Improviz

....here we have a tale of two times. You are claiming to have run a 13.0 @ 108 at sea level, and an altitude-adjusted 12.794 @ 108.75 at 6,000 ft., both of which when you were "bone stock".

Exhibit A: a timeslip that you have posted in the first post of this thread (fourth photo down), claiming to prove that you ran an altitude-corrected 12.794 @ 108.75mph.

Exhibit B: a post of yours made last night at Bimmerforums (before their moderators stepped in and shut you down, something I wish ours would do, as you are clearly in violation of terms of use). Your quote from this post:

And if we examine the time of car number 6, we see:
1/4 mile time: 14.25
1/4 mile speed: 161.10 (100.6875 mph)

Hmm, this is over 1/2 second slower than the timeslip you claim as your own.

I'm assuming that since neither the winning RS6 nor the 2nd place E55 broke 13 seconds, this race was also done at 6,000 ft. So, using the altitude correction you provided before, what does this translate to at sea level?

13.27 @ 108. A far cry from 12.79 @ 109!!!

This is bit more realistic. Thank you for posting that.

Let the excuses begin!

Nickerz

That is funny as hell! :p

Let's not forget what kind of response you can get with the ole reminder to the Mustang forums of what FORD stands for! I'm sure you'll get a favorable repsonse!

Belmondo

Looks like mm dude is seriously messed up. His every post is BS. I doubt he owns hte car or any time slips. A fking Milly Vanilly of automotive forums.

boxed

ok, i din't read the whole thread but from what i'm seeing he claims that he ran a 12.7 blah blah?...

if that's corrent than no...

the person that ran that M3 STOCK witha 12.7 @ whatever mph is real *****. he's over at the M3forum. He's a pro drag racer though. He gets unbelieveabily sick 60' ft. His name's Lee

the same guy Lee, ran 12.4 @ 108 i think with chip,intake,rear differn, and pulley i think. But anyways...whatever.

Improviz

That's been discussed here...M&M posted the videos of this guy's runs, and you can see by watching them that that M3 was *definitely* not stock...had the front (and therefore probably rear) seat removed, did not have stock rims, and almost certainly had drag radials.

I viewed the videos, and did a frame-by-frame...if you want the link, let me know.

boxed

here's a video from Lee from M3forum.net

http://www.daftproductions.com/videos/leedrag1.mpg

he ran a 12.59 sec against a low 11 sec Honda. It didn't show on the board, but thats what the Lee himself said.

This is another one

http://www.daftproductions.com/video...497_109-30.mpg

same guy Lee, ran fastest...not stock tho, had intake pulley rear differ, and a lighten a few pounds.

*EDIT* in that video he didn't have the Rear differ 4.10 installed yet!

boxed

STRAIGHT FROM m3forum.net

"I was there with Lee and witnessed it for myself - in fact I am the one who filmed it. Here is a picture of one of his time slips taken next to the tires to show the stock tires. I had to enhance the numbers because they were very faint.




I admit that when I first saw his time I was skeptical but now having met Lee and seen him do it I can say for 100% sure that these times are real. There is a lot of BS on the Internet but this is for real. There is no supercharger, no hidden NOS, no trick drag radials, no fake videos, no nothing - just pulleys, software, some wight reduction (passenger seat, rear folding seats, wheels and battery) and LOTS AND LOTS OF SKILL!! If Michael Schumacher was driving on a race track against me and he was in a stock Honda Element, I'll bet he would give me and my M3 a run for the money and I am a darn good driver - don't discount skill level!

Improviz

And the claim is that the M3 which ran this time was STOCK, right?

Look at the video. Look closely. Notice anything missing...like the right front seat??

STOCK M3's come with right front seats. STOCK M3's come with rear seats.

So, the car was clearly MODIFIED by stripping weight. I.e., it was NOT STOCK.

Which I pointed out to you yesterday, and which was pointed out before in this thread, here: the car in the video was modified.

Similarly, look at the second video you posted. Those are NOT stock M3 wheels, meaning they could be shod with drag radials, and as before, the front seat is missing, which as I again pointed out to you yesterday, means that in all likelihood the rear seat was missing.

"Stock" means "unmodified". If I strip 500 pounds out of my car and throw on some drag radials, I'd be well into the 12's as well, but guess what? The car would no longer be stock. Stock is "as it came from the factory".

Modded Honda Civics are fast too...but we are talking stock. Anything can be modded to be fast. Want to see a 12 second minivan? Click here.

boxed

theres a misunderstanding..

he ran 12.7 STOCK, COMPLETELY..

than the other times are not stock. sorry for the misunderstanding.

*edit

and you're right, he did take out his passenger seat, back as well i think..

lighter battery, rims/tires...and some other stuff. (while "moddied")

Improviz

Each and every video I've seen of that car is modded. The fact that he, or you, or anyone else claims on an Internet forum that a particular car, unmodified, ran a time that nobody else on the planet seems to have come close to is NOT PROOF.

PROOF would be a video showing the car, the exhaust, the tires, and then having it head down the strip. There is nothing even CLOSE to that that has been produced for this car.

And here's a little hint: your saying so and posting a timeslip doesn't make it so, any more than my posting the following timeslip and saying I ran an 11.962@113, BONE STOCK!!



Yup, there's your proof, dude: I did it, bone stock. And don't you dare question it, because it's an irrefutable fact!! Why?? Well, um, because I said so!!

Get real. Oh, and did you know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? It's true...look it up!

boxed

he didn't run those times, i lied.

Improviz

What proof have you seen? Someone said he did it on the 'net, and some other guy claims to have met him??

Let's look at a hypothetical situation: suppose some guy on the 'net posted a photo of himself in a running outfit with Nikes, holding a stopwatch, and said that he'd run an 8 second 100m dash in those Nikes. And suppose further that some other guy said he'd witnessed the event.

Would this be sufficient proof in your mind for him to be declared the new World Record holder in the 100m dash?

Or do you think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Simple question.

boxed

Hey, wanna meet up and do that 11 sec pass while i get it on tape?

Improviz

Several of the guys from this forum are hooking up at Moroso (which might be near you, depending upon where you are in FL). You should show up and run a 12 with them! :p

boxed

haha not that good of a driver :p

but anyways, i dunno why its so hard to believe someone like Lee, pro drag racer hitting 12's in his m3...

even some people on the m3forum has hit 13.0 flat stock SMG...

i haven't been to the track yet...the nearest one is like 2 hours away... =\

BLKM3

It's true, Lee Matthews, former mustang drag racer ran a 12.7 on a completely stock M3. Stock tires, seats, nothing was touched. The 12.4 run didn't have seats and some slight engine upgrades. If anyone knows anything about BMW's, they are so well tuned that even a chip, intake and exhaust won't do anything.

Improviz

Practice, practice!!

Oh, wow, too bad...always fun to see what you can do!

As to that time: the issue I take is the 60' time he claims to have gotten. I simply (as do others who have studied this, including many of the people on the BMW forum where he hangs out--check out the original thread where he made this claim and you'll see plenty of M3-owning doubters) don't believe that a stock M3 on stock Contis is capable of hitting a 1.6 or 1.7 second 60' time, which is what it would need (and what he claimed it did) to hit that time.

The tires don't have enough contact patch, and the car's suspension setup doesn't allow for a rapid enough weight transfer to get the level of grip needed to hit that 60' time. That is in AWD territory!

So, color me skeptical, but I'd be equally as skeptical if someone claimed to hit this time in a stock CLK55 if it makes you feel better!

Throw on some drag slicks and do a bit of weight reduction, and sure: I think an M3 could probably hit 12's with a really good driver...but not stock.

Heck, I know a guy who took a stock 4-speed auto C5 'vette, put a high-stall torque converter in there, some drag radials, and an exhaust, and he could run consistent 12.7's all night long...but stock, no way. The thing preventing it is traction and weight transfer, not driver skill.

Improviz

...I just haven't seen any proof of it, and some guy's saying he did it isn't proof in my book, no matter what his background. I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to boxed:

Let's look at a hypothetical situation: suppose some guy on the 'net posted a photo of himself in a running outfit with Nikes, holding a stopwatch, and said that he'd run an 8 second 100m dash in those Nikes. And suppose further that some other guy said he'd witnessed the event.

Would this be sufficient proof in your mind for him to be declared the new World Record holder in the 100m dash?

Or do you think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Simple question.

boxed

hahha practice practice sure...i wanna go to the drags really bad tho!...but damn 2 hours....thats crazy haha...

Improviz

....trying to start a flamewar here? The following really isn't very cool....

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=53049

What's up with this? If you want to debate here, debate here, but starting flame wars really isn't necessary.

boxed

I'm just pointing out that some people just don't believe (much thick skull). Its just too complicated. No harm feelings.


* edit

Search around, you'll probably dig up some old crap of m3 owners not believing him running those times as well..

Improviz

...plenty of BMW M3-owning people didn't believe it either when he posted the claim over at M3forum.com, so don't single *US* out.

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=24872

Improviz

...this is the video where Lee claims he ran a 12.7, stock.

Here is the thread where he announced it.

Here is the post in the thread where the link was given:

And he claimed the following, here::
Um, no. Not hardly. Watch the video from about 2 sec. in to about 8 sec., paying close attention when the camera zooms in from about 3 to 6 sec.

You'll have to zoom in a bit, but guess what: the front seat is plainly missing, which means that the rear seat was probably taken out as well. And do those look like stock M3 wheels to you? No, because they aren't stock M3 wheels.

Or, to put it in simple terms: the car in that video was in no way, shape, or form "stock".

BUZZ!!! Nice try, but you lose. Thanks for playin!!

boxed

he ran a 12.63 in that video u posted lol. that video, he wasn't stock.
u can see that he's running SSR competitions. 18" Thread here

#edit

here's the thread, his first time posted, no one believed him.


Thread

Improviz

Are you just skimming my posts, or are you ignoring what he himself said? For the second time: in the thread where that video was posted, Lee (Matthews) said the car's ONLY MOD was pulleys.

I have faith in you, boxed, and faith that you can read the English language. Can you please read the following post of Matthews' and tell me what it says? What is that he says about his only mod being pulleys?
Here's a hint: removing the front seat is a mod. Non stock wheels are a mod. And it certainly does not do much to establish this guy's credibility, in my eyes, when I see that he very conveniently failed to mention list these when skeptical M3 owners in the thread asked him what his mods were.

Did you simply not read the above, or not watch the video, or are you being willfully obtuse?? The proof is right there, in the video: the front seat is GONE, dude.

And frankly, I'm done debating this with you, until or unless you can produce some actual evidence (and some guy saying he did it on the internet is NOT actual evidence).

A claim is not evidence. A claim is a claim. That you and lots of other people are willing to uncritically accept this as factual when video evidence plainly shows the car WAS MODIFIED when these runs were made is fine and dandy, but it has not been proven.

With good reason. And you didn't answer my question earlier. Why is that? Logic issues? I'll ask it again:

Let's look at a hypothetical situation: suppose some guy on the 'net posted a photo of himself in a running outfit with Nikes, holding a stopwatch, and said that he'd run an 8 second 100m dash in those Nikes. And suppose further that some other guy said he'd witnessed the event.

Would this be sufficient proof in your mind for him to be declared the new World Record holder in the 100m dash?

Or do you think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

Simple question.