[McLaren720s]

Driver: sport auto's Test Driver Christian Gebhardt
Tyre: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2

Only 1 sec faster than M4CX (7.28,57 min) on same tires.

[Limegrntaln]

Nice, 184.54mph (297kmh) blinked up on the long strait.

[gnx]

The relevant publication data.

[SwankPeRFection]

Now imagine how much time you can make up by doing just a simple Stage 1 flash to it to get a little more power or even one with Stage 2. That low 7 can easily be hit, maybe even knock on 6.

[McLaren720s]

Interesting….a bit more significant difference on Hockenheim…compared to marginally better on the ‘Ring

[irablumberg]

I'm a bit confused by this 'ring result for the CS. Specifically, with the same driver, the M3 CS (with Cup 2 tires) was only 2 seconds faster than a regular M4 Comp xDrive with street tires (PS4S presumably). Assuming the Cup 2 tires are good for at least a second or 2 on the 'ring, why would a regular M4 xDrive have the same performance as the M3 CS which is both lighter and has at least 20 more HP?

This is in rather stark contrast to the performance of the M4 CSL which is a full 10 seconds fast than the M3 CS (and in this case, both cars were using Cup 2 tires). Of course, the M4 CSL is a few hundred pounds lighter, but has the same HP.

Any thoughts?

[gnx]

Print says that the M4 Comp drive was on Cup 2s as well.

You do have a point though.

[FC4]

Originally Posted by SwankPeRFection

Now imagine how much time you can make up by doing just a simple Stage 1 flash to it to get a little more power or even one with Stage 2. That low 7 can easily be hit, maybe even knock on 6.

LOL

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by FC4

LOL

You don’t at minimum at least flash your cars for more power? Easy reliable power unlock. 🤷*♂️

[RichardGM4]

[QUOTE=irablumberg;31072605]I'm a bit confused by this 'ring result for the CS. Specifically, with the same driver, the M3 CS (with Cup 2 tires) was only 2 seconds faster than a regular M4 Comp xDrive with street tires (PS4S presumably). Assuming the Cup 2 tires are good for at least a second or 2 on the 'ring, why would a regular M4 xDrive have the same performance as the M3 CS which is both lighter and has at least 20 more HP?

This is in rather stark contrast to the performance of the M4 CSL which is a full 10 seconds fast than the M3 CS (and in this case, both cars were using Cup 2 tires). Of course, the M4 CSL is a few hundred pounds lighter, but has the same HP.

Any thoughts?

I’ve just traded in a 2022 G82 M4CX thati owned for 2+ years for a G80 M3 CS and I can confirm the the CS is way quicker than the M4CX - no doubt about that - so a second doesn’t seem enough of a difference to me

[Hulk Smash]

Originally Posted by irablumberg

I'm a bit confused by this 'ring result for the CS. Specifically, with the same driver, the M3 CS (with Cup 2 tires) was only 2 seconds faster than a regular M4 Comp xDrive with street tires (PS4S presumably). Assuming the Cup 2 tires are good for at least a second or 2 on the 'ring, why would a regular M4 xDrive have the same performance as the M3 CS which is both lighter and has at least 20 more HP?

This is in rather stark contrast to the performance of the M4 CSL which is a full 10 seconds fast than the M3 CS (and in this case, both cars were using Cup 2 tires). Of course, the M4 CSL is a few hundred pounds lighter, but has the same HP.

Any thoughts?

I take Ring times with a grain of salt especialy when the times being compared are from different days, drivers, weather, tires and even years. The Ring gets sections repaved annually and that will have an impact on times, but track conditions play a huge role as well. IMO, the laptimes are not good metrics to compare car performance. They give a ballpark idea of a car's capabilities, that's about it.

[irablumberg]

Originally Posted by gnx

Print says that the M4 Comp drive was on Cup 2s as well.

You do have a point though.

Thank you for that clarification. I don't have access to the magazine, so I just assumed that they tested with the factory equipment. At least in the US, I don't think Cup 2 tires are a factory option for the M4 Cx.

[irablumberg]

[QUOTE=RichardGM4;31073560]

Originally Posted by irablumberg

I'm a bit confused by this 'ring result for the CS. Specifically, with the same driver, the M3 CS (with Cup 2 tires) was only 2 seconds faster than a regular M4 Comp xDrive with street tires (PS4S presumably). Assuming the Cup 2 tires are good for at least a second or 2 on the 'ring, why would a regular M4 xDrive have the same performance as the M3 CS which is both lighter and has at least 20 more HP?

This is in rather stark contrast to the performance of the M4 CSL which is a full 10 seconds fast than the M3 CS (and in this case, both cars were using Cup 2 tires). Of course, the M4 CSL is a few hundred pounds lighter, but has the same HP.

Any thoughts?

I’ve just traded in a 2022 G82 M4CX thati owned for 2+ years for a G80 M3 CS and I can confirm the the CS is way quicker than the M4CX - no doubt about that - so a second doesn’t seem enough of a difference to me

I have no doubt that the CS would be quicker in a straight line due to the lower weight and higher HP. My concern was that the CS is also supposed to have a better tuned suspension and for cars with comparable power to weight specs, handling makes a big difference for 'ring times. Thus, I was expecting the CS to improve on M4 Cx times substantially more than was demonstrated in this test.

[SwankPeRFection]

They’re not that much different on the suspension side of things. Front knuckles change the camber out a bit more and that’s about it. I know the CSL doesn’t have a ton of differences vs the M4 setup.

[McLaren720s]

Originally Posted by M2CS

I take Ring times with a grain of salt especialy when the times being compared are from different days, drivers, weather, tires and even years. The Ring gets sections repaved annually and that will have an impact on times, but track conditions play a huge role as well. IMO, the laptimes are not good metrics to compare car performance. They give a ballpark idea of a car's capabilities, that's about it.

It’s the same driver, tires and similar ish weather. Doesn’t get much accurate than this except if they ran it also on the same day back to back which is not possible most of the time.

If lap times are now not a good indication of performance, but then I don’t know what is

[irablumberg]

Originally Posted by SwankPeRFection

They’re not that much different on the suspension side of things. Front knuckles change the camber out a bit more and that’s about it. I know the CSL doesn’t have a ton of differences vs the M4 setup.

Then quite surprising that the M4 CSL was 10 seconds faster than the M3 CS and 12 seconds faster than the M4 Cx.

[RUNSOK]

Few seconds here and there on 26km or 15 mile track is nothing. It could be weather, it could be temperature. It is a 15 mile track guys, may be a bit of exaggerating but you can probably have 4 seasons in 1 single lap 😀. On 2 mile track like nelson ledges in ohio 2 secs is huge. On a 4 mile track like road America 2 sec gap is not that much at all. We are talking about 15plus mile track here... think about it. Lap times can vary significantly interms of seconds but percentage wise not that much. Unless same driver takes the 2 cars out on a same day on same tires etc all these lap time stuff is nothing more than confusing the enthusiasts.

[SwankPeRFection]

Originally Posted by irablumberg

Then quite surprising that the M4 CSL was 10 seconds faster than the M3 CS and 12 seconds faster than the M4 Cx.

Two more doors (the glass to go with them), xdive, metal trunk lid and back seats. Weight adds up quick.

[/ / / M3]

Originally Posted by McLaren720s

Driver: sport auto's Test Driver Christian Gebhardt
Tyre: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2

Only 1 sec faster than M4CX (7.28,57 min) on same tires.

Well it's essentially the same car, with the same engine. The weight difference is fairly trivial, and so is the extra power (which is only available high up in the rev range). It's not surprising that the lap times are close.

[/ / / M3]

Originally Posted by SwankPeRFection

Two more doors (the glass to go with them), xdive, metal trunk lid and back seats. Weight adds up quick.

CSL is about 300 lbs lighter than M3/4 cx. That's not insignificant.

[Trevorr]

Originally Posted by M2CS

I take Ring times with a grain of salt especialy when the times being compared are from different days, drivers, weather, tires and even years. The Ring gets sections repaved annually and that will have an impact on times, but track conditions play a huge role as well. IMO, the laptimes are not good metrics to compare car performance. They give a ballpark idea of a car's capabilities, that's about it.

Ring times are a legit benchmark for performance IMO. I would say that margin of error is +/- 3 or 4 seconds.

Originally Posted by SwankPeRFection

You don’t at minimum at least flash your cars for more power? Easy reliable power unlock. ��*♂️

Nurburgring is a highly technical track. A power bump would probably add like 2-3 seconds. Would only help in that long straight.

[Hulk Smash]

Originally Posted by Trevorr

Ring times are a legit benchmark for performance IMO. I would say that margin of error is +/- 3 or 4 seconds.

The Ring is a great place for manufacturers to test their cars during development, but it's overrated as a benchmark for claiming one car is better or faster than another (unless the difference in times is huge). I never hear pro drivers make such comparisons, when they race at the Ring their laptimes often vary by multiple seconds. Any car's ring time could be improved by renting out the track for a week and using pro drivers to constantly run laps and burn through tires until the track conditions are perfect and the driver has a mostly error free lap so they get a phenomenal laptime.