[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by weeeee

does someone have an explanation for the quicker 0-60 than 5-60?

See two posts above

[Mako]

Originally Posted by Bosozoku

So, tell us.

Is a 0.3 second faster quarter mile worth the extra $15K?

We'll wait.

well if you compare the M3 to the M2, then yes it is, because some of us need the 4 doors (family) and like the nappa leather seats and dash...

not everything is about price/performance (otherwise BMW wouldn't sell any M5s)

[Cope]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

That is probably why they went the carbon lined synchromesh in the F8X (M2/3/4) MT .

Perhaps, but perhaps not, see this earlier in the thread:

http://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...41&postcount=7

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by paradoxical3

It's not really that complicated; there are only a few factors that determine braking performance on a single stop. On the same setup, CCB will not stop faster than steel if all factors are equal. There will be a MINOR advantage due to less unsprung weight, but that's it. CCB has other advantage such as life, low dust, and heat resistance but decreased stopping distance under normal temperatures is not a benefit of them.

Don't get me wrong, I am on the same page as you regarding the benefits of CCB. However, the performance of a braking system is indeed quite complex. It is all about the heat extraction capability and balancing the dynamic coefficient of friction between the pad/disc interface and the tire/tarmac interface. The best example, is that faded brakes can still lock the wheels (or induce ABS), yet require a significantly longer distance to stop the car.

Originally Posted by paradoxical3

Impossible to say without knowing the damper valving and brake bias on the M2 and M4.

Damper valving has no impact on weight transfer. It is basic physics, the longer the wheelbase, the less weight will be transferred under braking and the greater the resulting total grip from the 4 tires. Less weight transfer also means more rear brake bias can be applied.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by The long haul

You've hit the nail on the head with this ad your last post.
People over complicate things, always. It's not that complicated.

Read the post above.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Bosozoku

Agree. The main advantage of CCB is fade-resistance.
Therefore wasted potential if you're not tracking the car.

I have argued that point myself many times.

And most track junkies opt out of the CCB because they are cost prohibitive to operate at the track .

[dmboone25]

Originally Posted by chris719

Crunches 2nd gear synchro on fast shifts. I wonder what will happen first: BMW fixes their 2nd gear grind on M cars or they stop offering MT altogether?

Bad on E46 M3, horrific on Z4M, bad on E9x M3, occasionally reported on F8x M3/M4...

I can shift a Mazda 3 faster into 2nd than I could my Z4M. Didn't have this problem with a 135i I drove though.

My buddy has a little Mazda SUV (can't remember the name) and it has one of the best MTs I have driven. It feels like a bolt action rifle or something - it is something Mazda seems to do really well.

[paradoxical3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Don't get me wrong, I am on the same page as you regarding the benefits of CCB. However, the performance of a braking system is indeed quite complex. It is all about the heat extraction capability and balancing the dynamic coefficient of friction between the pad/disc interface and the tire/tarmac interface. The best example, is that faded brakes can still lock the wheels (or induce ABS), yet require a significantly longer distance to stop the car.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But the M4 with CCB and steel has the same DSC computer and you will not be able to fade the brakes outside of a track.

Damper valving has no impact on weight transfer. It is basic physics, the longer the wheelbase, the less weight will be transferred under braking and the greater the resulting total grip from the 4 tires. Less weight transfer also means more rear brake bias can be applied.

This is incorrect. Dampers have a massive effect on the rate of weight transfer. The difference in wheelbase between the two cars is only 5in. Damper valving will have a greater performance impact when it comes to braking.

Don't believe me? Test it out on your own car on track with adjustable coilovers. I certainly have.

[The long haul]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

Read the post above.

Did. And to be clear ahead of time, I value your knowledge and have read your post for quite some time. I know you are knowledgable.
I also bring a lot of knowledge to the table. Not as technical or whatever, but lots of knowledge nonetheless lol.
Dampening in my experience, has had a pretty big effect in lateral weight transfer, and therefore, braking.
Think about it. What is a symptom of blown shocks and struts? Increased braking distances. Am I wrong?
Or am I now over thinking this haha.
To be clear I'm not being argumentative at all. I love these kinds of discussions. We all can always learn something new.
But truth is, I'm just a dumb truck driver

[TheBingoBalls]

I believe those numbers look close/similar to a base 911 and that costs 90k.

Well done BMW. Well done.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by paradoxical3

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But the M4 with CCB and steel has the same DSC computer and you will not be able to fade the brakes outside of a track.

The discussion point was about "the ability to lock the tire"...

Originally Posted by paradoxical3

This is incorrect. Dampers have a massive effect on the rate of weight transfer. The difference in wheelbase between the two cars is only 5in. Damper valving will have a greater performance impact when it comes to braking.

Don't believe me? Test it out on your own car on track with adjustable coilovers. I certainly have.

Don't confuse body motion with weight transfer. The dampers resist the rate of change of body motion. Under braking, the damper rate will only have an impact on the very short period during which the car takes a set at the beginning of the braking zone, but the weight transfer remains unchanged.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by paradoxical3

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But the M4 with CCB and steel has the same DSC computer and you will not be able to fade the brakes outside of a track.

This is incorrect. Dampers have a massive effect on the rate of weight transfer. The difference in wheelbase between the two cars is only 5in. Damper valving will have a greater performance impact when it comes to braking.

Don't believe me? Test it out on your own car on track with adjustable coilovers. I certainly have.

Upgrade an F30 (for example) to M Performance brakes and the dealer re-codes the car to accommodate the increased braking performance. Surely CCB-equipped cars have different programming than cars with steel brakes.

[Kwando]

The light bouncing off the LBB paint is phenomenal!

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by The long haul

Did. And to be clear ahead of time, I value your knowledge and have read your post for quite some time. I know you are knowledgable.
I also bring a lot of knowledge to the table. Not as technical or whatever, but lots of knowledge nonetheless lol.
Dampening in my experience, has had a pretty big effect in lateral weight transfer, and therefore, braking.
Think about it. What is a symptom of blown shocks and struts? Increased braking distances. Am I wrong?
Or am I now over thinking this haha.
To be clear I'm not being argumentative at all. I love these kinds of discussions. We all can always learn something new.
But truth is, I'm just a dumb truck driver

A blown shock will increase braking distance because it can no longer keep the tire optimally in contact with the road.

As I posted previously, it is important not to confuse body motion (pitch, dive, roll) with weight transfer. When a dynamic load (acceleration, braking, cornering) is put on a vehicle two distinct resulting phenomenon occur: weight transfer and body motion. The dampers resist the rate of change of the body motion. Once the car takes a set, the dampers no longer have an impact.

[paradoxical3]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

The discussion point was about "the ability to lock the tire"...



Don't confuse body motion with weight transfer. The dampers resist the rate of change of body motion. Under braking, the damper rate will only have an impact on the very short period during which the car takes a set at the beginning of the braking zone, but the weight transfer remains unchanged.

That rate of change has a huge impact on braking performance. On a car with a high-end suspension where adjustments actually make a difference (BC Racing coils don't count), when braking from 150mph I can make the car either solid and straight as an arrow, or unstable with front dive to the point where the back end wants to come around and my rear wheels lose traction. This is all while keeping identical spring rate and only adjusting compression/rebound. I also notice a marked difference in front/rear pad wear depending on what suspension settings I am running.

[Pyrat 2]

Originally Posted by zenmaster

Even with all that weight and the supposedly the same brakes, the M4 still stops shorter.

Less tire on the M2. Easy fix for that though.

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by paradoxical3

That rate of change has a huge impact on braking performance. On a car with a high-end suspension where adjustments actually make a difference (BC Racing coils don't count), when braking from 150mph I can make the car either solid and straight as an arrow, or unstable with front dive to the point where the back end wants to come around and my rear wheels lose traction. This is all while keeping identical spring rate and only adjusting compression/rebound. I also notice a marked difference in front/rear pad wear depending on what suspension settings I am running.

I agree, properly adjusting the dampers for compression and rebound will have an impact on braking distances and stability because it will help to keep the tires optimally in contact with the tarmac by better coping with the road irregularities. It has nothing to do with weight transfer though.

[MFNATIK]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

I have argued that point myself many times.

And most track junkies opt out of the CCB because they are cost prohibitive to operate at the track .

So the only good reason to get CCBs is b/c they look so damn cool. Got it

[Powaup]

shouldn't 5-60 times be lower than 0-60 times? what's the explanation behind this .5 second difference?

[CanAutM3]

Originally Posted by Powaup

shouldn't 5-60 times be lower than 0-60 times? what's the explanation behind this .5 second difference?

See post #65

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by CanAutM3

See post #65

what would we do without you

[Bosozoku]

Will be interesting to see how the M2 compares to the M4 with the same tire sizes.
The wheels are identical, but the tires are 10mm narrower on all corners on the M2.
+5mm inboard and outboard of wheel centerline shouldn't cause any rubbing.

Of course, if all you care about is straight-line acceleration, xDrive is the hot setup.
And sooner or later the M cars will be getting xDrive. At least as an option.