PeterUbers

Just wait till renntech, ams, and other tuners get ahold of the 4.0 ttv8 ...

Then we can talk whp vs whp

Love these times...

Ingenieur

The M4 is slower to 150 mph than a 2011 PP
It is the ~ same as a 2008 base car...both measured by C&D
6 year newer design
dct vs slushbox
> 400 lbs lighter
20 mm wider tires
hi tech lsd vs NO lsd
Same speed
Does not compute lol

CarHopper

I'll just leave this here...



Just having some fun, unfortunately no equations for that one

Ingenieur

I can make a dyno read anything
With the comp ratio and boost required to make 575 lb ft the engine would detonate
A 2010 C63 PP ran 12.1/120 in R&T
That is faster than any M3 documented time
If a 3600 lb car had 427/430 (502/506 crank! Lol) the M would be running low 11's 125+
GTR and Z06 territory

At a comp ratio > than 20:1 and engine will detonate on 93 oct
30:1 BOOM!!!!

The dyno is cooked
No way is the m making over 500/500 stock
Not when a PP is faster to 150 and 400 lbs heavier
10% heavier
4% less hp
10% less torque
Less tire
But faster
That is patently absurd
But you know the saying, a fool is born....lol
523 at the wheels is 615 lb ft at the crank 50% more than stock ~406
3.4 lb ft per ci
Lol

CarHopper

^ I just don't understand why you always have to have a reason around things or an excuse. You and I get along, so I feel like I can say this... Don't be afraid to be wrong. Just because you draw up all these equations and dig up weights and percentages etc. doesn't mean they are going to always be right. We live in an imperfect world.

If you can make a dyno read anything, go get 600whp on your C63 as it sits.

Maybe that dyno is reading insanely high. Maybe that m3 came from factory on the more powerful side. Or, maybe, just maybe, these cars do have this kind of power.

Regardless, this guy slapped his m3 on a dyno, with an off the shelf beta tune, and laid down those numbers. It happened man.

I'm all about supporting the c63 and I also believe that when it comes to what will make more power the c63 is set to make that happen. Which is a good thing because these M's are making serious power.

Anywho, hope you take that the right way.

Bardman

How dare you use evidence and real world feedback to dispute theoretical calculations! Outrageous behaviour!


On to more important topics. Does anyone know what the f**k these two purple guys are doing... -->

abcut973

Numbers look attractive but yeah let's see how reliable these engines are in the long run. I have no doubt tuners will have the new C63 on par with these or better.
Let's wait and compare what is comparable.
Either way thanks for sharing... and boy the numbers won't be able to overcome the exhaust sound IMO

raz3091

Great cars and great numbers. Still think the v8 M3s sound way better.

chris135b

Bingo - Reliability!


I remember back in the Audi B5 A4/S4 days when the big tuners started pushing quite a bit of boost through the turbochargers. People were getting huge gains in HP and TQ; it was all fun and games until things started blowing up! Like the old F1 days during the turbo era. Seeing the engines go KABLAAAMOOO at Hockenheim was crazy...seeing the shards of metal come from both banks! Wow...spectacular failures.


I remember being at my dealer when an S4 came in with turbines torn to shreds from too much boost from tunes. At that point, APR started brining in the K04 units from the EU RS4 to compensate. All of the Stage 3 tunes upgraded to K04 units.


I'm hoping things have changed since that time (hard to believe that was 14 years ago!) We'll see what happens when we get our 4.0TT.


-C

Ingenieur

it's all in fun
but the numbers are BS
ramp dynos are BS
the only reliable measurement is a steady state at 500 rpm intervals for 5-10 sec
like rototest does

a car that is 10% lighter and has almost 15% more torque and 11% more power (according to this dyno) will be faster every time
not even factoring in the wider tires, LSDS, better tranny and better wt dist.
it is not faster
the engine is NOT producing over 600 lb ft of torque

I don't get upset over internet debates
I hope you are the same
number and equations are the basis and 'language' of this stuff
if people dismiss the logic they are denying the facts

Ingenieur

let us assume the M3/4 has 500/500 power/torque like the dyno 'proves'
from these numbers vs base C63
the M4 is 10% lighter
and has +11%/+15% greater power/torque

Car & Driver Dec 2007
C63 base no LSD
0-150 mph 22.8 sec

can someone find some R&T, Motor Trend or C&D 0-150 numbers for the M3/4
iirc they were with +/- 0.5 sec but I can't find them now

I think we all agree givien the wt/power/torque advantages, not to mention wider tires/LSD/DCT it should be faster, a lot faster

Illegal Machine

So, tuned C63's usually run 12.2-12.3 1/4 mile and trap around 116-117. Dyno around 420hp on a dyno jet.

The M4 dyno posted above put down 427hp + big torque from the turbos and are running high 11's-12.0 trapping 118mph+.

I'm not sure what's so suspicious.



And since they have factory forced induction, of course tuned (on race gas/E85 at that) they'll put down massive gains.

cloverfield

We just tested the M4 DCT and its 0-150 mph time was 20.8 sec.

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...015-bmw-m4.pdf

The M3 we had was a manual and a bit slower to 150: 23.3 sec
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...w-m3-sedan.pdf

The C63 P31 sedan we tested from 2010 did 0-150 in 21.7

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...nt-package.pdf

The 507 Edition coupe had the same time as the P31:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...7-mar-2014.pdf

The base model (451hp) from 2007 did it in 22.8

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...comparo-ts.pdf

As I understand it a simple software flash on the C63 nets about +20whp over the P31 tune, so depending on the state of the M3/4 tune, tire condition, driver skill, the cars are pretty closely matched.

ML63 AMG

Sounds awful

Ingenieur

stock C63 PP have run 12.1/120 in documentated magazine tests
no M4 has run better than 12.1/119

it's a rare C63 that dyno's 420 at the rear wheels
427 whp is 500 crank...the M is rated 426 crank
it is NOT under-rated by 15%

C63 run 20-23 0-150
the M's typically 22-24
the C is 400 lbs heavier

a 500/500 car 400 lbs lighter should run much faster than a 440/480 car 400 lbs heavier

not 'suspicious'
not 'possible'

Ingenieur

thank you for the numbers and links...puts things in a better context with documented numbers from a reputable source

so the M runs 21-23 range
the C63 22-23
so both +/- 1 sec or so
essentially the same times

but the M is 400 lbs lighter
has wider tires, etc.

so the M can't have more power than the AMG
it is appropriately rated 425/406 power/torque

F = ma or a = F/m, mass ~ weight and F = torque x gearing / tire radius - losses
time is linear with speed
v = at or t = v/a
so if avg a (or force/thrust since mass is constant)
if a goes up 10%, times should decrease by 10%, conversly if mass is decreased by 10% F (or a) goes up by the same and time goes down 10%

time is not linear with distance though
d = 1/2 a t^2
or t = sqrt (2 d / a ) we'll assume d is constant like a 1/4 mile
so if F goes up (or mass goes down) 10% (a is 1.1 vs the original 1) the time to distance will decrease by (1/1.1)^1/2 ~ 0.953 or 5%

so if the M has >10% more power and 10% less mass it should be:
10% faster to a given distance and should accel to a fixed speed 20% faster...it does not

on paper it has 10% less mass (4000 vs 3600) and 8% less torque (443 vs 406) so it should be ~2% faster
if we use 22.5 for the AMG
22 for the M
0.98 x 22.5 ~ 22
go figure

the M does not make 500/500 stock
all I'm trying to do is cut thru the BS and hyperbole

Illegal Machine

415-420 is what a TUNED C63 puts down on Dynojets. A tuned C63 is right were a PP is. That's just shy of 500hp to the crank.

So the HP for a M4 and PP/Tuned C63 is really close, plus the M4 is lighter. Therefore it runs a quicker 1/4 mile.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Look at this guys slips. Look at the 60ft. That's an 11 second car.

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho....php?t=1032190

No way a 3600lb car making 360hp (425-18%) is running 12.0 at 119mph. THAT'S impossible.

Ingenieur

the car ran >12, not 11's
a 406 lb ft 3600 car will run low 12's high teens all day long
power is a measure of the rate of torque application
it propels the car, not power
P = T x w (w = 2 Pi n, n = rev/sec)

look at the above documented 0-150
less than a sec M4 to C63 PP

the M4 is not a 500/500 car
the 425/406 rating is accurate
a 6 year old C63 ran to 150 faster than a new M manual 22.8 vs 23.3
despite no LSD, skinnier tires, and 400 lbs heavier, lol

a 500/500 3600 lb car should be low 11's 125 range
like a Z06

Illegal Machine

Nope. For instance, tuned 335i's weigh around 3600lbs and don't get into the low 12's until they're dynoing 400hp+ and 410+tq AT THE WHEELS.

A 3600lb car making 344lbs of torque at the wheels (406 crank) isn't running a 12.0 at 119mph.

And a 12.061 with a 2.057 60ft is an 11 second car driven by a 12 second driver.

The M4 is VERY underrated by BMW.

Illegal Machine

AAAAAAAAND

Z06's dyno nearly 450hp and weigh less than 3200lbs. That's why they run low 11's at 125mph.

Ingenieur

incorrect
0-150
450 HP 4000 lb car 22.8
500 HP 3600 lb car 23.5
'nuff said
it is rated accurately as I proved above
just becasue you do not understand (I don't mean that the wrong way, math/physics/engineering is not everyone's forte') doesn't render the result invalid
sorry

12.061 is not 11 in anyones book

Ingenieur

nope
closer to 3300 when scale weighed vs 3550 for the M4
torque is 470 vs your 505 for the M
7% lighter 7.4% more torque
they should run the same if the M has >500 lb ft per your dyno for a stock car

Illegal Machine

I know enough engineers to know that they have a huge disconnect when it comes to understanding real world applications to their numbers.


Your quote about "12.061 is not 11 in anyones book" is a perfect example. A 2.057 60ft is a mediocre launch on a prepped drag strip. That's a solid high 11 second car with an inexperienced driver at the wheel.

Did I miss the part of your calculation that compensates for driver error?


Just because you don't understand how to read a time slip (I don't mean that the wrong way, drag racing/trap speeds/60ft's are not everyone's forte'), doesn't render the numbers invalid. I've taken my cars to the drag strip for years and know what variables can change a recorded time.


Here's the easiest way to compare it. A current car that's really close to the M4 is the 2013 5.0 Mustang GT. They're "rated" 420/390 and weight 3550.

Those things don't TOUCH a 12.0 at 119mph. Not anywhere close. They run mid to high 12's 112-114.

Thanks!

Illegal Machine

Maybe on a scale....with a person and fuel in it. If that's the case, add that to the BMW, too.

Curb weight is under 3200lbs. Just like the curb weight of the M4 is just under 3600lbs.

Thanks for trying to obscure the numbers to prove yourself correct!

Z06 weigh sub 3200lbs, dyno around 450hp on dynojets and run low 11's at 125.

Mustang GT's weight 3550ish, dyno around 390 on a dynojet and run 12.5's at 112-114.


BMW M4's weight 3550, dyno around 420hp and run high 11's to low 12's at 119mph. Which slots right in between the two. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

Illegal Machine

And for record, the new F10 M5's are putting down huge numbers stock, as well. BMW is seriously underrating their new turbocharged engines.