Quote:
|
Originally Posted by basiluf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapper_M3
Very true. This isn't a dig against the M235i (which, by all accounts, is looking amazing), but this article seems to compare optimistic C&D performance figures for the M235i with some of the more commonly accepted values for the E9X M3. For example, I'm sure a pro driver can do better, but I've logged several VBox 0-60 mph (1 foot rollout) runs at 4.4 s with my 6MT E92, and I've run 12.9Xs at 110 mph at the dragstrip.
By way of comparison, C&D's numbers for the E92 M3 were 0-60 mph in 3.9 s and the 1/4 mile in 12.4 s at 114 mph. I don't think ANYONE else has recorded an E92 M3 on stock tires with a 3.9 s 0-60 mph, and that 1/4 mile ET and trap speed seem better than anything else I can recall seeing.
Again, not a dig in any way; the review seems awesome. It's just always better to compare apples to apples.
|
You left out the other C&D test figures for the E92 M3, which was more realistic.
On the M235i, the other two mags are quite similar.
MT:
0-60 4.4
QM 13.0 @ 106.6 mph
R&T:
0-60 4.5
QM 13.1 @ 107.8 mph |
I wasn't trying to leave anything out, bud. Those are exact performance metrics on the E92 M3 as tested by C&D (from the following link:
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...ac-cts-v-2.pdf) in one comparison test, and I cited them as one example of C&D's optimistic testing results. If you want to cite other, more conservative articles that C&D might have published, that's great, but my point wasn't that C&D is always wrong--just that they often have very optimistic results because of the different testing methods mentioned in an earlier post.
Again, I have no interest in disparaging C&D, the new M235i, or the old E92 M3....but when it comes to performance metrics, I never cite C&D as my realistic gauge of performance figures. I'm a big fan of their writing and photography though!