0-60 4.9sec! WTF!!!

[ikos]

http://www.evo.co.uk

click on m3 vs c63.

0-60 4.9
0-100 10.7
1/4 mile 13.2

all the North American tests are atleast 0.4 to 0.5 sec quicker.

even the c63 is much slower then other tests show.

do they use different equipment or different methods in obtaining times??

[Arustik1]

They just underrate the times...

[!Xoible]

yah + UK drivers cant drive worth shit
jk

[Atny286]

On the German website, it says it goes from 0-100kmh in 4.9 (sedan version).
As 60mph = 96kph, it is strange they only got 4.9s?

Also it says that the Coupe takes 4.8s to 100kmh...

[MJC///M3]

Originally Posted by ///Mantis

yah + UK drivers cant drive worth shit
jk

lol

[ikos]

some magazines like Car and Driver have the E90 doing a 4.1 to 60 and 12.6 1/4 mile, which honestly I think is not realistic. but, 4.4 to 60, 10 to 100, and 12.8 1/4 mile sounds about right!

[Atny286]

Maybe it stopped raining after BMWs time trials...

[reRESERVEDFX]

It all depends on the driver, tires, road and how warm it is on the outside and even how windy. I think it's possible to push it to 4.2 but no further.

[Herms]

doesn't sound too far off if they're not doing a rollout.

[ikos]

bmw states the E90 will do 100kph in 4.9sec which = 4.7sec to 60mph.

and they are conservative with their numbers.

[ersin]

Different drivers, atmospheric conditions (temperature, pressure), type and condition of road surface, condition of car, tires, etc. are factors that make comparing performance akin to just telling stories. What's important here is the comparison between the M3 and C63 since they were tested back to back in essentially the same conditions. In different conditions (e.g. C&D) the M3 did 60 in 4.1 seconds and the Merc in 3.9 seconds! The same difference in performance.

[BimmerRob08]

Originally Posted by ///Mantis
yah + UK drivers cant drive worth shit
jk


+2,

I'm Italian!!

[M-Maika]

Originally Posted by BimmerRob08

Originally Posted by ///Mantis
yah + UK drivers cant drive worth shit
jk


+2,

I'm Italian!!

+3,

I´m Portuguese!!

[Battle]

My E92 M3 feels much faster when I go to CA from NV. I think humidity, temperature, sea level have alot to do with the cars performance.

[Speedtrap]

Originally Posted by BimmerRob08

Originally Posted by ///Mantis
yah + UK drivers cant drive worth shit
jk


+2,

I'm Italian!!

Italian? Pot calling kettle black?

[Atny286]

Originally Posted by M-Maika

+3,

I´m Portuguese!!

What's up with the flags?? Italian UK, Portoguese Spain???

[Deda]

lol!

[footie]

It's just that in the UK we test cars properly (i.e. from a complete stop, no rollout)

The US way is inaccurate and misleading to anyone outside of the States.

[nullspace]

Originally Posted by footie

It's just that in the UK we test cars properly (i.e. from a complete stop, no rollout)

The US way is inaccurate and misleading to anyone outside of the States.

That's absurd. The only major US tester to publish results with rollout is Edmunds, and they always publish both numbers, clearly labeled.

All the major US testers have published detailed descriptions of how they perform their tests. 0-60 is always just that - from exactly 0.

[footie]

I understood that C&D did the same. Sorry I must have got that wrong, but do they not test as drag strips?

The only thing I do know about UK testing is they do multiple goes to find the best method and chose the quickest time, also there results are usually a normal race track that is not designed to be particularly grippy.

[nullspace]

Originally Posted by footie

I understood that C&D did the same. Sorry I must have got that wrong, but do they not test as drag strips?

The only thing I do know about UK testing is they do multiple goes to find the best method and chose the quickest time, also there results are usually a normal race track that is not designed to be particularly grippy.

Motor Trend has a little video where they talk about their procedure, and they specifically mention that they use tarmac with a normal amount of grip. I'm not sure if the others explicitly say what surface they use.

To be totally honest, I think part of the reason some magazines get faster times is because they rely on the manufacturer to provide them with a car. Any manufacturer would be a fool to give the press anything less than a top performing example of the car. Even if they aren't making specific modifications, you can be sure they aren't randomly picking any old car off the line.

There are independent organizations that test cars bought on the open market and provide those numbers for a fee. I have a friend who does this, and they will spend many hours trying to extract another tenth from a 0-60 time. I think in general it's pretty safe to assume that most owners will have a hard time matching the published 0-60 times, and they would put significant wear and tear on the car trying.

[bruce.augenstein@comcast.]

Originally Posted by nullspace

That's absurd. The only major US tester to publish results with rollout is Edmunds, and they always publish both numbers, clearly labeled.

All the major US testers have published detailed descriptions of how they perform their tests. 0-60 is always just that - from exactly 0.

That turns out not to be the case.

Car & Driver, Road & Track and Motortrend all post their acceleration times (all acceleration times) with a one foot rollout. That's how you get down to a 4.1 second 0-60 time, for instance.

Given perfect weather, a perfect surface and your best launch skills (no matter who you are), there's no possible way you're going to get a 4.1 second time out of your M3 when measured from a dead stop. The difference is very close to a half second with cars at this level of performance on street tires.

Bruce