Z4M Roadster 0to60 in 4.6 seconds - Page 2

Wagner · #1 04-30-2006, 07:18 PM

Amazing, I knew BMW was conservative on their numbers.

Important part of the C&D article: "We expect the 330-hp roadster will accelerate from 0 to 60 in about 4.5 seconds, 0.3 second faster than the last M3 we tested and more than a half-second faster than a Porsche Boxster S."

If the magazine tests both the M3 and the new MZ, then the same group is driving both cars...so logically the one with the better time is the one with the better time

http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...ter-page2.html

crosvs · #2 04-30-2006, 07:27 PM

yes but then magazines have ALSO gotten mitsu evos to hit 60 in 4.5 secs or so.

doing that 5+ times will rape your clutch.

so in a way, i find the magazine's 0-60 numbers to be quite pointless.

e.g., i'm sure my dad's porsche CAN do 60 in about 4.9 - 5.0 secs. but like the evo (since he's got the C4S) do it more than a few times and the clutch is FINISHED.

i think a good rule of thumb is that you always need to add at LEAST 0.5 secs to a magazine's 0-60 rating EVEN if you're a good driver and launch a car PRETTY hard without destroying it.

thoughts?

Bavarian · #3 05-01-2006, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosvs

yes but then magazines have ALSO gotten mitsu evos to hit 60 in 4.5 secs or so.

doing that 5+ times will rape your clutch.

so in a way, i find the magazine's 0-60 numbers to be quite pointless.

e.g., i'm sure my dad's porsche CAN do 60 in about 4.9 - 5.0 secs. but like the evo (since he's got the C4S) do it more than a few times and the clutch is FINISHED.

i think a good rule of thumb is that you always need to add at LEAST 0.5 secs to a magazine's 0-60 rating EVEN if you're a good driver and launch a car PRETTY hard without destroying it.

thoughts?

I am not a manual tranny driver as many of you know, but I drive several manual cars each year out of necessity. Your statement makes perfect sense to me. It's exactly what I was trying to say above - the magazine times are useless in real life, cuz it's not like you can replicate them 50 times in the same day.

It's like running a computer overclocked. My dual-core CPU is clocked at the factory at 3.0GHZ. With aftermarket cooling and overvoltage, I've reached 3.7GHZ, but it gets unstable if you load it. So I go back to a lower overclock. You can't possibly have "sustainable" performance at the "limit" of a machine. Same thing with these times that the magazines are getting.

crosvs · #4 05-01-2006, 02:49 AM

Quote:

It's like running a computer overclocked. My dual-core CPU is clocked at the factory at 3.0GHZ. With aftermarket cooling and overvoltage, I've reached 3.7GHZ, but it gets unstable if you load it. So I go back to a lower overclock. You can't possibly have "sustainable" performance at the "limit" of a machine. Same thing with these times that the magazines are getting.

having grown up most of my life as a computer nut (first pc was the XT when i was 3!!) i can certainly appreciate this.

however, i take issue with one comment you said:

Quote:

You can't possibly have "sustainable" performance at the "limit" of a machine

I belive that should be modified to: You can't possibly have "sustainable" performance beyond the limit implied by a machine's warranty of fitness for a particular performance."

Sorry, with contracts final coming up, I just couldn't help but notice and modify that statement.

Ok ok all joking aside, all that i mean is this: while I do not contend that a machine shouldn't be expected to perform if it is pushed beyond its "limits" if those limits are beyond its ordinary published limits as provided by its manufacturer, I *DO* believe that a machine should function just fine as long as it performs at or below its manufacturer's imposed limits.

In automotive terms, I firmly believe -- at least with today's modern cars and ever-present tort and contracts liability -- that thanks to rev limiters in cars, constantly redlining your engine while under load -- *NOT* freespinning it and bouncing off the rev limiter lol -- should *NOT* cause it to blow up or die before its usual time.

Agreed?