MiamiAMG

Fair enough

M&M

Say, didn't I mention "ON A VERY STICKY SURFACE" in all my posts? Of course an M3 will do 2.0 on a slippery surface or if the guy can't drive or launches at 2500rpm. Hell, he'll probably think he got a good launch.

SO Improviz, I give up. You say those M3's must be running Nittos. OK, must be that way then. Problem is, it seems it only gains you a few hundredths if the surface is good.

But let me ask you one final time. You say it is physically impossible for an M3 to run a 1.8 on stock tyres now matter what the co-efficient of friction the track has? So even a super sticky track with lots of VHT laid down where the soles of your shoes get ripped off if you walk on the staging area?

OK, maybe you didn't study physics at college, so I'll excuse you. But let me ask you this. Let's get BMW out of the way. We've seen that C32's can run 1.9X 60ft's. LEt's say me could put a manual 'box into a C32/55. Do you think a manual C32/55 could get a 1.8 in perfect conditions? BEar in mind that now you can launch at whatever rpm you want & control wheelpspin with the clutch.

M&M

Impro, what a piece of work you are son. Sneaky. You obviously did the same search as I did & chose to post the slow 60ft times. Love your work. Remember the question was if its POSSIBLE to do a 1.8, so we are looking for the best 60ft times.

Check out these 2 that you left out:

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/membe...s&userid=20790

4000lb M3 convertible doing 1.891 60ft on street tyres

And here's another:

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/membe...ls&userid=5805

E36 M3 doing 1.9 on street tyres. Remember E36 M3 has less power & torque, narrower tyres & track, no 100% LSD, & inferior rear supension.

You seen my 60ft's at 5750ft elevation where there's almost a 20% power loss. I did a 2.0 on street tyres. And our strips are not as big money as you guys have. There was no VHT or track-bite that day. Basically like launching on the street. That's why I know its possible to to a 1.8 because I have done a 1.91 60ft spinning down the line. If our track was as well prepped as E-town I could have done a 1.8. That's my opinion, I can't prove it to you.

But you've seen the facts of many other people doing those times. Can't wait for how to discredit the times above.

So what about my question on a manual C32/55?

M&M

Here's a bone stock SMG doing 13 dead:

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=47181





Note the 1.958 60ft. It is commonly ascknowleded by BMW OWNERS that the 6MT is quicker than the SMG from a stop. There are numerous threads on there about that & in fact one very recently where all the SMG owners admit that. The fact that one can pick one's launch rpm & feather the clutch are the reason for that.

So I've proven an SMG can do 1.958. The Launch control in the US is I believe set to 1800rpm or something ridiculous like that. The Euro spec SMG launch control launches at 4500rpm (look it up just in case I'm lying).

A manual would be 1st prize though. I don't think its beyond the realms of possibility to say a 1.8 is possible.

Improviz

Sneaky, eh? I checked the vehicles I found to ensure they were stock...unlike you, as we shall see:

Somebody is sure a piece of work here, but it isn't me: I limited my results to STOCK vehicles, specifically STOCK E46 M3's (the new one, like you drive--supposedly) as this is what we are discussing. You keep trying to sneak MODDED vehicles in here, and you keep getting busted in your repeated lies:

Yes, check it out: click on the link. Have a look: please, check the link. Because if you do, and you look at the little "MAJOR MODIFICATIONS" row, you will see the following:
Lie # 1: exposed. Vehicle not stock, per testimony of its owner.

Yes, here's another lie from M&M:

I thought we were discussing E46 M3's?? Anyway, again, look at his MAJOR MODIFICATIONS:
Again, a MODDED vehicle. As to his "narrower tires": he isn't stock by his own admission, and we have no idea what size tires he has. Not that it matters, as HE ISN'T STOCK. The examples I posted *were*.

The remainder of your post dealt with a timeslip you claim as being your own. As myself and others have noted, your dishonsety is so suspect at this point that I give it no credibility, and will only note that a timeslip by itself, particularly one posted by you, is not "proof" of anything.

Nice try, but you lose--again, as usual.

Improviz

This shows how much time you put into actually reading my post: THIS IS THE FIRST LINK I PUT IN MY POST, DUMMY. Click it and see for yourself. Sloppy, son....

Yes, note it. You keep wanting to ignore everything after the 1.9, namely that 58, but the fact remains that it is a 1.958, i.e. a lot closer to a 2.0 than to a 1.9, and you're claiming a 1.8. *AND* also note that this time is one of the fastest times on that forum for any *stock* car (although this is purely a case of taking his word for it, as there is no video of his run; still, unlike you, I haven't busted this fellow in seven or so lies in a matter of a few days). Sorry, but I spent a lot of time on that forum, and the fastest I found for anything stock was this one, just under 2.0.

So far, you have yet to post any proof of any stock M3, anywhere, hitting a 1.8. Keep trying.

M&M

OK, so you accept that this car was stock & ran a 13.0 with a 1.958 60ft? Would be pretty dumb of you not to accept that as its pretty obvious that car is stock. You do of course realise that this car is SMG?

Now, you probably gonna' change your tune & say this particular car isn't stock BUT is it not safe to assume that if a bone stock SMG can run 13.0, then a 6MT can d 12's?

Beacause it is a fact that the 6MT is faster than the SMG. I can post links from the owner of that car as well as other SMG owners acknowledging that.

I can post links to most major mags that tested both & got the manual between 0.1-0.4 faster. Even in Europe & rest of the world where the LAunch control revs to 4500 instead of 1800 for the US version, the 6MT is still faster. I have tests done by Sport Auto & many other Euro mansg where the manual is on average 0.2 faster.

This dude got 1.958 revving to 1800rpm. M3 doesn't have much torque down there. As for the other M3's I posted, yeah they had bolt-ons. Did I say they didn't? I posted the links to their details. But what bolt-on do you know of that imroves your 60ft? Most mods like chip, induction etc work best at high revs.

60ft is all about the launch & wheelspin. And about my timeslip, I posted it on the windshield of my car. You want a close up on the car? Not that it matters, you probably say I picked it up in the trash or something.

Never mind, I'm getting some runs this week-end. My buddy with the silver C55 from the SKidpad videos might be coming. I'll be sure to get footage for you.

reggid

Motor magazine tested the SMG as being faster over here with the higher LC revs.

five different tests are shown below:

(1) 0-100km/h 5.00s 0-1/4mi 13.23@????? SMG
(2) 0-100km/h 5.38s 0-1/4mi 13.59@170.5km/h (106.0) SMG
(3) 0-100km/h 6.22s 0-1/4mi 14.05@165.4km/h (102.9) SMG

(4) 0-100km/h 5.81s 0-1/4mi 13.84@166.4km/h (103.4) Manual
(5) 0-100km/h 5.78s 0-1/4mi 13.77@167.0km/h (103.8) Manual

Jon200

Reggid are u from Oz?

Jon200

The 6spd is faster than the SMG provided than you can shift quicker and you are a confident stick driver, you can also control the launch a lot better with a stick than SMG

my 2 c

M&M

Reggid, were those guys launching on ice to get 13.8 at sea-level

You muxt remember that we get Euro spec just like you & the gap is less between the SMG & manual than in the US. Their LC aunches at 1800rpm.

Also, I found that a lot depends on the surface. We have done numerous tests between manual & SMG. If you have a very grippy surface then the gap will me minimised. But even then its at least 0.1 all in the 60ft.

On a slippery surface the gap widens as one has more control with the manual. You see you can't beat the human factor. Launc control uses the same lanuch rpm whether you on ice or at a sticky drag surface.

A human can go & try 4000 & then evaluate. Too much wheelspin, let's try lower rpm or slipping the clutch more. Bogged a bit, let's try higher rpm nect time. SMG's gonna' launch the same every time with LC.

But all our local mags got the 6MT faster. One mag got up to 0.4 faster, but you can never tell if they jjust got a weak SMG to test. I would say that with 2 novice drivers the SMG would be faster. With 2 experienced drivers the manual would be faster. But that's just my opinion.

reggid

Yes i am from Oz,

Who can shift quicker than SMG? It would take more practice to master a Manual than would the SMG, not to mention that the mags probably don't spend much time practicing, maybe a dozen or so runs.
So i would think a manual can achieve better than i posted under certain conditions. But the SMG's runs were quick!!!

Improviz

English as a second language?? That is *not* what I wrote. I wrote: That is what is referred to as "skepticism". I searched for slips, then took those only from owners who *claimed* to be stock, and as I showed in my post, most were far, far away from a 60' time anywhere close to that which you're claiming, with *this one* being the only one, SMG *OR* manual, to even break 2.0. Hardly a glowing endorsement for your insistent little fantasy, but you keep right on trying...


Why is that; because he says so? Pay attention, dude: YOU might be one to go blindly believing whatever you read in Internet forums that supports your preconceived beliefs, but I'm too cynical for that one. He *claims* he's stock, but I haven't seen any evidence of it, and there isn't even a video of his run. So, he might be stock, he might not be, but I'm certainly not vouching for his stock condition.

What I did was this: I searched the M forum for timeslips of people who *said* they were stock; if someone said they were modded, I left them out.

And what I found was that other than "Miraculous Matthew", who, like you, somehow managed to avoid showing up when challenged to reproduce his runs in person. He said he'd show, but never came back and gave the challenger a date to do it. Then, afterward, he claimed to have gone to the track; so why didn't he issue an invite? $500 on the line, and this guy doesn't even bother to tell the guy he's showing up, then comes back afterward and talks sh*t about it? Whatever.


I do realize that that is what he wrote.

Since I never said he was, only that *he* claimed he was, I'm not "changing my tune" about anything. Again, I wrote: . Again, this is called "skepticism".


Sorry, but the claim that a "bone stock SMG can run 13.0" certainly hasn't been established with any level of certainty, and anyway, that is not the topic of this thread.

The topic of this thread, which you started, is "About 60ft times", your argument being that a "bone stock M3 can hit a 1.7-1.8 60' time". Well, until/unless proof is shown to the contrary, i.e. a run with irrefutable proof of what you're claiming, which is again a "bone stock" M3 running a 1.7 second 60' time (I keep reminding you because you keep changing the subject), I'm sticking to my guns: I maintain that this is not possible in that car with stock tires. With slicks/drag radials *perhaps*, but not on stock Contis.

Hate to bust your bubble, but reggid's post below seems to refute this claim, assuming his numbers are accurate.

Actually, he said no such thing. He said that his fastest 60' times were with "massive wheelspin", which is contrary to every run I've ever seen, but I saw nothing about 1800 rpm in that thread, nor does a search for "1800" in the thread turn up anything. Pulling numbers out of the air again?

Seriously, dude, what's the deal with you? Do you simply think that you can lie with impunity? I keep busting you in lie after lie after lie, and you keep coming back in here with more of them. Don't you realize that people are reading this, and with each one you let fly, your chances of being taken seriously by anyone on this forum drop like a lead balloon? Or do you even care? You are one strange cat, I'll say that.


You certainly didn't say they *did*. Stop trying to spin, dude: you've been busted in outright lies too many times (again in this post) for anyone to believe this was an "honest mistake", particularly when your thread is dealing with the 60' times of "bone stock" E46 M3's, which kinda, sorta makes the times for modded M3's (particularly modded *E36* M3's) irrelavant.

And so again, you post about "your" timeslip, and again, I say that after all of the lies you've been busted in, it too is irrelavant.

Oh, and you're going to the strip again this weekend?? Would you mind letting the fellow from this forum in the C32 who you first told you'd be there, only to bail and not show up as promised??

Please advise...a witness or two from this forum *would* enhance your credibility, you know.

And be advised: I'm to the same point with you on this topic that I was with Thai the other day: I'm sick of wasting time. You, like he, seem to relish arguing simply for the sake of arguing, and when cornered, you simply change or massage your argument and press on.

To this point, after dozens of posts, you have not produced one shred of evidence showing conclusively that anyone, anywhere, ever, in a "bone stock" E46 M3 has hit a 1.7 second 60' time. And until, or unless, you do, insofar as I am concerned, my debate with you is finis, because I've quite frankly wasted enough of my time arguing hypotheticals, particularly with someone as intellectually dishonest as yourself.

AND I would also state that if you FAIL TO INVITE MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM TO THE DRAG STRIP **AND** TO SHOW UP, I will ALSO not engage you anymore, because TALK IS CHEAP. AND given that you claimed to have skipped out last time because your car was being modded, I fully expect to see you *bettering* the times you claim to have gotten before--WITH WITNESSES.

Got it? Clear enough?

Good.

reggid

Test (1) was for the annual "bang for your buck" test which is at different location to the others. I'm not 100% sure of the conditions or the test procedure used whether it was two people and full tank etc etc

In the same test other cars of interest were:

EVO 6 0-100km/h 5.25s 0-1/4mi 13.27
RS4 0-100km/h 5.35s 0-1/4mi 13.63
SLK32 0-100km/h 5.40s 0-1/4mi 13.60

M3 0-100km/h 5.00s 0-1/4mi 13.23

M&M

Wiw, Reggid. M3 was faster than Evo, SLK32, RS4 in a shoot-out! I'm impressed.

I have a buddy with an Sti8 with some mods. He beats me every time we race 400m. I gets frustrating 'cos he jumps me good off the line & I run him down every time towards the end but I *just* can't catch him. He normally beats me by 0.2 but his exit speed isn't big.

He's coming on Sunday so we'll see if the mods made a difference.

TC32AMG

1.7-1.8 is still hard to believe on stock tires.The suspension on M3's/c55/c32's from the factory are not made for drag racing, too stiff very little weight transfer.
http://chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/46199/

I know these are not M3's but these cars are making some power are setup for drag racing and are having a hard time getting into the 1.7 range.

Check out these links:

This guy is at E-town on drag radials with lots of sidewall to help 'launch' the car
http://z32racing.50megs.com/Z/_photo...o2/page_01.htm

Few dispute that the Buick GN/GNX and Turbo TA do not come off the line very hard (stock or modified) because of the massive amounts of low end torque those motors make, low trap speeds with low et's mean they are making power down low turbo lag is not an issue as you launch on boost already. I used to own a GN
http://www.hi-psi.com/newtimes.htm

Good comparo of street tires vs different drag radials
http://www.cobracentral.net/bfgdrag.html

This guy is set up for 1/4 mile runs
http://www.go-fast.org/z28/dragrace.html

Also when power braking you may be revving at 2000 RPM but the engine is loaded, if you were to lift the rear end and 'unload' it the revs would be right up there or you can do a neutral drop. When you rev a manual up to 5000 rpm there is no load on the motor what would happen if you started to load the motor, the revs would drop.

An anaology: You have a drill it is spinning say at 500 rpm unloaded. Without doing anything to the speed you grab the chuck and squeeze the rpms drop but the same amount of 'torque' is there it is just being resisted by the friction of you holding the chuck.

Therefore, this is why I don't understand why an automatic is at a disadvantage. With an auto you are loading the motor and the tires to the maximum grip of the tires on the track, when you feather the clutch at 5000 rpm you are doing the same thing. The difference being that with an auto you are applying max power given grip before the light goes green and with a stick you are doing it after the light goes green

As for a LSD and steeper gears for the M3 that is true and it helps but with the auto you have the torque converter that...well multiplies torque.

As for launch control I dunno, I could see it as making your runs much more consistent, it can't be that bad if the formula 1 guys use it and those guys are professional, I would think that they would know how to feather a clutch if anyone could.

T

M&M

T, good post. I agree on all your points.

But you must remember you are comparing big V8's to a 3.2 6. The M3 has very little torque down at 2000rpm. In fact it has peak torque at 4900rpm.

If I rev to 2000rpm I will bog for sure, unless its slippery. Those cars you mentioned make big torque low down. Maybe their best launch would be around 2000rpm.

With a manual the major advantage is control. You can drag the clutch & not give all the torque to the wheels at once. Granted that's not good for the clutch, but its the bets launch. I sometimes don't full let go of the clutch until 2nd gear.

DOing that with a forced induction car with big mid-range torque will fry the clutch for sure. But the normally aspirated M3 doesn't make big torque, so the clutch can handle it. I'm still on my original clutch & I've done many launches.

The other thing with the manual is you revving to 5500. SLipping the clutch & controlling the wheelspin & once it hooks up you revs are high. You pulling from 4500-5000rpm & 1st gear is over in a blur. Quick into 2nd & off you go. SMG's got no chance I've raced many.