M&M

The answer to your question is yes. A stock M3 is faster than those modd'd ones.

M&M

Imp, here's an M3 tuned with cams, diff, airbox, ECU tested by European Car at Cali Speedway (not at sea-level).



Did 0-100 in 9.6. 1/4 mile in 12.2 @ 114.

This car has run 11's at sea-level.

Surely you realise that Modd'd cars is a seperate discussion.

If you to a fast modd'd car, buy a Mustang & put NOS on it.

M3 & C55 are not about that. Their breadth of abilities is more than going fast in a straight line.

Improviz

The two British tests monkey boy 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.

Here are the previous Euro tests, with 0-100 mph times for stockers provided:

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

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


Data set for stock cars:

{10.9, 11.0, 11.4, 11.4, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.6, 11.8, 12.3, 12.3}
^^^ ol' red looks kinda lonely there, doesn't he?

So, we have:

1) one car out of eleven, comprising 9% of the sample, was under 11 seconds;

2) two cars out of eleven, comprising 18% of the sample, were under 11.4 seconds;

3) seven cars out of eleven, comprising 64% of the sample, were between 11.4 and 11.8 seconds;

4) two cars out of eleven, comprising 18% of the sample, were over 12.0 seconds.

So, again: the "norm", or the average, was 11.56 seconds 0-100 mph (congratulations, monkey-boy: by removing the modified cars, you got back 0.14 seconds in the 0-100 mph average time!! ). And no, repeat, NO, car in the mid 11's 0-100 mph ran faster than 17.9 seconds 0-200 km/h. Most were in the low-mid 18 range.

If your claim that a "mid-17" 0-200 time to be the "norm", i.e. the average, were valid, an increasing sample size would track this by showing more cars' acceleration in this range. It does not. As the sample size increases, the percentage of cars in this range decreases. And as anyone with a passing knowledge of statistics can tell you, a higher sample size equals more accuracy.

M&M

Impro-man, if you get 11.56 as the average then that's fine. I accept that. What are we arguing about? I guess you think the 10.9 done by SPort Auto is impossible? Well, whether you like it or not, that was the time. A different mag testing a different M3 got 11.0. C&D got 11.2 for a brand new fully loaded M3. So what's the big deal?

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1

An M3 ordered by C&D fully loaded with almost all options, tested at 1940 miles, did 0-60 in 4.5, 0-100mph in 11.2, & 1/4 mile in 13.1 @ 107mph.

Now as you know, most cars get faster as they get more mileage. Unless something goes wrong with the car, or it needs new plugs, oil, service etc. But 11.2 for a NEW loaded M3 is close enough to 10.9 done on another continent for me to say that 10.9 is possible. An M3 with no options (moonroof, manual seats, etc) & more mileage should easily beat 0-100 in 11.2 & 1/4 mile in 13.1.

Note, I'm not saying its the norm. But if the stars are alligned & the moon is high, It's possible. (Of course its possible, its already been done).

reggid

especially in the case of the AC Schnitzer where the power is the same as stock but they probably just added more weight

Trekman

M&M you still cant prove nothing. your such a looser! man why dont you post at a BMW forum. you need to get banned you F *IN troll.

M&M

Trekman, good response dude. You rock. Where do I sign up for your fan club?

Trekman

why you gonna troll also you looser. man If you were here I'll slap you silly. I just hate your guts so bad! that why every time you post I will be there to **** you off. you troll

M&M

Yeah, Ok, I suck. But at least I can spell the word "loser". Also, I magically can find the shift button on my keyboard & start every sentence with a caps.

Trekman

dude just shut up! why dont you just leave? you dont drive a benz what the hell are you dong here. stupid a**

ProjectC55

To kill the speculation,just bring the car to the US,or make friends with an owner of an E46M3 on Bimmerforums,borrow his or her car and just race a C55.NO MORE MAG RACING!Otherwise TROLL sticks,

Trekman

Why not, I challenge you M&M, bring your car @ sears point raceway and its on! no Excuses you dam troll, this is you call out, you dam chicken head.

ProjectC55

Damn Dude! You want this M&M guy bad.

Jon200

The race is on !!

Improviz

I guess you have zero reading comprehension? What I'm arguing is quite clear. Read it again.

Well, whether you like it or not, that time was obtained in ONE OUT OF ELEVEN. Only one other was even close to it, and there were MORE which were OVER 12 SECONDS than were below 11.

...yes, and they also got 11.8 and 12.3 for the other two cars they tested. So, what's Car & Driver's average? 11.7 seconds.

The "big deal" is that you keep trying to assert that times of the fastest cars tested are the "norm", when the test data clearly show otherwise. And you continue trying to do so, in this thread.

...yes, and they also got 11.8 and 12.3 for the other two cars they tested. So, what's Car & Driver's average? 11.7 seconds. The other two cars' 0-60 times: 4.8 and 4.8. The other two cars' 1/4 mile times: 13.4@106 and 13.6@105.

That's nice to hear...for a change.

By one car. In one test. (Btw: does the phrase "manufacturing tolerances" have any meaning to you, who claim to be an engineer? Obviously you've never been involved in QA--that's Quality Analysis, fyi). The data shows that the overwhelming majority are in the mid to upper 11's, and even a few 12's.

M&M

Impro, that's fine. We can stop arguing now. I know 1 o 2 cars have got very low 11's (& 1 in the 10's). So if the average is 11.56 then so be it.

Coolcarlski43, I jave been to the track many times & posted many videos.

Trekman, I'd love to race you at Sears Point. Unfortunately I'm on the opposite side of the world to you. But hey, we can always dream of racing each other.

ProjectC55

Alot of folks there would kill to visit the States.They have rental car agencies that rent out M3's in Fla and Cali for a nice fee.Or like I said borrow some ones.

Yes I've seen the video's but I think we have better drivers with those same cars that can produce better results.Let me clarify,I'm talking about the drivers of those particular AMG's that you raced so I don't want to sound so general.

Cheers!

FrankW

M&M...watch the video, STFU, and never come back

https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...56#post1179056

M&M

Yeah OK, I can also post some videos that show otherwise. So who's right?

Anyway well done to that C32 guy.

FrankW

yay, well done to the driver for winning from a ROLL!! and the M3 looks to be SMG from the way it downshift and took off. so yeah, gratz to the driver from a ROLL! you are more pathetic than i thought...

let me guess which video you want to show?? the one with clucking chicken ring tone on the cell phone right? where the driver of the c32 clearly had weaker reaction time and couldn't control the wheel from spinning off the line vs Sticky's SMG or from their slow speed roll which advantage to the better low range geared M3 and then stopped before they get to where the C32 can pass the M3 on that road named Pathfinder Road which the longest straight will probalby only let you up to 80-90mph before hitting the next stop light on a local street.

Jon200

yeh we should all start posting videos and bimmerforums and start a fight there

everything started when you posted the so-called you in your I-have-done-13s-stock M3 against the C55, what so hard to take when the C32 beat the M3 from a ROLL?

noka

This is interesting but the subject says C55, not C32. Although close, does anyone have video of a C55 vs. M3?

Rgds,
Norm

M&M

Yeah THAT C32 beat THAT M3 from a roll. What's the big deal? That C32 is clearly stronger that than M3.

Noka, I have a video of an M3 vs a C55. I don't think you wanna' see it though.

schwarzwagen

I can't believe we are arguing over a few tenths here. Doesn't anyone here have a job? And the "yeah what he said, you are a troll" posts are so childish. Either ad something constructive to the debate or shut up, you sound like schoolgirls.

All I know is that a stock C32 can't turn for it's life. So what if the M3 is a fender slower, it's still the benchmark in this segment, end of story. Heck, BMW created the sport sedan segment! Not to mention that the M3 has less hp and a lot less torque, who would have thought that it was slower in a straight line.


Pointless bickering.

Trekman

no matter what the fact is the C32 still kick the M3 butt. so no more crying guys. I'm sure a M3 can win some race also but who said that the sun doesnt shine on a monkeys butt, it does.. So kill it C32 is still faster. Owned