Should this happen or is the guy in C32 just have a slow reaction time??? I thought C32s were faster.

http://www.germantechnik.com/images/c32vsm3.wmv

sometimes m3's win sometimes C32's win

every1 already knows this, so the video doesnt really matter

you cant determine which car is faster jus by 1 occurance


i saw a M3 and a C32 beat a Z06 before, but that doesnt mean M3 is faster, cause we all know Z06 is way faster

Its obvious the C32 got a terrible launch on the second run. Those cars are so evenly matched in many aspects. Props to the M3 driver though, he was rolling through the gears much better than most. That's where many BMW'ers lose there races, on the gearbox. Was that the SMG M3? How does the SMG gearbox work exactly?

I dunno....here is the site I found it on...I guess you can ask the driver....


http://www.germantechnik.com/showthr...=&threadid=261

goto www.howstuffworks.com , they have a good explanation of it.

go read the C32 vs M3 thread again, and read the E36 M3 vs B6 S4 thread

The M3 driver did a very good job. That doesn't mean the M3 is a faster car. I raced a M3 in the freeway from 65MPH with my 02 CLK 55. The M3 can't keep up with me up to 150MPH. But that doesn't mean my CLK55 is faster car. All cars have pros and cons at different speed. In my case, that I6 can't can't keep up with my V8 above 100MPH. But from launch, the M3 has advantage because it has excellent launch control and has shorter gear. CLK 55 has a tall gear.

Neat. What car was the camera guy in?

A C32....if you want to know anymore just click the link I posted...thats the site it came from..

Man, the C32 engine sounds great!!!!!

Seen this video before. No worries, the first race was more normal (really very very close). The second was a bad race.

Odd that I never noticed this before, where was the camera car? Looked like the others put a quarter mile on it, should have had a 'slow' C32 for a camera car, ha ha.

If I owned that POS camera car I would have erased the tape and called it a 'draw', just so it wouldn't be all over the net.

Nice video. Nice death.

we can see the same trend as with the E36 M3: when it first came out, the test cars were all miraculously faster than the production cars tested later (check the history in Car & Driver and Road & Track at your local library).

Miraculously, the same has happened again: in the recent tests in both Car & Driver and Road & Track, the magical low-13 times have disappeared, and the cars are now turning the mid 13's that myself and others have been seeing at the strip:

Here is Road & Track's last comparison test:
Road & Track's article

Road & Track's test results pdf file:

Results for 1/4 mile:
M3 = 13.5@105.8
C32 = 13.6@105.4

Last comparo in Car & Driver had them dead even:
Car & Driver comparo

Results for 1/4 mile:
M3 = 13.6@105
C32 = 13.6@106

So, professional test drivers can get a statistical tie. To get these times, you have to launch as shift just as well as they do. Most drivers can't launch and shift as well as professional test drivers. The C32 is easier to launch than the M3, and shifts are perfectly timed and executed, each and every time.

Which is why in most cases on the street, the C32 eeks out a win: machines are more consistent than people, as all bracket racers know very well.

They also know very well that reaction time, launch, & 60' time are crucial to a win. In the video, the M3 driver reacted more quickly, got the hole shot, drove well, and as would be expected with two cars as equally matched as this, won. If the C32 guy had reacted more quickly & gotten the hole shot, it would have been a different outcome.

OMG this is so true. I have never seen a stock M3 run low 13s. Is it because a euro version was tested or what?

...the Car & Driver test of the M3 (shootout with the CLK55) did explicitly state that the M3 they tested was flown from Europe specially for that test. It was also a lightly-optioned stripper, which would lighten it up enough to make a few tenths of difference (each 100 pounds shaved = 0.1 seconds in the 1/4 mile)

As true as that is, I'm wondering as to how "professional" some of those drivers really are. Just as an example, I took my '01 Mustang GT out to the track with worn out spark plugs (50,000miles), same mileage on the factory filter, and also about 5000-6000miles on the oil change. And factory tires which need to be replaced.

C&D's "test" showed 14.7 in the 1/4, and yes they tested the same vehicle. 2001 Mustang GT Convertible with an Auto tranny.
Anyways, I've consistently pulled 14.45-14.50, usually 14.47 and 14.48. This was on three separate occassions in Texas, and a couple of times in Toronto (by this time I had changed the oil and filter and plugs).

When I called C&D and left a voicemail offering both video and timeslips (which I have since misplaced ), they of course did not call me back. My 60' time was I believe 2.1 if I'm not wrong.

Just goes to show, the magazines arent always right. Matter of fact take the times they give and knock off about .1 to .3 And if its a G-Tech you get the time from, add on about .1 to .3 (Not sure how the new one is though).

Gagan

So you are .2 seconds off? Statistically insignificant. Different tracks, track temps, and track condition will all play a role in variances.

With respect to 'professional drivers', I think the comment applied more to manual transmission vehicles.

I figured the tracks and temps and condition would come up. Thats why I mentioned it was numerous occassions and 2 tracks (actually 3 tracks, I forgot to mention a track in PA). All different temps (from as low as 40something F to as high as in the mid 80s).

The manual transmission may hold true. As for the .2 seconds, I was referring to the tie and professional driver comment. Sure I could be wrong, but the driving does matter a bit in automatics too. Especially since I dont have a TransBrake or Linelock I have yet to take an unmodified manual down a track so I cant personally comment on that. But given my personal experience I prefer to look around on sites or ask at local tracks to see other people's times. I've told people my times, and most say "amazing. You either are a very good driver or have a fluke car". I've dynoed my car and it has as much power as 'advertised'. And I don think I'm anything of a special driver.

Gagan