05-15-2010, 06:08 AM | #1 |
Brigadier General
443
Rep 3,888
Posts |
0-100km/h: How can M1 E82 be slower than M3 E92?
Scott said the M1 will not be faster than the M3, no need to say for which reason. But how can this be? How can the M1 be slower than the M3?
0-100 km/h____Weight (EU)____Car 5.5 sec_______1600 kg________335i E92 (6MT) 5.4 sec_______1615 kg________335i E92 (7DCT) 5.3 sec_______1530 kg________135i E82 (6MT) 5.2 sec_______1545 kg________135i E82 (6MT) 5.1 sec_______16?? kg________335is E92 (6MT) 5.0 sec_______16?? kg________335is E92 (7DCT) 4.8 sec_______1640 kg________B3 Biturbo E92 (6AUT) 4.8 sec_______1655 kg________M3 E92 (6MT) 4.6 sec_______1675 kg________M3 E92 (7DCT) Let us base the M1 E82 on the B3 Biturbo E92 performance figures: 4.8 sec_______1640 kg________B3 Biturbo E92 (6AUT) 4.7 sec with 6MT 4.6 sec with less weight and better traction 4.4 sec with 7DTC 4.6 sec_______1545 kg________M1 E82 (6MT) ???? 4.4 sec_______1565 kg________M1 E82 (7DCT) ???? M1 E82 with 6MT would be as fast as M3 E92 with 7DCT M1 E82 with DCT would be 0.2 sec faster than M3 E92 with 7DCT. Problem: -M5 F10 (8AUT) has to be faster than M1 E82 (7DCT) and so get from 0-100 km/h in less than 4.4 sec. Is 4.3 possible with 580 HP, 700 Nm and 2000 kg? -M3 GTS E92 (7DCT) gets from 0-100 km/h in 4.4 sec, 0.2 sec faster than M3 E92 (7DCT), and would be than just as fast as a M1 E82 (7DCT) that is more than two times cheaper. -What then about the limited production M1 GTS or CSL E82 (7DCT)? As the M3 GTS E92 (7DCT) is 0.2 sec faster than M3 E92 (7DCT), thn the M1 GTS or CSL E82 (7DCT) would also be 0.2 sec faster than M1 E82 (7DCT), and this means to M1 GTS or CSL E82 (7DCT) would get from 0-100 km/h in 4.2 sec and so be the fastest production BMW ever built. -How can the next M1 F22 with Twin-Turbo I4 be better and faster than the M1 E82 with Twin-Turbo I6? -In the same time, if the M1 does not get the 340 HP N54 engine from the Z4 sDrive35is E89 but a real 360 HP S55 engine be M GmbH, how can it be slower? Conclusion: I think the M1 E82 will be very underrated on paper, but in life tests be from 0.1-.02 sec faster than the M3 E92, and unofficially be the fastest BMW until the next M5 F10, M6 F12 and M3 F32 come out. Any other thoughts? Last edited by BMW269; 05-15-2010 at 06:14 AM.. |
05-15-2010, 11:11 AM | #2 |
Brigadier General
197
Rep 4,848
Posts |
If you focusing on 0-100, I think it won't be much faster than the current M3. I would say it would be close to the M3 territory until the M3 upgrade. 4.6 with DCT. On the other hand, it probably will be the fastest M around a track.
__________________
Macan S Diesel - Carrera White
Macan Turbo - White 1///M - Valencia Orange |
Appreciate
0
|
05-15-2010, 04:07 PM | #3 |
Brigadier General
303
Rep 4,479
Posts |
This has been the problem from day 1. There's no point to trying to make and sell an M1 which is only marginally better than a stock 135i. It has to be noticeably better which means it would at least equal the e92 M3. If BMW doesn't want to canabalize M3 sales, it can't offer a cheaper (less profitable) alternative - until - it announces the next M3 which raises the bar and keeps things in order.
__________________
135i, SGM, Coral, Sport Package, Auto, Premium Hifi, USB/ipod, Apex EC-7s, PPK Stage II
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-15-2010, 06:21 PM | #4 |
M-Sport
22
Rep 174
Posts |
In stock form, I don't think it will be faster than E9x M3. Especially, since the M1 is based on the current 1 series and the fact that the M3 is still in production. I don't think BMW wants to do that.
The next generation M1 should be quicker than the current M3, but slower than than next generation M3. That's how M division has done it in the past. If it is faster though, no complaints here since I will most definitely get one. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-15-2010, 07:42 PM | #5 |
Major General
894
Rep 7,047
Posts |
The M3 has never been a 0-60 car, nor a 1/4 mile.
You also should look at what the M3 engine is designed for, and that's high revving track use. Also, look at the 0-100, and greater numbers, where the M3's engine shines. The E46 M3 and current M3 are not big low rpm torque engines, they are high rpm engines that pull and pull with high rpm's that can be used. More so than just acceleration, which a lot of people seem to base performance on, an M car is tuned for it's overall performance including acceleration, braking, handling, balance, steering feel, etc... BMW could easily make the 135i faster just like did with the 335is, but we'd still have the lackluster handling and high speed stability that people complain about. That wouldn't make a worthy M car, 1M or M1. Hey, how about "1-M1" for a different name? |
Appreciate
0
|
05-16-2010, 01:09 AM | #6 |
Major General
427
Rep 6,968
Posts |
Even if M1 is faster M3, on official spec sheet it will still be slower. I am more curious how bmw address RPM mentioned stability with shorter wheel base than 0-60mph. Which I am quite sure will be more than enough for me. The 135i was fast enough, although I wouldn't mind it being faster.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-16-2010, 03:01 AM | #7 |
Chemofski
55
Rep 1,295
Posts |
Your posts confuse the shit out of me. No disrespect, I think you're bringing up good discussion, but I just feel like I walked out of the SATS when I read them.
The M1 will probably hang with or beat the M3 on tight tracks, and may lose some ground on ones with faster and longer straights. What an auto manufacturer's marketing and advertising says and what happens in real world driving situations can and often is two different things.
__________________
'13 Individual Frozen Brilliant White ///M3 Coupe
Ordered 2/15/12 | Euro Delivery on 9/21/12 | U.S. Redelivery on 12/6/12 | Motor Dead on 7/15/13 '13 Space Gray/Mugello Red X5///M Pavement Punisher | Snow Muncher | Family and Board Hauler | Roadtripper |
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2010, 08:42 AM | #9 |
Major General
1208
Rep 8,034
Posts |
+1, the chances of it being quicker are slim, though if the weight actually does end up as low as 1500kgs then it very well could be quicker to 60mph but I doubt even this weight advantage will allow it to maintain this advantage much pass this speed.
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2010, 02:39 PM | #11 |
Moderator
575
Rep 4,240
Posts |
By the car comes the current M will have been out for almost 4 years. When the E9X came out it matched the M5 and M6 in 0 to 60mph speed. The M1/1M will do the same. Mark my words. ;-) We're looking at 4.2sec to 60mph stock. The quartermile will be about 12.7-12.8. Just a tick or two slower than the M3(Just like the M3 is to the M5). Simple as that.
All BMW M cars are currently in that low 4second club. M3,M5,M5,X5M,X6M. There is nowhere else they should be. The 135i is 4.7 at the fastest. They plan on shaving almost half a second off.
__________________
- 04 Honda S2000(gone)
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2010, 04:52 PM | #12 |
Lieutenant
35
Rep 504
Posts |
Isn't the M3 faster than the M5, M6, and X6M or am i wrong there. (and i might be).
the M3 is getting bigger, but I still dont think people will cross shop the M1 and M3 anymore than someone would cross shop the M3 and M6. Different vehicles for different reasons. |
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2010, 06:56 PM | #13 |
First Lieutenant
22
Rep 349
Posts |
In the world of fast cars, it's time to start looking at 0-100 as the regular benchmark. By 100mph, the gap between vehicles will begin to widen and we can note consistent speed differences. For example, .2 sec difference 0-60 may turn into (almost?) a full second by 100mph. Besides, with fast cars in the 4's now...the fun is over too damn soon! I say...Death To 0-60...time for 0-100!
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-17-2010, 07:40 PM | #14 | |
Lieutenant
35
Rep 504
Posts |
Quote:
i get what you're saying, cars are just silly fast now. but there is something to be said for 0-60. for example a lot of AWD cars have a blistering 0-60 but slow down on the top end. But then again, that's what the 1/4 mile is for - the top end speeds. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-18-2010, 03:12 AM | #15 | |
Brigadier General
443
Rep 3,888
Posts |
Quote:
Here an example: many people think the RS6 is much faster than the M5 but it is not so true, look at 0-160 and 200 km/h: ___________Audi RS6 Avant____BMW M5 Touring____Mercedes E 63 Wagon 0– 50 km/h: ____1,7 s _____________2,1 s________________2,0 s 0–100 km/h: ____4,4 s_____________4,5 s________________4,6 s 0–130 km/h: ____6,8 s_____________6,7 s________________7,1 s 0–160 km/h: ____9,4 s_____________9,4 s_______________10,2 s 0–200 km/h: ___14,2 s____________14,0 s_______________15,6 s 0–402,34 m: __12,51 s___________12,57 s______________12,87 s |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|