[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

DM5PAV & Higgs Boson

This is a sobering reminder that performance matters more than mass

Hey, let us have our important internet squabble!

[MadBimmeRad]

"You can fool all of the people some of the time; you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.”

Abraham Lincoln



There are those who know things, and know that they know things; they are the scholars - befriend them

There are those who know things but don't know that they know things; they are the wanderers - assist them

There are those who don't know things and know that they don't know things; they are the unfortunate realists - guide them

and then

There are those who don't know things and don't know that they don't know things; they are the fools - avoid them

I've seen people chewing their knuckles in anger and frustration when arguing with a fool - best avoid those moments by not engaging in the first place

Just my 3¢ worth 😉🤪😉

[FISH22]

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

Hey, let us have our important internet squabble!

x2. Solid read for my casual Sunday night.

[Forzanerazzurri]

This is amazing

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by DM5PAV

Not my fault you’re so upset.
All of a sudden everyone else’s opinions aren’t valid except yours?

I don’t need gonoreah to know it’s bad. I can infer from other people’s opinions.

Magazine stories are from people, just like you, who drove the cars… just like you. There’s zero difference between your opinion and theirs, but somehow you expect me to give your opinion more weight?

Your opinion is objectively worse.
They didn’t spend their money and have nothing to defend, you did and do.


So, their opinions are make believe?
But yours are real.

Pal, the only thing your car is night and day away from another m4cx is comfort, and you’re on the losing end of that.

Your car is slower in a straight line, less comfortable, louder (subjectively bad), and a tiny bit faster around corners when on a circuit, and I do mean tiny.

Pathetic fanboisim on display here.

Easy tiger, no one's upset, I am just having fun. The difference between me and the journalists is that I can do two things with my purchase:

Sell it now for a profit and use it to pay to get you an education

or

Keep the car and ride the future depreciation curve down while I enjoy the car

I'm keeping it because I think the money will be wasted trying to teach you things.

BTW, it's gonorreah and it wasn't that bad.

[PLF69]

Originally Posted by DM5PAV

Not my fault you’re so upset.
All of a sudden everyone else’s opinions aren’t valid except yours?

I don’t need gonoreah to know it’s bad. I can infer from other people’s opinions.

Magazine stories are from people, just like you, who drove the cars… just like you. There’s zero difference between your opinion and theirs, but somehow you expect me to give your opinion more weight?

Your opinion is objectively worse.
They didn’t spend their money and have nothing to defend, you did and do.


So, their opinions are make believe?
But yours are real.

Pal, the only thing your car is night and day away from another m4cx is comfort, and you’re on the losing end of that.

Your car is slower in a straight line, less comfortable, louder (subjectively bad), and a tiny bit faster around corners when on a circuit, and I do mean tiny.

Pathetic fanboisim on display here.

Why do you spend so much time and energy arguing that the difference between a M4C and a M4 CSL is small when you haven't experienced it yourself ?

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by DM5PAV

What can I say other than, some people have to learn the hard way. You seem to be among them.

Well that was anticlimactic.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

Sell it now for a profit and use it to pay to get you an education

or

Keep the car and ride the future depreciation curve down while I enjoy the car

I'm keeping it because I think the money will be wasted trying to teach you things.

BTW, it's gonorreah and it wasn't that bad.

^^^^^

[TJR_///M3]

Originally Posted by M3macster

Threw this chart together to argue power-to-weight ratio matters in this discussion. Notwithstanding Lambo understates their weight, and that the torque curves matter, the three NA at the bottom are more fun at the limit but bring the gas money! The M3 CSL v M4 CSL is interesting.

Personally, my e93 was more fun to drive than either my e46 or f80 comp ... but I still would take my G80cx over all of them.

This got me thinking and I am sure there will be arguments over the specific data - getting truly comparable weight data is pretty much impossible - but take a look at this:

E9

3.0 CSL
Power: 206 bhp
Weight: 2807 lbs
13.6 lbs/bhp

3.0 CS
Power: 200 bhp
Weight: 3029 lbs
15.1 lbs/bhp

Weight to power improvement: 10%

E46

M3 CSL
Power: 355 bhp
Weight: 3053 lbs
8.6 lbs/bhp

M3
Power: 338 bhp
Weight: 3293 lbs
9.7 lbs/bhp

Weight to power improvement: 9%

G82

M4 CSL
Power: 543 bhp
Weight: 3650 lbs
6.7 lbs/bhp

M4
Power: 503 bhp
Weight: 3802 lbs
7.6 lbs/bhp

Weight to power improvement: 12%

Of course, the value question is a totally different matter, but in terms of improvement versus the ‘base’ vehicle on this parameter this CSL seems to be comparable. Not having driven any of the CSL’s (sadly) I cannot comment on the vehicle dynamics benefit.

[HudsonHornett]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

Yeah I think the complaint is valid, that it could have been full track spec or less features. But I said in another thread, if they added a wing and a cage, it actually might have been as heavy as an M4C (in which case they absolutely couldn’t have used the CSL badge). It also might not have been as fast around the ring as it was (the extra downforce weight might not have made the larger bodied M4 more nimble). There actually was an early CSL test mule with a wing and it was scrapped fairly early in the testing process. People forget that an F80 M4 GTS weighs 3,610 lbs.

Now you can argue that they should have given a manual and less power like in 3.0 CSL (or developed a new manual to handle more power). You can also argue they shouldn’t have made the car at all.

But it is entirely possible that they did the absolute best they could do to extract this level of performance from the G8x without risking powertrain reliability. Sport Auto’s review of it said, in speaking to the engineering team, it became clear that was the case (that this was the absolute best performance they could extract around a track from a G82).

It's interesting because in the UK, the car doesn't come with HUD. It's an optional extra (that I didn't go for). With respect to a cage, harnesses etc, I think it makes sense for the car NOT to have these things. In the real world, you hardly ever use harnesses, so it's not really worth having for the very occasional times that you actually may use them.

[HudsonHornett]

Originally Posted by DM5PAV

I’m sensitive to hyperbole.
Also, I see what you did there.



Nothing like ending a petty squabble with a good O joke.

Anyway, I hope you love your car and it sounds like you do. I’m someone who constantly mutes every single commercial, I avert my gaze from yt whenever they force an ad, I refuse to wear anything that advertises a brand… I hate advertising, marketing, and try as best as humanly possible to avoid being led astray by it.

So, to me… night and day is an awfully strong way to phrase the slight differences between what is 98% the same exact car. Not trying to take anything away from you. All that matters is, you like what you bought.

If those differences are night and day to you, then sure, it’s night and day different.

For you.

It's interesting how people view things and I understand your point you're right that different people will experience things and value things in different ways.

A few years ago, I was invited to a 981 GTS drive. I drove a Cayman, Cayman S and a Cayman GTS back to back in that order around a small race track.

I thought that the Cayman was pretty dully, the S was a LOT better but still didn't float my boat and the GTS was very good indeed but needed some options to be perfect. Now you could argue that all 3 cars are ostensibly the same but to drive, the only one I was even remotely interested in was the GTS - to me this was a night and day difference!

And would be the difference in actually buying a car or not buying it.

I'm very sensitive to these things, so would probably notice the difference between 2 very similar cars, other people aren't and that's fine. I once drove a 997 GT3RS and a 997GT3 RS 4.0 back to back - the race instructor guy said he wouldn't pay the premium for a 997 GT3 RS 4.0, as he didn't think it was worth it. I told him, I would all day everyday, the car had loads more feel a better engine with more torque and a better sounding top end and it handled better too! All things that were worth a £30k premium to me (but not to him).

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by TJR_///M3

This got me thinking and I am sure there will be arguments over the specific data - getting truly comparable weight data is pretty much impossible - but take a look at this:

M4 CSL
Power: 543 bhp
Weight: 3650 lbs
6.7 lbs/bhp

M4
Power: 503 bhp
Weight: 3802 lbs
7.6 lbs/bhp

Weight to power improvement: 12%

Of course, the value question is a totally different matter, but in terms of improvement versus the ‘base’ vehicle on this parameter this CSL seems to be comparable. Not having driven any of the CSL’s (sadly) I cannot comment on the vehicle dynamics benefit.

Brilliant. This is probably what the BMW engineers were focused on. Honestly this level of power with this weight is incredible (at least for a BMW).

I'm confused about the weight of the M4 competition - the press releases state the CSL cut 240 lbs, and they state the M4 comp RWD is 3880 lbs. So my math was wrong, yours is closer to reality.

[TJR_///M3]

Originally Posted by M3macster

Brilliant. This is probably what the BMW engineers were focused on. Honestly this level of power with this weight is incredible (at least for a BMW).

I'm confused about the weight of the M4 competition - the press releases state the CSL cut 240 lbs, and they state the M4 comp RWD is 3880 lbs. So my math was wrong, yours is closer to reality.

Thanks.

I took a bit more time finding weights for the G82.
The BMW published specs show:
M4 Comp (EU): 1800kg (3968 lbs)
M4 CSL (EU): 1700kg (3748 lbs)
Note: DIN numbers are 75kg lighter, which I assume is a difference in fuel content used in each standard

Standard equipment differences between EU and US and Comp to CSL spec differences in the US may result in different numbers, but not by much I suspect. Also, I have more faith in the accuracy of the BMW numbers for Germany/EU than other locations.

Using the above doesn't change the weight to power benefit of the CSL vs the Comp (to two significant figures) it is still 12%.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by TJR_///M3

This got me thinking and I am sure there will be arguments over the specific data - getting truly comparable weight data is pretty much impossible - but take a look at this:

E9

3.0 CSL
Power: 206 bhp
Weight: 2807 lbs
13.6 lbs/bhp

3.0 CS
Power: 200 bhp
Weight: 3029 lbs
15.1 lbs/bhp

Weight to power improvement: 10%

E46

M3 CSL
Power: 355 bhp
Weight: 3053 lbs
8.6 lbs/bhp

M3
Power: 338 bhp
Weight: 3293 lbs
9.7 lbs/bhp

Weight to power improvement: 11.7%

G82

M4 CSL
Power: 543 bhp
Weight: 3650 lbs
6.7 lbs/bhp

M4
Power: 503 bhp
Weight: 3802 lbs
7.6 lbs/bhp

Weight to power improvement: 11.1%

Of course, the value question is a totally different matter, but in terms of improvement versus the ‘base’ vehicle on this parameter this CSL seems to be comparable. Not having driven any of the CSL’s (sadly) I cannot comment on the vehicle dynamics benefit.

I am not sure how you did your math, but I corrected your weight-to-power improvement figures. It reverses the picture, albeit still in similar ball parks.

However, it is better to look at power-to-weight rather than weight-to-power. Further, I am not sure where you got your weight data, but looking at Autobild and AM&S test data:

E46M3: 343hp / 1584kg = 0.21654 hp/kg
M3CSL: 360hp / 1421kg = 0.25334 hp/kg
+17.9% improvement

G82M4: 510hp / 1695kg = 0.30088 hp/kg
M4CSL: 550hp / 1607kg = 0.34225 hp/kg
+13.7% Improvement

So the E46CSL has a ~30% better improvement in power-to-weight over the base car than the G82CSL does

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am not sure how you did your math, but I corrected your weight-to-power improvement figures. It reverses the picture, albeit still in similar ball parks.

However, it is better to look at power-to-weight rather than weight-to-power. Further, I am not sure where you got your weight data, but looking at Autobild and AM&S test data:

E46M3: 343hp / 1584kg = 0.21654 hp/kg
M3CSL: 360hp / 1421kg = 0.25334 hp/kg
+17.9% improvement

G82M4: 510hp / 1695kg = 0.30088 hp/kg
M4CSL: 550hp / 1607kg = 0.34225 hp/kg
+13.7% Improvement

So the E46CSL has a ~30% better improvement in power-to-weight over the base car than the G82CSL does

This is not correct, a G82 M4C in auto weighs 1800 kg. A manual G82 M4 weighs around what you quoted, but only has 473 hp, not 510.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

This is not correct, a G82 M4C in auto weighs 1800 kg. A manual G82 M4 weighs around what you quoted, but only has 473 hp, not 510.

1695kg/3737lb
https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1815648

1702kg/3752lb
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...-nordschleife/

[TJR_///M3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

1695kg/3737lb
https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1815648

1702kg/3752lb
https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/...-nordschleife/

I knew this would prompt feedback!
I used weight to power not power to weight as the post that prompted the comparison used weight to power, but either will work.
As to weight source, I did say in my post that getting good data was not an easy task!
So... I did yet more digging and found the official BMW data on the E46. You can find it in the press release here:

https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/usa/a...168EN_US/41493

E46 CSL weight is given as 1385 kg to the EU standard. 360 hp
=> 0.260 hp/kg
E46 M3 weight is given as 1495 kg to the EU standard. 343 hp
=> 0.229 hp/kg
A 13.5% improvement

Comparable data for the G82 (also sourced from the BMW spec sheets):
G82 CSL weight is given as 1700 kg to the EU standard. 550hp
=> 0.324 hp/kg
G82 M3 weight is given as 1800 kg to the EU standard. 510hp
=> 0.283 hp/kg
A 14.5% improvement

As mentioned earlier there are all kind of spec differences and fuel levels, etc. in test vehicles - using the BMW stated unladen weight to (homologated) EU standards should allow consistency. So based on using consistent BMW sourced data for weight and power, I stand by my original conclusion: on this important metric, the G82 CSL measures up just fine.

I happily accept that there is a lot more to the discussion of whether the G82 CSL is a worthy improvement over the G82 (and one that represents value for money, if that is really a factor for the few who can afford one and can get one, and personally I doubt that it is...)

[Humdizzle]

using manufacturer's weights and performance metrics are usually bogus. they lie all the time. the best source for weights are independent 3rd party magazines.

power is another caveat. i've owned a 458 and 991.2 gt3. ferrari would have you believe its car is putting down 70 more hp than the porsche. the reality is they dyno roughly the same numbers.

current bmw claims of hp numbers is about on par with its whp.
in the past the 340hp e46 m3 would dyno about 275-285whp.

[Hit_Apex]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

using manufacturer's weights and performance metrics are usually bogus. they lie all the time. the best source for weights are independent 3rd party magazines.

power is another caveat. i've owned a 458 and 991.2 gt3. ferrari would have you believe its car is putting down 70 more hp than the porsche. the reality is they dyno roughly the same numbers.

current bmw claims of hp numbers is about on par with its whp.
in the past the 340hp e46 m3 would dyno about 275-285whp.

BMW became conservative with the turbo era being perhaps more cautious in their approach to fair advertising than peers. People think they're "lying" or playing coy with HP figures, but the reality is forced induction power has a much wider performance range depending on conditions, weather, altitude, fuel quality, etc. It's important to them that buyers on the unfavorable end of those conditions realize published numbers, or at least very close. All manufacturers are concerned with this but BMW seems to be a bit more conservative.

[Higgs Boson]

Ford went through a pretty big deal with "over rated" power figures so I think now manufacturers are much more careful about how they portray it. Yes, it is supposed to be controlled and repeatable but so are diesel emissions.....

[TJR_///M3]

And into the weeds we go…
I used the EU weights as these are extremely unlikely to be a “lie” (see post above). It is homologation data and were a manufacturer be found to have lied the penalties (and reputational damage) could be significant.
So… why are some of the quoted weights from test articles different from the numbers I used. For example the German magazine test of the G82 Comp at 1702kg vs. the EU weight of 1800kg (which, interestingly, in this case had a lower weight than the manufacturer’s claim)? Well, this subject has come up a long time ago:
https://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=919364
Note the definition of EU weight. It includes fuel and a driver. The magazine weight did not include a driver (the car also had CC brakes and CF buckets…).
As to power outputs, this has been commented on before. For the G8X I have not seen any claims that the cars don’t deliver what BMW says. In fact, there have been a lot of opinions posted that they are giving a lot more than claimed.
The best rationale I have seen for this is that BMW doesn’t want anyone to get less than the claimed output (probably for reputational and legal defense reasons) so given the natural variation of outputs for a sample of the same engine type, they publish data at the very low end of the distribution.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Hit_Apex

BMW became conservative with the turbo era being perhaps more cautious in their approach to fair advertising than peers. People think they're "lying" or playing coy with HP figures, but the reality is forced induction power has a much wider performance range depending on conditions, weather, altitude, fuel quality, etc. It's important to them that buyers on the unfavorable end of those conditions realize published numbers, or at least very close. All manufacturers are concerned with this but BMW seems to be a bit more conservative.

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

Ford went through a pretty big deal with "over rated" power figures so I think now manufacturers are much more careful about how they portray it. Yes, it is supposed to be controlled and repeatable but so are diesel emissions.....

It’s quite a bit more complex than this. Manufacturers are not allowed to purposefully underate their engines power figures. It has to do with the evolution of modern engine control systems and the regulating standards. Modern engines, more particularly turbocharged ones, can produce significantly more power when in transient state (while accelerating) than when in steady state (constant rpm). Traditionally, testing standards prescribed testing in steady state because it allows much more accurate and repeatable results. Recognizing that modern engines can produce more power in transient state, the SAE “recently” amended their testing standard to allow transient state engine control parameters. The caveat is that the new standard leaves it up to manufacturers to select whichever testing methodology they prefer between steady state and transient. Most German manufacturers elect to stick with the traditional steady state testing methodology, and explains why they show greater power numbers when run in transient state on chassis dyno when compared to their official power rating. This all makes it very challenging to compare the performance of different cars based on their official ratings, more so when comparing NA with FI.