[Fugly M3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

The results are very similar to the M4xDrive they had previously tested. The M4 was tested with the PS4S and the M3 matched it in the 0-60mph, and both are pretty evenly matched on the skidpad and in braking, so the grip of the M3’s PZ4 is clearly not an issue. The M4 being slightly lighter and with less drag (due to a smaller frontal area) is slightly faster on the top end. There are no surprises here.

I found the drag coefficient to be .34 for both cars, so I assumed the Pirelli’s were just a tad worse (mainly from braking numbers) and possibly had a slightly slower launch but not measurable in tenths, leading to the slightly slower numbers at the big speeds.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Ilyam5

What are you talking about? Just watch the video. Audi rs3 is 7:40 by the way

Important to note that the times you are referencing are not an apples-to-apples comparison. The 7:28 from the M4xDrive is for the AM&S/SA supertest lap length, which omits the test day pit-in-pit-out section, while the RS3's 7:40 is for a full lap length. There is a ~5 sec difference between the two. Taking this into consideration, the M4xDrive is still faster by ~7 seconds, which is expected given it's substantial power advantage (27% more power) over the RS3 and the M4xDrive being fitted with the optional PSC2.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Fugly M3

I found the drag coefficient to be .34 for both cars, so I assumed the Pirelli’s were just a tad worse (mainly from braking numbers) and possibly had a slightly slower launch but not measurable in tenths, leading to the slightly slower numbers at the big speeds.

The drag coefficient is indeed practically the same for both cars, however the M3 has greater frontal area due to it's greater height.

Drag = Cd x Afrontal

EDIT: I was going with the info I recalled from the F8X generation, where both the M3 and M4 had the same Cd. However, while looking up the frontal area for the G8X models I found the info is not as crisp. The G80 is quoted with a "range" Cd of 0.33-0.34 while the G82 is "fixed" at 0.34. The M3 still has a greater frontal area but BMW it is not clear which one has a lower total drag. From the G8X Technical Training doc:

[Fugly M3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

The drag coefficient is indeed practically the same for both cars, however the M3 has greater frontal area due to it's greater height.

Drag = Cd x Afrontal

EDIT: I was going with the info I recalled from the F8X generation, where both the M3 and M4 had the same Cd. However, while looking up the frontal area for the G8X models I found the info is not as crisp. The G80 is quoted with a "range" Cd of 0.33-0.34 while the M4 is fixed at 0.34. The M3 still has a greater frontal area but BMW it is not clear which one a a lower total drag. From the G8X Technical Training doc:

You found better data than I did, so thanks for that. Begs the question, what in the world gives the M3 the lower drag vs. higher?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Fugly M3

You found better data than I did, so thanks for that. Begs the question, what in the world gives the M3 the lower drag vs. higher?

I am curious about that too. First time a see a "range" Cd specified for a given car

[Fugly M3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I am curious about that too. First time a see a "range" Cd specified for a given car

I think my initial gut reaction was right...has to be the radar cruise control blob that goes up front. Note the M4 you posted was base, which, presumably with a manual, wouldn't have that feature. Right?

[kjx]

Originally Posted by YKIGI

BMW was always extremely fast through the turns and under braking. Now people are getting excited over 0-60 and quarter mile times on an AWD that’s too heavy to carve up a good lap. Ok.

Originally Posted by genebike

I’m so glad someone finally mentioned this. I read the whole article and aside from gushing over the straight line speed, no other performance was mentioned. These used to be drivers cars…not ugly drag specialists.

Welcome to this part of the forums I guess? All of this has been discussed extensively here but TL;DR for new folk: AWD is faster around tracks too. Lots about this from respected journalists on YouTube who actually drove otherwise identical AWD and RWD cars around tracks.

It's not a debate at this point. But not entirely unexpected when something makes the front page and people who have not been following along show up with little context and preconceived notions.

Originally Posted by PLF69

It is and I tested it a lot on and off track but unfortunately you cannot drive with all nannies ON in RWD mode in your AWD car and the traction control adjustable levels is pretty much only good for straighline or doing donuts. If you have the driving skills of driving with everything off all the time then I agree the AWD feature can be a huge advantage in some situations. They would of probably have sold a shit load of Manual AWD cars, seriously.

BMW has published videos that explains how various traction control levels work, and these characterizations are not accurate. Forget that they run counter to what people who actually own these cars know.

You're also a year and half late to the debate, but the conclusive conclusion on the G80.G82 forum including from actual owners is that buying the AWD version is better in all circumstances except:
- if you want a manual (and obviously only because BMW doesn't offer AWD with manual) or
- if you're routinely pushing it over 130 mph (about the point where RWD Competition is finally able to get more power down; and that matters more to you than anything below 130 mph).

[2011ninja]

Originally Posted by Bimmerfun82

I can attest this is true based on my experience. Car is totally bananas. If you enjoy the process of going 0-80 (instead of blinking and missing it), or if you lack a bit of self control, def get something else.

100%!

I have a G80 6MT. It’s an effort to go fast.

I can’t imagine anyone with AWD version automatic not driving fast all the time or launching the car.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Fugly M3

I think my initial gut reaction was right...has to be the radar cruise control blob that goes up front. Note the M4 you posted was base, which, presumably with a manual, wouldn't have that feature. Right?

It is not that straightforward. A radiator intake is bad for drag: the bigger it is, the more drag it generates. This is why more and more cars have active aero where the radiator inlets are shut when cooling is less required.

I doubt it is the cruise control radar that makes the difference since it is also available on the G82. The drag numbers are the exact same for the base M4 and M4competition

[Alpine300zhp]

Originally Posted by Tyga11

Best car on the planet

“Best car on the planet at this price point that can seat 4 people comfortably.” FTFY

[IcewaterPete]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

For a track test, magazines usually test with the best OE track tire option that you can get from the factory. In the case of the RS3, it can be ordered with the Trofeo-R, hence why it was tested with them. In the same way, the M4 CSL was tested with the PSC2R. At least, for the RS3, C&D also published the time the RS3 did with the PZ4. In Europe, most track tests of the M3/4 are done with optional PSC2. I am not sure why BMW USA has elected not to offer the PSC2 in their market for the M3/4. Even in Canada, we can order the PSC2 on the G8X from the factory.

I believe C&D has a policy to test what the manufacturer provides. They don’t go and hunt out the best tire option or pay for a tire change. They do try and request the best options for the media car, but ultimately are at the mercy of the OEM. This isn’t a Consumer Reports secret purchaser situation.

[jmxtrem]

2.8s 0-60mph - incredible

[Forzanerazzurri]

Originally Posted by jmxtrem

2.8s 0-60mph - incredible

Would have been 1.8 with Michelins.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Forzanerazzurri

Would have been 1.8 with Michelins.

We may not own supercars, but for us G8X owners, we are very fortunate to own a super...car.

I have a RWD, so my 0 to 60 is somewhere in the mid to high 3s, and my car still feels bananas as it claws for traction. I love it.

But for you X-drive owners, 0 to 60 in the high 2's is just ridiculous. Well done, BMW.

[akkando]

This is a spec sheet, not a review.

[YKIGI]

Originally Posted by kjx

Welcome to this part of the forums I guess? All of this has been discussed extensively here but TL;DR for new folk: AWD is faster around tracks too. Lots about this from respected journalists on YouTube who actually drove otherwise identical AWD and RWD cars around tracks.

It's not a debate at this point. But not entirely unexpected when something makes the front page and people who have not been following along show up with little context and preconceived notions.



BMW has published videos that explains how various traction control levels work, and these characterizations are not accurate. Forget that they run counter to what people who actually own these cars know.

You're also a year and half late to the debate, but the conclusive conclusion on the G80.G82 forum including from actual owners is that buying the AWD version is better in all circumstances except:
- if you want a manual (and obviously only because BMW doesn't offer AWD with manual) or
- if you're routinely pushing it over 130 mph (about the point where RWD Competition is finally able to get more power down; and that matters more to you than anything below 130 mph).

New and haven’t been following? Ha. Check my join date. Not to mention you have over 1K posts since 2021. Guess we have a talker here. Anyways…… no matter the traction control trickery or suspension computer magic, this babies a sled. Period

[G30M]

Originally Posted by Fugly M3

You found better data than I did, so thanks for that. Begs the question, what in the world gives the M3 the lower drag vs. higher?

Cd refers to computer generated number based on 3D shape of the car front to back all the way.

maybe 0.33 without M Performance parts, 0.34 with the front lip and rear spoiler

but then i expect the M4 to have a lower Cd without MPP

but it really could be as simple as narrower option tires for 0.33 and wider 275 285 for 0.34

[DO444]

Originally Posted by BEAR-AvHistory

Because they road test what you will get if you buy one, not a modified car. Its random some M3/4 win the Michlen lottery & some don't PS4S.

For Lightning Laps any optional tire that the car can be bought with from the list is used. Key there is the tire must be on the option list.

Non standard or non optional tires are a modification. So if my BMW comes home & I don't like the tires I can go out & spend $1500 for my personal choice of tires. Thats a modification which I have done.

The rabbit hole is you might spend $1500 for better tires while I might spend the $1500 for a JB4 & a tune. Just another type of $1500 modification.

Where does it stop to get a fair comparison of the car as delivered from the factory? As opposed to how fast can we make this car go for X dollars,

What you are saying makes sense, but I don’t see the logic behind a multimillion dollar publication not providing that data.

Maybe if they did, I’d pay them for a sub.
Road and track is actually informative about so many things. C&D just seems like a magazine filled with nothing but opinion pieces and soft ads.

I agree your argument has a logic to it, but it also feels lazy.

Just control for tires and declare the winner please, it’s not THAT expensive.

consumer reports buys everything they test.

[Fugly M3]

Originally Posted by g21

Cd refers to computer generated number based on 3D shape of the car front to back all the way.

maybe 0.33 without M Performance parts, 0.34 with the front lip and rear spoiler

but then i expect the M4 to have a lower Cd without MPP

but it really could be as simple as narrower option tires for 0.33 and wider 275 285 for 0.34

I'm not aware of a variant with narrower tires than 275/285.

[G30M]

Originally Posted by Fugly M3

I'm not aware of a variant with narrower tires than 275/285.

just realised that. i thought 18" were narrower. but nope.

maybe the 0.5" narrower winter wheels! lol

[Fugly M3]

Originally Posted by g21

just realised that. i thought 18" were narrower. but nope.

maybe the 0.5" narrower winter wheels! lol

CanAutM3 disagrees, but I'm still inclined to think it's the cruise control blob that's not offered on the base cars. I can't think of another reason (variable) why the M3 would have two numbers I think the base M4 coefficient should probably be lower and is a misprint by BMW. Having said that, the performance difference in the two, particularly the braking from higher speeds where there is more drag, may well come down to the Pirellis vs. the Michelins. But then there is ambient temperature and humidity of testing that comes into play as well.

[BEAR-AvHistory]

Originally Posted by DO444

consumer reports buys everything they test.

Agree, I'm not saying what is better just why they do it. Be interesting if they did their normal test then a sidebar with common car guy changes.

Might be a great way to limit the BS in many aftermarket performance improvement claims. A lot of guys will find out some of these products make some good noises but actually produce zero performance improvement.

As for CR have to think they don't by a M440 then take off the tires & put on Cup 2 to get the best performance.