[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by 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.

Even the EU/DIN weight standards has evolved through time. There was a time where manufacturers could stretch the definition to show weights that one would never see on the street. The F82’s 1,497kg DIN weight is case in point.

However, for the discussion here, it is about how much effort was spent to shed weight off the base car to get to a CSL. Just putting option that are offered on the base car does not qualify as a particular engineering effort, hence starting with the lowest weight standard car to compare to the CSL is a more meaningful exercise in my view.

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

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.

Yes, I agree, which is why I said supposed to be controlled and repeatable.

After the diesel scandal I don't really "trust" what I can't verify myself and when

1. many cars are putting down on chassis dynos (yes I know the fudge factor is great here) what they are rated at the engine (mclarens, bmws, etc - to your point all are turbocharged)

2. weight discrepancies between stated weights and actual measured weights (ferrari being the biggest offender here)

so if I really want to know what the power number is or the weight is, I measure it myself and maybe see what the trap speed is (although the "local" track is closed again forever).

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

Yes, I agree, which is why I said supposed to be controlled and repeatable.

After the diesel scandal I don't really "trust" what I can't verify myself and when

1. many cars are putting down on chassis dynos (yes I know the fudge factor is great here) what they are rated at the engine (mclarens, bmws, etc - to your point all are turbocharged)

2. weight discrepancies between stated weights and actual measured weights (ferrari being the biggest offender here)

so if I really want to know what the power number is or the weight is, I measure it myself and maybe see what the trap speed is (although the "local" track is closed again forever).

Higgs Boson & CanAutM3

I agree with both your views. Just a point of clarification on Higgs' comment: from memory, of all the manufacturers put to the task during "diesel-gate" saga, BMW happened to be one of the most honest

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by MadBimmeRad

Higgs Boson & CanAutM3

I agree with both your views. Just a point of clarification on Higgs' comment: from memory, of all the manufacturers put to the task during "diesel-gate" saga, BMW happened to be one of the most honest

Indeed

[ChrisM4]

Everyone needs to remember the most important issue with the CSL…there’s no manual…

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by ChrisM3

Everyone needs to remember the most important issue with the CSL…there’s no manual…

Manuals are great when they can stall and don't help you shift like today's cars. Manuals are for old cars, IMO. When you stick the rev match with no computer assistance that's when man and machine are one. That's when you feel like god's gift to performance driving. Until you steer into a fence.

[Humdizzle]

Originally Posted by ChrisM3

Everyone needs to remember the most important issue with the CSL…there’s no manual…

CSL Group Meeting at BMW headquarters

Boss: "hey guys we need ways to bring weight down, we ditched the x-drive, added a carbon hood and and trunk, fixed carbon buckets, no cup holders.... How else can we reduce weight???"

new guy: "we can drop 40-50 pounds by putting in a manual, add no-lift-shift to keep the turbo spooled between shifts like porsche does".

Boss: "no, not that"

[ChrisM4]

Originally Posted by Humdizzle

CSL Group Meeting at BMW headquarters

Boss: "hey guys we need ways to bring weight down, we ditched the x-drive, added a carbon hood and and trunk, fixed carbon buckets, no cup holders.... How else can we reduce weight???"

new guy: "we can drop 40-50 pounds by putting in a manual, add no-lift-shift to keep the turbo spooled between shifts like porsche does".

Boss: "no, not that"

Having it as an option in addition to the auto would have made for a perfect drivers car. I’m sure there was some sort of drivetrain limitation (Clutch, trans, potentially axles etc.) but man it would have been glorious.

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by ChrisM3

Having it as an option in addition to the auto would have made for a perfect drivers car. I’m sure there was some sort of drivetrain limitation (Clutch, trans, potentially axles etc.) but man it would have been glorious.

The 3.0 CSL is the same car with the manual, if they were just willing to reduce the torque, they could have done it, but it wouldn't have put up as fast as a nurburgring time (who cares).

They should have offered that option, most people would have taken it.

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

Manuals are great when they can stall and don't help you shift like today's cars. Manuals are for old cars, IMO. When you stick the rev match with no computer assistance that's when man and machine are one. That's when you feel like god's gift to performance driving. Until you steer into a fence.

Yeah this is what makes me laugh about all the newer "Save the manuals" guys today. They are street driving around in auto rev-matching cars with sophisticated traction control. You may as well have a PDK/ZF at that point, its virtually the exact same thing. Plus, apologies to people with F80/G80 manuals, the manual boxes don't have the level of precision of older BMW or Porsche boxes. They aren't an experience worth savoring.

Try driving around in a manual car with no TC, no stability control and no rev-matching and RWD. That required a different level of skill on backroads or track than the cars that exist today.

[wavyyyy]

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 is interesting thank you

[Bimmerfun82]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

Yeah this is what makes me laugh about all the newer "Save the manuals" guys today. They are street driving around in auto rev-matching cars with sophisticated traction control. You may as well have a PDK/ZF at that point, its virtually the exact same thing. Plus, apologies to people with F80/G80 manuals, the manual boxes don't have the level of precision of older BMW or Porsche boxes. They aren't an experience worth savoring.

Try driving around in a manual car with no TC, no stability control and no rev-matching and RWD. That required a different level of skill on backroads or track than the cars that exist today.

I would love to get a manual 330 or 340 or Z4. I had a manual E46 and 330ic back in 2003-2005. Totally manageable and enjoyable gearboxes.

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by M3macster

I would love to get a manual 330 or 340 or Z4. I had a manual E46 and 330ic back in 2003-2005. Totally manageable and enjoyable gearboxes.

Good examples of BMW gearboxes too, better than the BMW gearboxes of today. Even though BMWs will never have the best shifters ever.

[ChrisM4]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

Yeah this is what makes me laugh about all the newer "Save the manuals" guys today. They are street driving around in auto rev-matching cars with sophisticated traction control. You may as well have a PDK/ZF at that point, its virtually the exact same thing. Plus, apologies to people with F80/G80 manuals, the manual boxes don't have the level of precision of older BMW or Porsche boxes. They aren't an experience worth savoring.

Try driving around in a manual car with no TC, no stability control and no rev-matching and RWD. That required a different level of skill on backroads or track than the cars that exist today.

My M2 mode has DSC completely off and rev matching off. You can’t beat the engagement of manuals. (Daily driving, track, where ever)

I went from a DCT M2 to a manual ‘21 M4 and now a manual M3. From my perspective there’s no comparison when it comes to driver engagement. The manual wins. (For me)

(I used to race 600-800RWHP manual cars back in the 90s-00s, these cars are tame in comparison even with the DSC and all nanny’s off)

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by DM5PAV

I agree with you on the rev matching, but there are people out there who still drive cars without that feature and enjoy it, myself included. I’m not the best manual driver by far, but I greatly appreciate the interaction that I have with my car and it definitely brings me joy.

I would have absolutely ordered the m3cx with a manual if it were available and turned the rev matching off. Not sure you need to turn TC off to enjoy a manual car. That seems a bit Luddite to me. There’s never anything wrong with options though.

Options are good.

Yeah I love the interaction from a manual as well, my last two fun cars before the M4 CSL were manual. I was more trying to make the point that, today’s cars and manual transmission have a lot of automation to make the driving experience more digitized.

On the same vein, automatics have been developed to make cars more interactive and bridge that gap.

It’s not as simple as saying “oh it’s not a manual, then no thanks”. There are some sub-par manuals and manual cars, just like there are some not-so good automatics and dual clutches.

A car’s sense of interaction is based on more than gearshift in this age of increased digitization.

[ScullyD]

Originally Posted by DM5PAV

Here’s hoping you are right!
I hope the m3cx zf can be engaging in manual mode with the paddles. I am kicking myself every day that I didn’t order the base car. Got too hung up on spreadsheet numbers instead of what I enjoy about cars.

Here’s hoping you are right!

The CSL is a great example actually. It’s ZF is so connected to the car, it’s a bit too engaging (bordering on violent). Some people have said it’s more engaging as a result, other people have said it’s unnatural in how the software makes the ZF operate (they’ve made a slushbox auto that feels like a single-clutch automated manual at times).

My hope is that BMW can get the sweet spot for fast auto shifts (and engagement) but smoothness in the M3 CS, actually.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by ChrisM3

My M2 mode has DSC completely off and rev matching off. You can’t beat the engagement of manuals. (Daily driving, track, where ever)

I went from a DCT M2 to a manual ‘21 M4 and now a manual M3. From my perspective there’s no comparison when it comes to driver engagement. The manual wins. (For me)

(I used to race 600-800RWHP manual cars back in the 90s-00s, these cars are tame in comparison even with the DSC and all nanny’s off)

Ditto here. I turn everything off when I drive my M2CS and can say comfortably that it is a great feeling revving it up to infinity before changing gears when you want to rather than when the car wants you to

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by ScullyD

Yeah this is what makes me laugh about all the newer "Save the manuals" guys today. They are street driving around in auto rev-matching cars with sophisticated traction control. You may as well have a PDK/ZF at that point, its virtually the exact same thing. Plus, apologies to people with F80/G80 manuals, the manual boxes don't have the level of precision of older BMW or Porsche boxes. They aren't an experience worth savoring.

Try driving around in a manual car with no TC, no stability control and no rev-matching and RWD. That required a different level of skill on backroads or track than the cars that exist today.

Rev matching, clutch dampers, synchromesh are all automations to ease the use of the “manual”.

[MadBimmeRad]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Rev matching, clutch dampers, synchromesh are all automations to ease the use of the “manual”.

When I was a lad, when seeking to obtain a driving licence, you had to do your driving test in a manual car - no questions.

Now, in Australia, you can get a licence for an automatic and upgrade to a manual if you want to.

Young ones these days wouldn't be as familiar with manual gearboxes as we were back in the last century.

I submit, that's why most manual boxes have had to be "dumbed down" to cater for this situation.

[F87M2.]

Originally Posted by PLF69

We all know the Z06 is the bargain of sports cars and just like the Camaro's, Blackwings and other GM products or 700hp Mustangs the price to pay for this huge bargain is a car that looks like it was designed by an 8years old dreaming of flying cars with square steering wheels. I don't have anything against the Corvette but it is what it is, NOT a precisely engineered German product. If you take only the price as a metric, of course it's going to beat everything.

Yeah a real bargain