Finally In: Sportauto BMW 1M Coupe Nurburgring Time - 8:15

[Alpina_B3_Lux]

Originally Posted by EmmDrei

I read the full article in print this morning.

I honestly don't care about the laptime, but I think he is talking bs when it comes to the suspension. Driving the ring, my 1M bottomed out on three parts of the track. So why should it make sense to give it a softer suspension setup? And why harder stabelizers? To me the cars setup is fine for the Nordschleife as is. When you compare the track data graphic they provide (I'll scan the one for the 1M on Monday if nobody else does it in the meantime), then the 1M pulls higher Gs than the M3 in almost every corner. That alone is proof enough that the setup can't be bad.

I see what you mean - but take into consideration that softer does not necessarily mean that it would bottom out even more easily, to take that example. There are lots of variables to a suspension setup. Not having driven the 1M like you have, I don't feel qualified to make any recommendations however.

Originally Posted by EmmDrei

The big difference between the M3 and the 1M on the Nordschleife is the feel of ease. The M3 feels very settled and safe on the Nürburgring even if you push it hard. That's why so many Porsche GT3s lose out to the M3 on the ring. On paper an M3 doesn't stand a chance against a GT3 on the Nordschleife. In reality it depends on the driver. It is relatively easy to drive an M3 fast. A GT3 is a completely different story. The 1M is different also. You have to work to be fast and you are closer to the edge. Basically that is what the author also writes (in the full German article). But he blames it on the suspension setup and states BMW could have done better, that is where I disagree.

Actually I think Horst von Saurma (the author and driver) reached his personal limit in the 1M and he would have been faster driving in MDM than with DSC off.

I am actually not really sure that Horst von Saurma is really driving those lap times and not some other professional racing driver.

What you said about the ease of driving the M3 is absolutely true - it's far more balanced and at the limit far more forgiving (slight understeer) than the Porsches - if you reach their limit, you have to be a really really good driver to know what to do, otherwise your car will end up a wreck very quickly.

Alpina_B3_Lux

[grant]

Has anyone seen a Nurburgring time for the Cayman R? I haven't but would be curious to know...

[PKumarM3]

don't forget drag, the 1-series has much worse drag coefficient than the e9x

[sparoz]

Originally Posted by BimmerEngineer

Same engine inb 335is has 320 hp..... I've been told by a friend in confidence that the 1M 's hp was over stated to help it sell as a advertising ploy... it's the same 320hp and 369 lb\ft of tq, not 335hp.... Same for the power quoted for 2011 135i, all the magazines and other brief info out in public says 300 hp\300tq... In fact, if you look at the German specs and other world market specs for the car it's power is actually 306 hp and 295 tq...

A recent dyno says otherwise, and that's at the wheel

http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=536169

- but who's to trust...

[Sonic RR]

So how good is this little Renault? 265hp Fwd 8:08... I'm sure it had cup tires but I never would have guessed it go that quick. Not sure of curb weight either.

Taken from AutoBlog: VVV

"Last week, we showed you the 2011 Renault Megane Renaultsport 265 Trophy, the latest you-can't-have-it hot hatch from the French automaker. As much as it pains us that the 265-horsepower front-driver isn't coming here, it's still nice to lust from afar.

This week, the car got even more lustworthy, setting the Nürburgring lap record for front-wheel-drive production cars at eight minutes, eight seconds. That time bests the Renault Megane R26's 2008 'Ring record by 9 seconds, and cements Renault as the hot-hatch maker to beat. For you across the pond folks, now is the time to try and get your hands on a 265 Trophy, as Renault is making precious few of the little beasts. Click past the jump to check out Renault's full press release.
Continue Reading »"

[hwelvaar]

Originally Posted by BimmerEngineer

Same engine inb 335is has 320 hp..... I've been told by a friend in confidence that the 1M 's hp was over stated to help it sell as a advertising ploy... it's the same 320hp and 369 lb\ft of tq, not 335hp.... Same for the power quoted for 2011 135i, all the magazines and other brief info out in public says 300 hp\300tq... In fact, if you look at the German specs and other world market specs for the car it's power is actually 306 hp and 295 tq...
This is the MAIN reason why a stock 2011 135i will out sprint a stock N54 car to 60 mph by a car length and by 140 mph the 2011 car will be 4-5 cars ahead in a straight line speed contest....

These remarks must come from someome who drives a N55

First, everyone (including the engineers that actually worked on the 1M development, as contrary to your alias) state that the 1M is somewhat underrated. This has been documeted on WLKSTFLY's euro delivery thread on this board. You're the first to say it is overrated ?

Second, most people know that US and Euro ratings for both horsepower and 0-60 are different, because in Europe the metric system is used. You use PS, we use HP. 300 PS = 306 HP. So your statement is invalid?

Third, the "same" engine with 320 horsepower that you talk about, comes from an N55 engine (335is rated at 320PS has a N55 engine). The 1M has an N54 engine. So how can they be the "same" ?

The N55 was developed for emission standards and better MPG, as compared to N54, not because it provides better (potential) performance.
Still a remarkable engine though.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

These remarks must come from someome who drives a N55

First, everyone (including the engineers that actually worked on the 1M development, as contrary to your alias) state that the 1M is somewhat underrated. This has been documeted on WLKSTFLY's euro delivery thread on this board. You're the first to say it is overrated ?

Second, most people know that US and Euro ratings for both horsepower and 0-60 are different, because in Europe the metric system is used. You use PS, we use HP. 300 PS = 306 HP. So your statement is invalid?

Third, the "same" engine with 320 horsepower that you talk about, comes from an N55 engine (335is rated at 320PS has a N55 engine). The 1M has an N54 engine. So how can they be the "same" ?

The N55 was developed for emission standards and better MPG, as compared to N54, not because it provides better (potential) performance.
Still a remarkable engine though.

LOL about the ownership...

Actually... Long before Walksftly picked up his car, and talked with M engineers, .. I reported this when I returned from the pre-drive. The N54 was the clear choice of the M engineers.... Helvaar is absolutely correct about the design of the N55. Heck... if M had used the N55... the 1M might have had 2012 MY production in the US...

It's also been confirmed that the 1M has been tuned vs the 335is/Z435is.
Bimmer Eng.. Let's not bring up old ghosts. you may want to do more research..

[conneem-TT]

Originally Posted by Sonic RR

So how good is this little Renault? 265hp Fwd 8:08... I'm sure it had cup tires but I never would have guessed it go that quick. Not sure of curb weight either.

. . . .

No, just RE050A's. Full interior including air con ect., kerb weight (EU i.e with driver) is around the 1,400kg (3,080lb) mark.

[superchargedman]

I hope this guy didn't engineer my bimmer. Intake makes the 15 hp difference btw the 335is vs the z4is and the 1m. http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q1/2011_bmw_335is_coupe-first_drive_review?redirect=no

Originally Posted by BimmerEngineer

Put the same tires on the 1M, soften the susp slightly, remove the top speed 155mph limiter on the 1M > (the M3 tested had the 170 mph top speed limiter thereby enabling it to hit high speeds on the long straight) and then I'll put $$$ on the 1M running 8.10 or faster... The heavy old BMW E52 Z8 from the early 2000's ran 8.07 and that was a 4300lb vertable..

Same engine inb 335is has 320 hp..... I've been told by a friend in confidence that the 1M 's hp was over stated to help it sell as a advertising ploy... it's the same 320hp and 369 lb\ft of tq, not 335hp.... Same for the power quoted for 2011 135i, all the magazines and other brief info out in public says 300 hp\300tq... In fact, if you look at the German specs and other world market specs for the car it's power is actually 306 hp and 295 tq... The gearing for 2011 135 is different as well > (as compared to the 6-sdp manu and 6spd auto), in the 7-spd DCT cars since it's the first DCT 7-spd used outside an actual M-car in BMWs line up...

This is the MAIN reason why a stock 2011 135i will out sprint a stock N54 car to 60 mph by a car length and by 140 mph the 2011 car will be 4-5 cars ahead in a straight line speed contest....

I've had the chance to run both (stock) N54 and N55 135's side by side on a track in the U.S. and Germany and the N55 just walks away from the N54 car above 95 mph....

Still darn impressive numbers though for the 1M. Def room for improvement...


Another sad fact: 82% of BMW 1 series owners surveyed think that their cars are front wheel drive...

[Superfly]

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

These remarks must come from someome who drives a N55

First, everyone (including the engineers that actually worked on the 1M development, as contrary to your alias) state that the 1M is somewhat underrated. This has been documeted on WLKSTFLY's euro delivery thread on this board. You're the first to say it is overrated ?

Second, most people know that US and Euro ratings for both horsepower and 0-60 are different, because in Europe the metric system is used. You use PS, we use HP. 300 PS = 306 HP. So your statement is invalid?

Third, the "same" engine with 320 horsepower that you talk about, comes from an N55 engine (335is rated at 320PS has a N55 engine). The 1M has an N54 engine. So how can they be the "same" ?

The N55 was developed for emission standards and better MPG, as compared to N54, not because it provides better (potential) performance.
Still a remarkable engine though.

I think it's right because the two engines don't have the same performance class in their bmw's designation :
The N54 is : N54B30O0 O means Upper class performance
The N55 is : N55B30M0 M means Middle class performance


The 1M is N54B30T0 T means Top class performance

I think basically that BMW's engineer knew that the N54 has better performance possibilities compared to the N55.
ps : I had a N55 and i loved it....stock.

[M12Power]

Originally Posted by ciomas

just something i came acros today:

Good driver and a good lap time, but I still find the clip somewhat painful to watch, because it’s so obvious that the car just wants to understeer all the time.

[Kayani_1]

I think you have your information slightly mixed up. The 335is has a N54 twin turbo rather then N55 single turbo which is found in regular 335i. The 1M on the other hand has a M tweaked version of N54 twin turbo.

Originally Posted by hwelvaar

Third, the "same" engine with 320 horsepower that you talk about, comes from an N55 engine (335is rated at 320PS has a N55 engine). The 1M has an N54 engine. So how can they be the "same" ?

[Aussie_in_London]

Originally Posted by M12Power

Good driver and a good lap time, but I still find the clip somewhat painful to watch, because it’s so obvious that the car just wants to understeer all the time.

Significantly

The R26.R may have been some seconds slower (with a different driver) but it performed its 'record' lap with ease in comparison, this does look like a great driver rather than a great car as per the R26.R which would still be my choice.

[IGoFast1589]

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

Actually that is not correct.

While it is certainly true that a car with less weight and shorter wheelbase has better specs for shorter, more windy tracks - such as the Hockenheimring - this does not disqualify it at all for the Nürburgring.

The 1M's wheelbase is not far off from the E46M wheelbase, which is one of the cars that you can see most often used at the 'Ring. Compared to quite a number of other cars - Lotus for example that you can also see there quite often - it even has a longer wheelbase. I haven't verified this but I would be surprised if most of the Porsches have longer wheelbases than the 1M.

Its powerband actually is ideal for the 'Ring, as something that you really need there is torque. Anyone who has ever driven there will tell you that - there are so many altitude differences, i.e. where you have to drive up steep inclines that torque is absolutely essential. Which is why a turbo car is in some of the sections better off than a natural aspirated one.

I don't really know where you believe that the design comes into this equation - I'm not really a fan of the 1M design, and from an aerodynamic perspective it's not really ideal, but these considerations are not of such big importance on the 'Ring. The topspeed on the Döttinger Höhe may be lower, that is certainly true.

I think that for its power output the 1M performed extremely well, although I have some doubts whether it actually has "only" 340hp (press cars are known to be very healthy power-wise). With cup tires it would have come even closer to the M3, which is quite admirable.
It was the opposite actually.

For the Northloop (Nordschleife) which is a very old circuit that goes up and down and has quite a few bumps in it, you need a suspension that is more compliant than for modern tracks like the Hockenheimring or the Grand Prix circuit at the Nürburgring. Otherwise your car will jump around too much, thus destabilising its suspension and making it slower.

As a consequence, had the 1M a more compliant suspension that could dampen the various bumps better, it would have gone even faster around that track.

sport auto made the same comment about the M3 GTS, by the way, which also would have made an even better 'Ring time with a different suspension setup.

Alpina_B3_Lux

Actually, you are not correct.

I never said the car was "disqualified", I said it was less than ideal and it is.

Wether the wheel base is similar to the E46 M3 or not it is still shorter than the M3 and that's what I was comparing it to. In addition, the car is most likely taller as well and having weight high up on a car is a bad thing for performance.

Just because the car is turbocharged does not mean that it's better suited. The N54 motor actually loses a lot of its grunt up high in the RPM's and on a track like the ring that is where the engine will be the majority of the time. The M3 motor is in its prime at those high engine speeds. Look at a dyno plot of the 1M and compare it to the M3 (where all the power is going to be up high) and then tell me which car has the advantage at 6k-7k RPM's. The average speed is very high on the ring and there are a lot more high speed corners then low speed corners. Not to mention, it's not about PEAK power, it's really more about AVERAGE power and what RPM the engine will be spinning at most often on the given track. The engine just can't maintain it's peak torque at that high engine speed, no internal combustion engine is that volumetrically efficient. Factor in the aerodynamic disadvantage and this all makes a lot more sense.

The top speed governor is a massive hinderance alone on a track that has room to run like the ring. That could probably close the gap almost completely in itself.

Do you even know what bump dampening is? I am referring to compression dampening or the rate in which the suspension compresses after encountering a bump. Having LESS compression dampening would be good because it would cause less side-stepping after hitting track imperfections. In regards to crests, greater rebound dampening would be desirable because it would help sort out the suspension after the car squats when coming down over a crest. Also, BMW apparently designed their suspension to hit the bump stops frequently so that can't be helping lap times and nor can the factory alignment with it's near positive camber settings. Having LESS bump dampening would make the care MORE compliant and help the 1M's lap time.

So, as I said, the 1M is less than ideal on the ring.

[IGoFast1589]

Add dampers that have less compression dampening, remove the governor, swap the tires and reflash the ECU and I bet you the 1M would be on the M3 like white on rice if it doesn't beat it to the finish line. As is though, the 1M won't ever be faster around the ring.

[micahbones]

Originally Posted by Alpina_B3_Lux

The 1M's wheelbase is not far off from the E46M wheelbase, which is one of the cars that you can see most often used at the 'Ring. Compared to quite a number of other cars - Lotus for example that you can also see there quite often - it even has a longer wheelbase. I haven't verified this but I would be surprised if most of the Porsches have longer wheelbases than the 1M.

You are correct. So many reviews have mentioned the 1M's "short" wheelbase, but these statements all seem to be made relative to the M3's wheelbase. Compared to a Lotus, 911, Cayman, or its so-called spiritual predecessor the e30 M3, the 1M has a long wheelbase. Relative wheelbase measurements are below.

Lotus Elise/Exige: 90.6''
911 (997): 92.5''
Cayman: 95.1''
TT RS: 97.2''
E30 M3: 100.9'' (have seen varying figures here, up to 101.2)
1M: 104.7''
E36 M3: 106.3''
E46 M3: 107.3''
E9x M3: 108.7''

[IGoFast1589]

Originally Posted by micahbones

You are correct. So many reviews have mentioned the 1M's "short" wheelbase, but these statements all seem to be made relative to the M3's wheelbase. Compared to a Lotus, 911, Cayman, or its so-called spiritual predecessor the e30 M3, the 1M has a long wheelbase. Relative wheelbase measurements are below.

Lotus Elise/Exige: 90.6''
911 (997): 92.5''
Cayman: 95.1''
TT RS: 97.2''
E30 M3: 100.9'' (have seen varying figures here, up to 101.2)
1M: 104.7''
E36 M3: 106.3''
E46 M3: 107.3''
E9x M3: 108.7''

How about when you look at it from a wheelbase to track width perspective. It may be short for it's width. You know? Surprisingly longer than I thought... Still a bit shorter in relation to the M3.

[micahbones]

Originally Posted by IGoFast1589

How about when you look at it from a wheelbase to track width perspective. It may be short for it's width. You know? Surprisingly longer than I thought... Still a bit shorter in relation to the M3.

Good question, I will look up some figures and calculate the relative wheelbase/width ratios.

[IGoFast1589]

Originally Posted by micahbones

Good question, I will look up some figures and calculate the relative wheelbase/width ratios.

Good stuff!

In all honesty, I am not that surprised by the time. If someone makes a few tweaks here and there from the 1M's factory setup to make it more ring worthy I feel it would be drastically quicker.

[micahbones]

Originally Posted by IGoFast1589

How about when you look at it from a wheelbase to track width perspective. It may be short for it's width. You know? Surprisingly longer than I thought... Still a bit shorter in relation to the M3.

Defining "go-kart like" as a more 1:1 track width to wheelbase ratio, below are the rankings of some of the cars compared to the 1M, from least to most bulldog. Not sure what this means in terms of the driving experience...I think the general point is that the 1M does not have as short a wheelbase as many folks believe by reading reviews.

e30 M3: .556 (56.1 track/100.9 wheelbase)
e9x M3: .558
1M: .580
TT RS: .627
Cayman: .633
911: .645
Exige: .655

*Cayman, 911, Exige ratios calculated using rear track width measurement

[IGoFast1589]

From where to where is the wheel base measured? From the front bumper to the rear or from the rear axel to the front or what? That makes a difference. The 1's snappy nature comes from somewhere other than the way it delivers torque down low.

[M3 Adjuster]

from front wheel to rear wheel. I would presume the center line of both..

Let me google that for you...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+is+a+vehicl...se+measured%3F