3 standing start 70-90 increment = 3.0s Vs 3.3s from 3rd gear rolling

m3 standing start 80-100 increment = 3.8s Vs 3.7s from 3rd gear rolling

pretty close i'd say

reggid

its pretty simple the c&d rolling runs are done at top gear not kickdown so the fact you are using this means you never understood my posts.

i never argued that a car will be as fast from 50-70 in a standing start as 50-70in a rolling run using either 3rd, 4th or 5th gear. The 50-70 standing start run uses 2nd and 3rd gear.
But a rolling run from 2nd gear with a gear change to 3rd is almost identical to the standing start time see above.

The point of the 30-50 and 50-70 runs in top gear is to look at the engine flexibility and nothing else so why aren't people treating it this way?

Improviz

Absolutely, totally false. It's pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about. Read the magazine. It plainly states that C&D rolling runs are done in kickdown for automatic transmission cars, reg. For manual transmission cars, it is an in-gear test.

How about actually doing some research before spewing BS all over the web and attacking my intelligence when you're totally in the wrong?? You plainly hadn't researched this, and yet come in here acting all authoritative on the matter and insulting me. These tests are kickdown for autos, and Car & Driver has plainly stated this.

Yes, and to use your favorite cheap shot: you clearly did not understand my post: the Car & Driver tests ALSO USE THESE GEARS.

Here's some more data for you to chew on, again using an RS6, and again keeping in mind that the Car & Driver tests are through the gears with automatic transmissioned cars:

Euro RS6 test:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/audi/rs62002-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,7 s

80 km/h = 50 mph. 120 km/h = 75 mph.

Using your methodology, subtracting the 80 km/h time from the 120 km/h time gives a 50-75 time of 3.1 seconds. This 50-75 mph time is 0.4 seconds faster than the Car & Driver car's 50-70 time, and yet this car tested 0.5 seconds slower from 0-180 km/h (100 mph) than the Car & Driver RS6 did; the car in the Euro test took 11.3 seconds, while the Car & Driver car took 10.8 seconds.

So, again we have an RS6 which according to your methodology runs 0.4 seconds faster from 50-75 mph than the Car & Driver's true rolling start test results from 50-70 mph time--but yet the same car was tested 0.5 seconds *slower* from 0-100!

And again, since you didn't understand it: the data I published before from Car & Driver was done in SECOND and THIRD gears, so here it is again:

Speaking of the CLK55: we can also look at the rolling start CLK55 data from Car & Driver and compare it to the xx-xx times using Road & Track's 2001 test of the CLK55. They stated that they did not use an agressive launch, and in fact got their best times from just stepping on the gas. And yet...

Subtracting using the Road & Track numbers gives a standing-start 30-50 time of 2.0 seconds and a 50-70 time of 2.6 seconds. These are both significantly faster than the 2.7 and 3.1 obtained by Car & Driver in its rolling-start runs--yet Car & Driver tested their CLK55 0.1 *faster* in the 1/4 mile, and also tested it faster from 0-60 mph, and from 0-100 mph. But your methodology would have us believe that despite this, the Road & Track car accelerated 0.7 faster from 30-50, and 0.5 faster from 50-70--yet still was measured slower from 0-100 and through the 1/4 mile.

Hmm...so if this methodology works, why are the measured 30-50 & 50-70 times of a faster car off by 0.7 and 0.5 respectively from what this supposedly-reliable methodology calculates them to be on a slower car? Why did the car which supposedly accelerated 0.7 faster from 30-50 and 0.5 faster from 50-70 lose by 0.1 in the quarter mile, and why was it measured slower from 0-60 and 0-100?

So reg: where is it that these slower cars are picking up the time??

Make sure you read the above carefully so that you can understand it, because you seem to have trouble understanding my posts.

Not in the Car & Driver tests. I'll say this again so that you can understand it: the Car & Driver tests are done in kickdown mode for automatic transmissioned cars.

Are we clear on this now? Are we to the point where you can stop taking cheap shots and accusing me of not understanding your posts? Because I really don't appreciate being patronized, particularly by someone who's factually challenged...but if you want a mud fest, I'll be more than happy to descend to your level and give you one.

I guess you didn't understand the BMW salesman's posts either; he's using 4th-gear acceleration numbers from 50 mph to try & establish that the M3 is faster in a rolling-start race.

AgentQ

Wow, your argument is correct, but this has become the theater of the absurd.

I think a stock vs. stock C55 vs. M3 race needs to be set up.

Trekman

I think we do need to to our own testing. we should have a race with video! stock VS stock. C55 VS C32 VS M3 VS S4 I think that would be cool!

reggid

ok i'll admit i did not read the kickdown auto thing but you haven't addressed the numbers i posted not long ago which showed the kickdown numbers very similar to the actual incremental times, just curious to why that is.

You also seem to like comparing car and driver rolling times to the standing start from a different mags theres part of your problem, until you produce a single test where the there are 0-xx and xx-yy times allowing a direct comparison i'm not going to believe anything, oh wait i already did that and you ignored it, how convenient.

It also doesn't matter that a euro mag tested the rs6 slower from 0-100 than C&D did but got faster 50-75 times than C&D did in its kickdown tests for 50-70 because the cars are different, the conditions are different and the test methods are different so you can argue until your blue because its not conclusive and no where near scientific, you really ought to know better.

Ok just for a minute if i was to admit your right and i'm wrong which i am not why would it be the case (besides the actual time to kickdown).

btw i have several tests showing the kickdown times to within 0.1s of the incremental times 80-120km/h which i'll upload soon.

AgentQ

Stunning.

Didn't you read the above post about forgetting the tests and just running heads up on the road and track?

reggid

we are not argueing which car is faster!