Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgm9999
Couple of comments:
1.) I can't stand these guys. Watch their other videos and you'll see what I mean. They can't drive, make constant inaccurate statements, and are incredibly annoying.
2.) As a resident of Colorado, this isn't particularly surprising, nor impressive. The IS-F is very heavy and naturally aspirated and thus makes far less power at altitude than it makes at sea level. The M235i is of course turbocharged and lighter. As a result, it loses very little power compared to the IS-F at altitude. This is why if you spend any time at all living in high altitude areas and you're a car enthusiast, you're usually biased towards forced induction cars. That's why bone stock 335i's can keep up with "faster" NA cars up here in CO. Hell, I had a MkV GTI with nothing but an APR stage 1 tune that would run with much faster NA cars stoplight to stoplight simply because my car was light, torquey, and didn't lose much power at altitude.
|
+1
As a resident of Colorado, you are one of the few who understand that normally aspirated vehicles are strangled at altitudes like Denver and Johannesburg (6000ft+). My 135i, as well as any other 335i's are faster in Johannesburg than my M3. It has nothing to do with the Lexus transmission, but more to do with the fact that turbocharged cars lose less power in thin air, when compared to an aspirated one. The outcome would be different if the very same race took place at sea level.
Since there is not much between an ISF and an M3, how do you suppose an M3 would fare against the M235i at altitude?
M3 vs ISF at , or M235i vs a45 Amg, at altitude would be a fair comparison.