[NYCMT]

Funny how different the C&D's take on the manual is from motortrend's.

[G30M]

i don't know man, i've not seen anyone else in the world hit 2.8s ...

can this be repeated or is it a once in a lifetime experience?

[antzcrashing]

Wow, this car will have high insurance premiums for sure

[BEAR-AvHistory]

Originally Posted by NightWriter

.

* I'm no genius for making this argument. They likely know it's BS as well, but they also know that posting better numbers generates mouse clicks and drives ad revenue, and earns whatever passes for respect among auto journalists. So they have strong incentive to play along by these standards.

Agree its a BS number but as long as all the cars are tested the exact same way (mags claim industry standard) its still a relevant number at a drag strip.

The real issue is you can't really convert that to a traffic light grand prix as in addition to the roll out factor they are also running on a sticky prepared track. The numbers listed are also the best of a number of runs that are then processed through an algorithm that "standardizes" the output for things like temperature, altitude etc.

Cars RWD like a GT500 Shelby can get killed against an M4C on the street compared to the track launch that will still go to the M4 on the strip but not by so much.

Bottom line its always about traction.

One of the guys here posted a 0-60 Dragy for his M4C 2.90 (1FT) 3.07 standing start

[MCM4]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

Wow, this car will have high insurance premiums for sure

I had my agent price my built M4CxD against my CT4-V Blackwing. +24k difference on sticker, and the M4 adds only $125 per year. I was pleasantly surprised to say the least.

[2011ninja]

Originally Posted by G80M4

i don't know man, i've not seen anyone else in the world hit 2.8s ...

can this be repeated or is it a once in a lifetime experience?

And what does it mean anyway

I did 2.0 with a 20 mph roll out

[2011ninja]

Originally Posted by MCM4

I had my agent price my built M4CxD against my CT4-V Blackwing. +24k difference on sticker, and the M4 adds only $125 per year. I was pleasantly surprised to say the least.

Could be totally different for someone else with the exact cars.

[Limegrntaln]

Originally Posted by NightWriter

Do you work for a car magazine? Or (as I assume) are you just quoting C/D's testing regiment?

Yes, I'm familiar with the background and rationale for the 1-foot rollout. In the olden days when testing equipment was crappy -- and cars accelerated far slower -- excluding the rollout was a reasonable, and made a negligible difference. And it makes sense for normalizing quarter mile times at the drag strip when racing another car.

But it's still not 0-60, and it's still highly misleading. At the end of the one-foot mark, a hard-charging car (like the M4 xDrive) is going 5-6mph. So it's not 0-60, but 5-60 with a running start. In the quarter mile, a foot represents a fairly small chunk of the race (1/1320, or 0.075%). But in 0-60, 0.2s represents 7% of the time to get to 60! The faster a car is, the faster it's going after a foot, the less time it needs to get to 60, and therefore the more misleading this rollout is. Yes, the auto rags all do it*, but it's still BS.

* I'm no genius for making this argument. They likely know it's BS as well, but they also know that posting better numbers generates mouse clicks and drives ad revenue, and earns whatever passes for respect among auto journalists. So they have strong incentive to play along by these standards.

The faster the car is in their article, the more clicks. Just like this post. We know how fast the car is, but it made the front page with the time in the headline.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by MCM4

I had my agent price my built M4CxD against my CT4-V Blackwing. +24k difference on sticker, and the M4 adds only $125 per year. I was pleasantly surprised to say the least.

Don't get me wrong, I will def price it out and hope for the best

[8262S]

Originally Posted by Forzanerazzurri

Physics. Plenty of books written on it for you to browse.

I thought you were an attorney, not engineer.

You just can't drop an allegation that use of Launch Control will grenade the drivetrain and then walk away referring me to an unnamed physics book....

Unless of course you don't have any evidence that it causes long term damage to the drivetrain, other than speculation.

And if it's just speculation, that's cool. But completely worthless.

I speculate that it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. So provide some evidence of your claim, or my speculation will turn to certainty.

[8262S]

Originally Posted by Limegrntaln

Yes, it's the base model.




The clock doesn't start on acceleration runs right when the vehicles start rolling. This practice, which is commonly called rollout, comes from the drag strip, where it's possible for a car to travel a foot or more before it trips the timing light that actually starts the clock.

The industry standard calls for a one-foot rollout before a timed run begins. Our old test equipment couldn't measure that precisely, so we approximated a foot by beginning our runs at 3 mph. That was a fair estimate when cars didn't launch as hard as they do today, but gains in traction, launch control, and horsepower have rendered our 3-mph approximation increasingly obsolete. Our GPS-based Racelogic VBox test equipment is accurate enough to measure the first foot of rollout, so starting with the December 2019 issue, we're changing our acceleration reporting.

Lining up a vehicle at a drag strip requires careful placement of the front tires relative to two beams of light. When a car's front tire crosses the first one, a "prestage" warning is lit. When the tire interrupts the second beam—the "stage beam," which is seven inches ahead—the car is staged and ready for a run. The clock starts when the car's tire moves enough to uncover the second light beam. The distance the car travels before the stage beam is uncovered (and therefore the timing begins) is what's known as rollout, and it can vary from nothing to more than a foot. Obviously, this affects the elapsed time, sometimes by as much as 0.3 second. Our testing now adopts the industry-standard one-foot rollout.

Very interesting, thanks for posting that!

So Dragy times would not have this "roll-out" factored in?

And is your belief that the C&D time is a "roll-out" drag strip time?

[Forzanerazzurri]

Originally Posted by 8262S

I thought you were an attorney, not engineer.

You just can't drop an allegation that use of Launch Control will grenade the drivetrain and then walk away referring me to an unnamed physics book....

Unless of course you don't have any evidence that it causes long term damage to the drivetrain, other than speculation.

And if it's just speculation, that's cool. But completely worthless.

I speculate that it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. So provide some evidence of your claim, or my speculation will turn to certainty.

Why are you stalking me?

[The_Transporter]

Originally Posted by G80M4

i don't know man, i've not seen anyone else in the world hit 2.8s ...

can this be repeated or is it a once in a lifetime experience?

Yeah, was this downhill!?! Lol
I haven't read those figures anywhere else…

[Asthenis]

Originally Posted by forcefed

That 60mph time seems a bit unreal, just like their 2.1 time for the 911 turbo s lightweight.

Agreed, makes no sense to me, also checking on the official Build and price of this specific car and numbers are 0-60 3,7 sec. they must be VERY conservative !

[yousefnjr]

Originally Posted by Forzanerazzurri

For your drive train

We’re going to have to take our chances here I suppose, there’s no going back now LC is just too cool

[yousefnjr]

Originally Posted by G80M4

i don't know man, i've not seen anyone else in the world hit 2.8s ...

can this be repeated or is it a once in a lifetime experience?

They say it’s 3.0 as the rest of us measure it. Iirc best I’ve seen on this forum was 3.1x stock. Fastest I’ve gone is 3.2, on pirellis

[8262S]

Originally Posted by Forzanerazzurri

Why are you stalking me?

So I take it that's a "no evidence to support the claim."

Gotcha.

And it wasn't me who called you out in that other thread.

[TFBravo]

Yea C&D numbers are always crazy, you telling me a stock M4 is faster than a M5 in a 1/4mile. M5 could pull 11.0 on a prepped surface not an M4. And show me any video of M4/M3 doing anything less than 3.4.

[Forzanerazzurri]

Originally Posted by 8262S

So I take it that's a "no evidence to support the claim."

Gotcha.

And it wasn't me who called you out in that other thread.

Just curious, have you ever bothered to read your owner's manual? Not a physics textbook, your owner's manual. I'm sure even you can manage that.

Here let me hold your hand...

Under the Launch Control section:

"General Use of Launch Control causes premature component wear, as the function subjects the vehicle to very high stresses and loads. Do not use Launch Control when running in. When starting with Launch Control, do not turn the steering wheel."

[Limegrntaln]

Originally Posted by TFBravo

Yea C&D numbers are always crazy, you telling me a stock M4 is faster than a M5 in a 1/4mile. M5 could pull 11.0 on a prepped surface not an M4. And show me any video of M4/M3 doing anything less than 3.4.

Originally Posted by 8262S

Very interesting, thanks for posting that!

So Dragy times would not have this "roll-out" factored in?

And is your belief that the C&D time is a "roll-out" drag strip time?

No, Dragy does not calculate 1ft rollout.

Originally Posted by TFBravo

Yea C&D numbers are always crazy, you telling me a stock M4 is faster than a M5 in a 1/4mile. M5 could pull 11.0 on a prepped surface not an M4. And show me any video of M4/M3 doing anything less than 3.4.

The very first post of an xDrive 0-60, long before just about anyone took delivery, Steve Gills car ran a 3.07. Joe Achilles has Dragy video of his 3.1 on the junk UK roads.

https://g80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1846702

[jmg]

Damn that's fast! Even if it's a bit exaggerated because of the rollout etc... still damn fast and impressive.

[MCM4]

Originally Posted by TFBravo

And show me any video of M4/M3 doing anything less than 3.4.

Youtube, the milesperhour guy... 3.1. Also Skyscraper if I recall! I made a post with his review a while back.