Chimp, this discussion is about stock M3's. So let'd do that:

16.8
17.6
18.1
18.6
18.1

Avg = 17.84

dude your on the wrong forum again not a M3 forum.

Why do you even try? your getting owned by Improviz.

E46 M3: 17.9 seconds 0-200: (NOT 17.6).

Real avg = 17.9. Which even if one is a) prepared to ignore tests of modded M3s (something you were not prepared to do in discussions about AMGs; more on that momentarily), and b) accept that the 16.9 is less than totally suspicious, being as it is over a full second quicker than the others, 17.9 is not in any way, shape, or form the "mid 17's".

PwNeD again.



Oh, and your sudden devotion to stockers only is touching, particularly when one considers

this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this:

and this.

All six of those posts were presented by you in the context of discussions of the straightline acceleration abilities of stock AMGs. At that time, you certainly did not seem to feel bound and obligated to constrain your data to stockers only.

So since you now seem to regard this methodology as unsound, do you repudiate and disavow the above six posts??

http://www.einszweidrei.de/bmw/m3e462005-1.htm

Test in sport auto 01/2005
Gewicht 1565 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,0 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 17,6 s

PAWNED LOSER!

Sorry for you!

Game over insert a new coin.

(And I can't believe you say that Sport Auto's 16.8 sounds suspicious. WTF? This is SPort Auto man. Not Farmer's Weekly).

Answer. Are you repudiating your earlier posts where you used MODIFIED cars in discussions about STOCK cars? Or are you willing to admit you're nothing but a trolling hypocrite who has the consistency of warm milk?

Also please answer this: are modified M3's slower than stock ones?

He wont answer you about that subject cuz! he doesnt know. all his fact are just from a magazine, that are all base test.

how does this make him a pawned loser you have failed time and time again to answer his posts and yet, you totally ignore something which shows you are wrong and you post ANOTHER article link about how fast and god-beating these M3s are, ffs mate get a grip

This is a Mercedes-Benz forum, you want to talk about how quick your track-wanna be car is, go back to Bimmerforums or e46fanatics.

AND IF YOU ARE ALREADY BANNED IN THOSE FORUMS, REGISTER UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME (Like you are so good at) AND POST AGAIN

mate, you need to bahave do you know where you are?

I just say its time to rumble

Hmm, is that crickets I hear chirping? I believe it is...Monkey Boy has a nasty habit of disappearing when I corner him.

So I take it then that he's not prepared to repudiate and disavow his earlier posts wherein he felt it very fair and relevant to use data for MODIFIED AMG cars in discussions about the straightline acceleration capabilities of STOCK AMG cars. I further take it that he's NOT going to state that modified M3s are slower than stock M3s.

In which case the averages should contain ALL of them, INCLUDING the modified ones.

Fair enough. So, here they are again:

Modified Digitech M3: 18.5 seconds 0-200

Another modified Digitech M3: 18.7 seconds 0-200:

E46 M3: 18.1 seconds 0-200:

E46 M3: 17.9 seconds 0-200:

E46 M3: 18.6 seconds 0-200:

E46 M3: 18.1 seconds 0-200:

AC Schnitzer modified M3: 21.5 seconds 0-200!!

and lastly, the two Monkey Boy loves to use:
E46 M3 16.8 seconds 0-200:

E46 M3: 17.6 seconds 0-200:

So, let's observe the data for these.

{16.8, 17.6, 17.9, 18.1, 18.1, 18.5, 18.6, 18.7, 21.5}

The average 0-200 km/h is 18.42 seconds.

Note that of the nine M3's tested, including three modified versions:
1) only three cars, comprising 33% of the total sample, were below 18 seconds;

2) only one car, comprising 11% of the total sample, was below 17 seconds;

3) five cars, comprising 55.5% of the total, were between 18 and 19 seconds;

4) one car, comprising 11% of the total, was over 21 seconds.

Statistically, this means:

1) the norm is 18.42 seconds, in line with 55% of the total cars being tested between 18 and 19 seconds;

2) the number of samples tested below 17 seconds was identical to the number of samples tested above 21 seconds, making both equally likely.

But wait: there's more: Monkey Boy kindly provided a few tests in British magazines. So we now have an even wider sample. Unfortunately, the Brits test in mph, but here's a handy fact: 160 km/h = 100 mph. So, we can examine the total sample's time from 0-100, and see where Monkey Boy's beloved 16 second car lies in the spectrum.

The two British tests he provided gave 0-100 times of 12.3 and 11.5 seconds. Car & Driver got 11.8 seconds in June 2001, and 12.3 seconds in May 2003. Road & Track ran 11.6 in this test of a six speed manual.

And how did the Euro tests fare? Well, here are the previous tests, with 0-100 times provided:

Modified Digitech M3: 12.0 seconds 0-100 mph

Another modified Digitech M3: 11.7 seconds 0-100 mph

E46 M3: 11.4 seconds 0-100 mph

E46 M3: 11.4 seconds 0-100 mph

E46 M3: 11.6 seconds 0-100 mph

E46 M3: 11.4 seconds 0-100 mph

AC Schnitzer modified M3: 12.9 seconds 0-100 mph

and lastly, the two Monkey Boy loves to use:
E46 M3 10.9 seconds 0-100 mph

E46 M3: 11.0 seconds 0-100 mph

So now, we got us a LOTTA samples! Here they are, sorted from lowest to highest: {10.9, 11.0, 11.4, 11.4, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 12.0, 12.3, 12.3, 12.9}

Anything stand out?

1) the average (norm) 0-100 mph time is 11.70 seconds;

2) only one car (Monkey Boy's magic 16 second machine) was tested below 11 seconds, comprising 7% of the sample;

3) only two cars, comprising 14% of the sample, were tested below 11.4 seconds;

4) ten cars, comprising 71% of the sample, were tested between 11.4 and 12.0 seconds, inline with the norm.

5) four cars, comprising 28.6% of the sample, were tested above 12 seconds.

And the final interesting tidbit: of all of the cars for which we have data from 0-200 km/h, all cars which ran in the 11.4-12.0 range from 0-100 mph ran in the same range as the average, in the 18's from 0-200 km/h.

In other words, the "norm" for 0-200 km/h in this car is NOT the "mid 17's", or anything close to the mid 17's, but in fact is the mid 18's. The cars which do not fall into this range are ABnormal, either ABnormally fast or ABnormally slow.

End of statistics lesson. Oh, and Monkey Boy: suck on DAT!

Hey Chimproviz, you sure got me in a corner man. I don't know what to do. I think you need a life BTW.

OK, If I used modified AMG's to prove something about stock AMG's, then I was dumb. That would be stupid. If a discussion revolves around stock cars times, there is no point adding modd'd cars times into the mix. You seem to be doing the same thing now.

Surely you are intelligent enough to see that you can't do that? If I did, then you may ignore that. I have seen the error of my ways. In future, when referencing the performance of STOCK AMG's, I will stick to tests of STOCK AMG's.

Really simple isn't it?

Oh yeah Super Einstein Chimp, if you want to add modified M3's into the mix, I have tests od 7 modified M3's. Can I scan them in & add them to your list? I guarantee it will ring the average down significantly.


SO, can I, can I, can I? Pretty please? Or would you prefer to discuss stock cars. Then please redo your calc with stock M3's.

Do you believe that modified M3s are slower than stock M3s? In other words, does modifying this car slow it down?

'That is irrelevant. This discussion is about stock cars.

I have a test of the delage-tuned NA M3 that 11.8 1/4 mile. Am scanning it as we speak. Should be relevant in a discussion about stock M3's. What say you?

there you have it, Improviz provided your data to put you back where you belong

lesson for you once more, don't troll, you never know who you will run into on the internet

busy searching and scanning articles and links to post I believe

Say Impro, got a couple of supercharged E46 M3 tests as well. Should I add those in quickly? Or would you prefer to stick to discussions on stock M3's.

YEah Jon, your school teacher must be so proud. What the hell are you talking about?

OK I will say it once , don't troll, you never know who you will run into on the internet

get it?

I'm sorry, but nobody here put you in charge of determining what is, and is not, "relevant". Answer the question. Are cars modded by Digitech and AC Schnitzer slower than stock M3's?

Simple question. Because I'd like you to explain how it is exactly that three modified M3s cannot match your favorite stocker, the only one *ever* to be tested below 11 seconds 0-100.

We all prefer you stick your M3 discussions back in bimmerforums. Why don't you post there and are you going to avoid this question again because you are unwanted there?

Imp, ypu still don't get it. The cars were tested on different days. But you cannot use modified cars in a discussion about stock cars. And then you want to CHOOSE which modified cars to use. The ones with a bodykit & 21" wheels?

good work, I am sure you have never said anything about modded M3s in this thread

feeling tight at that corner?

Answer the question. Are cars modded by Digitech and AC Schnitzer slower than stock M3's?

Simple question. Because I'd like you to explain how it is exactly that three modified M3s cannot match your favorite stocker, the only one *ever* to be tested below 11 seconds 0-100.

I have posted multiple tests of stock M3's. NONE of them got below 11 s 0-100, except the one. NONE.

Answer the question. Are stock M3s faster than Schnitzer-modded and Digitech-modded M3's?

Yes or no. Simple question.

I don't think you want to put a supercharged M3 up against Renntech or Kleeman superchared C55's.

580+ hp beats 440hp every time in this kind of battle.

hey hes too busy scanning