[Jadar]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Yup.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/bm...ts-107878.html

Thats plenty quick in stock form especially vs a modded E9x M3. More and more and more in love with the M2

[MachinesWithSouls]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

So when you test drove the M2, what about the sound and feel did you not like?

The e9x steering is better, and the engine sounds are not comparable. Like I said, wonderful car, but just a different experience.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Robin_NL

It is. No worries If you do that 10 times with E9x M3 your brakes literally are about to be on fire, been there done that(trackday)...

Cheers
Robin

I did over 100 track days with my E92 with a completely stock brake system save for PF08 pads. I never had an issue.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by gtr

Try doing that 10 time in a row and then compare braking distant.

10 stops is not likely to fade the stock brakes on the E9X M3...

However, with stock pads, they will eventually fade at the track. As would pretty much any car on street pads.

[Robin_NL]

Yep it basically were the pads(off course) but it keep in mind the big fat pig combined with its ability to gain speed when revved to the max plus me behind the wheel was a match made in h3ll.
I'm not doing sightseeing on a trackday.

Anyway, I didn't find it a real trackcar. Neither was the 1M really but better suited and more nimble and agile and just as fast or faster, less(no) understeer, nicer(to me!) balance =more fun.(for me).So please no E9xM3 vs 1M comparisons

Don't get me wrong E9x M3 was a nice car in many ways, but my expectations were probably too high, sorry.

Cheers
Robin

[mmmpassion]

C&D:"Also, it has shorter second, third, and fourth gear ratios" .. and first is shorter too.
C&D:"The automatic has a 47-percent wider overall ratio spread attributable to its 0.67:1 seventh gear" .. the seventh is about 25% longer than sixth (both manual and dct).
Furthermore what often is not considered (advantage dct): When you upshift with heavy throttle in daily driving with low 2500 or 3000 rmp, dct keeps turbo boost whereas as 6MT driver has to build up turbo boost in the higher gear again (kind of turbo lag in low revs). 6MT is most fun with nat. asp. motors.

[RaceCarDriver]

I'm still glad I got my M2 in stick

[mmmpassion]

Originally Posted by RaceCarDriver

I'm still glad I got my M2 in stick

With the M2 I would be lost in deciding DCT or 6MT as I am still a fan of my two 6MT cars (BMW 130i and M3 E46) but after 20000 miles I also love the DCT in my M3 e92.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

As others have noted, 5-60 rolling start will always be slower than 0-60. Main reason is availability of torque when engine is basically idle.
Interesting article, but don't necessarily agree that 5-60 is a better metric:
http://insideevs.com/the-rolling-sta...rmance-metric/

The data in that article is fascinating. Reposting because it wasn't a link in your post for some reason:

http://insideevs.com/the-rolling-sta...rmance-metric/

I wouldn't say either measure is better, because they both tell you something different. A 5-60 mph time won't tell you how well a car launches, and a 0-60 mph time won't tell you how responsive a car's engine is at low RPM

[zenmaster]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

The data in that article is fascinating. Reposting because it wasn't a link in your post for some reason:

http://insideevs.com/the-rolling-sta...rmance-metric/

I wouldn't say either measure is better, because they both tell you something different. A 5-60 mph time won't tell you how well a car launches, and a 0-60 mph time won't tell you how responsive a car's engine is at low RPM

Thanks, and I agree with that. Somewhat off topic, but had nice list of times. I got that info from a Tesla forum where the EV fanboys similarly put blinders on to see only those metrics which make their cars look better.

For example YouTube videos showing a Model S smoking a Hellcat, but only in 1/8mi strips.
And they don't want to hear how their car overheats on a road course, like Nurburgring cause that takes away from "Ludicrous mode" making their car "faster". The 0-60 metric definitely sells.

[Jaymax85]

having had an e90 m3 id prob prefer that over an m2

[M2 CSL]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I did over 100 track days with my E92 with a completely stock brake system save for PF08 pads. I never had an issue.

I feel bad for the poor sob that bought it off you. Nice work though.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Ummm2

I feel bad for the poor sob that bought it off you. Nice work though.

One of my track buddies that blew his 350Z engine twice in a row bought it. He knew exactly what he was buying and has been reliably using it as his daily driver and track car for the last 2 years . Those ///M cars are pretty stout .

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by GMe90

If you buy this car with a DCT, you have completely missed the point of the car in my opinion. Who cares if it's two tenths quicker to 60? 4.2 to 60 for the MT is insanely fast and much faster than you can hope to use on the road.

Agreed ! DCT.. " More of a driver's car ..." bellyroll:

[335Abuser]

Originally Posted by pikkagtr

That's not how things work
60ft is extremely important as it will affect your et dramatically
A 108mph car running 12.6 is possible while a @118mph car can also be running the same time
The slower trap speed car would have the better "hole shot" 60ft time but little top end compared to the more traction limited 118mph car.
In the real world with pot holes and cracks in pavements , it's very hard to duplicate the 12.6 time in the 108mph car, and it will totally be destroyed by the faster 118 mph car in all real world encounters..ie rolls on the highway passing maneuvers.
Trap speed is what is almost always the consistent determiner of which car is faster on the streets
Stock f80 traps around 117-119 and it shows in that 0-100 mph time

There's lots of variation possible like stated. My 135i vert constantly destroys much more powerful cars at my local 1/4 track (PBIR) by going fast A to B. I run constant 12.4-12.5s at 110 mph with a stock intercooler at that...

[bmwmnation]

Originally Posted by M3 Adjuster

Thank you , Captain Obvious ...

Ahahahha

[PrematureApex]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

I wouldn't say either measure is better, because they both tell you something different. A 5-60 mph time won't tell you how well a car launches, and a 0-60 mph time won't tell you how responsive a car's engine is at low RPM

Well, I'd say most people don't regularly launch their cars. While most do simply engage the clutch more reasonably and get to full throttle.

Overall, the 5-60 is more indicative of roll-on (e.g. real-world) acceleration. To me, it's much more useful, as I'm not concerned with how well the car launches, but rather, how fast it is once moving.

Much like comparing 1/4 mile ET v.s trap speed. The ET is very, very influenced by the launch (skewed by AWD, etc.), while the trap speed is the best indicator of overall power/weight or vehicle acceleration in the real world.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by PrematureApex

Well, I'd say most people don't regularly launch their cars. While most do simply engage the clutch more reasonably and get to full throttle.

Overall, the 5-60 is more indicative of roll-on (e.g. real-world) acceleration. To me, it's much more useful, as I'm not concerned with how well the car launches, but rather, how fast it is once moving.

Much like comparing 1/4 mile ET v.s trap speed. The ET is very, very influenced by the launch (skewed by AWD, etc.), while the trap speed is the best indicator of overall power/weight or vehicle acceleration in the real world.

I can definitely see why that's important to you (and most people). I also agree that way too much emphasis is placed on 0-60 numbers and 5-60 numbers don't get enough airtime.