The Adventurer has returned...Informational thread.

[StinkyM]

Here's what I have found after hours upon hours of youtube video research, forums, and staring at a new 5.0 in detail. I've discovered that an E46 M3, such as mine, is very capable of beating a new 5.0. However, it takes a very particular type of M3. Let's talk E46 M3's.

In 2003 BMW released the BMW CSL. In short, the US and a few other countries never recieved the CSL. What we recieved was the ZCP or competition package. The Competition Package adds larger rotors, quicker steering rack, lighter wheels (spin cast, not cast like the CSL), some minor interior upgrades, and a special color; Interlagos Blue. I own one of the 2400 Competition Package M3's to hit the US. I guess the numbers were quietly released recently for how many were actually built.

Let's talk a little about the difference in wheels for the Competition Package.

M67 Double Spoke Polished (OEM 19)
8 J x 19 ET47 12,6 kg (x 2.2lb/kg = 27.72 lbs)
9 1/2 J x 19 ET27 13,3 kg ( x 2.2lb/kg = 29.26 lbs)


M67 Double Spoke Crome Shadow (OEM 18)
8 J x 18 ET47 11,2 kg (x 2.2lb/kg = 24.64 lbs)
9 J x 18 ET26 12,2 kg (x 2.2lb/kg = 26.84 lbs)

M163 Cross Spoke Painted (ZCP)
8 J x 19 ET47 10,5 kg = 23.1 lbs
9 1/2 J x 19 ET27 10,9 kg = 23.98 lbs

For most M3's you see racing in videos, you will mostly see them running on the OEM 19's. The unsprung weight difference totals out to 9.24 lbs difference for the front and 10.56 respectively. Totalling 19.8 lbs! That's a lot of moving weight. Now in terms of performance and roll racing this is already a huge disadvantage. Every time the ZCP or Competition Package car is going to win. Hands down. Exact same engine, transmission, tires, aero, ect. It's simple mathematics. My car weighs 3420 in a 100% stock minus a AFE intake configuration on a half tank of gas.

Watch this demonstration of two competition package M3's running. The DCT car has a passenger which definitely negative affects it. However, my car is more then likely quicker than the M3 SMG in the video due to my bolt ons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdc7UceDXys
He holds up fairly well against the M3 DCT. Very well. Now watching other videos of other M3's and right off the bat they are getting pulled. Constantly. I believe it has a lot to do with the unsprung weight. Watch any of my videos of me running the 370Z. I get up into 3rd gear off the 40 roll a lot quicker than many other youtube M3's. (I'm such a bench racer)
Now focusing on my car vs a 5.0. The 5.0 is a very quick and potent car. No disagreeing here. However, I am very firm in believing my car can take a bone stock unmodified 5.0 in the right configuration. Just looking at some facts, figures, and data charts makes it "sound" possible.

So here's what numbers I have for the 5.0. 3,605 lbs is the base weight. I do not know what the weight for the track package is. Actually, there's one downstairs of my hotel so I will take a look at it. Has recaros and the brembo package. But moving forward. Since I do a lot of roll racing. Specifically from 40's and 60 rolls. I decided to use 60-130 mph times as a research. Now I know the rules for 60-130 mph times. No more than a 3% incline or decline, and that's pretty much it. The proper verification is using a VBox analyser as it is the most accurate tool for measuring 60-130 times. It's used throughout many racing challenges. Especially TX mile.

So here's what I found. A guy on a popular mustang forum created a thread for 60-130 times. He showed the difference between his mods. Luckily he is located in Fl, and posted his conditions. Sorry CMT. 14.05 in the conditions posted.

http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/2011-mustangs-354/784189-new-60-130-time.html (http://www.svtperformance.com/forums/2011-mustangs-354/784189-new-60-130-time.html)

So of course I did my E46 M3 research and this is what I found. A guy on some E46 forums has his times posted. However, I never found any information on the runs. All I figured out was he is either in NJ or NY as he was posting up on the locals for meets and stuff. I'd imagine his run was done in perfect conditions.

He went 13.7 60-130 times and I found his 1/4 mile times as 13.05 @ 107. Pretty potent, and you guessed it. He has a SMG with the Competition Package. So that's a .3 second difference obviously. I also found some magazine 60-130 times for the Challenger, Mustang, and new SS.



It all depends on if the driver blows the launch. That is where the auto will have a big advantage in any street race.

I think a more telling stat is how quickly each of the three cars will accelerate from say 60-130 MPH - that takes the launch and tire spin out of the equation. Trap speed in the 1320 is also a good indicator.

A quick check of published incrementals (MT, C&D, Edmunds) for the 2011 Mustang GT, Camaro 6.2 SS, and SRT8 392 indicates that once rolling neither of those two cars will walk past a 392. Quite possibly the opposite will occur - the 392 might very well walk away from either car in a roll-on.

C/D TEST RESULTS 392 Challenger:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 16.3 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 24.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.9 sec @ 114 mph

C/D TEST RESULTS 2011 Mustang GT 5.0:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.5 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 18.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 111 mph

C/D TEST RESULTS 2010 Camaro SS 6.2:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 19.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 sec @ 109 mph

60-130 MPH:
Challenger 392: 11.8 seconds
Mustang 5.0: 13.4 seconds
Camaro 6.2: 15.2 seconds
Now I usually take magazine times with a grain of salt. However, digging deep this explains how I was able to pull on the new Camaro SS from a 80 roll.

Now, let's also focus on Coefficient of Drag. I have not found anything set it stone, however, the 2010 GT500 has a CD of .38 and that's what a lot of people assume the 2011 5.0 GT is about. However, the GT500 has a different hood which makes a difference, and if I am not mistaken a rear diffuser. So the numbers may be higher or possibly lower. We will just use the .38. The E46 M3 has a CD of .31. Putting these numbers into perspective, drag coefficient really comes into play after 100 mph. It definitely can make or break a race as speeds increase. CMT just don't ban me. This is a great read on drag coeffiiency.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=402401

I reference the E92 M3 as we all know is equal to the new 5.0. Slight edge given to the M3. After 150 mph though the E92 M3 begins a slow crawl away. Now, my E46 M3 is even smoother than the E92 M3, so as speeds increase my E46 M3 has a better chance of pulling. However, once you factor in the hp difference the M3 more then likely has me beat after 150 mph. The 5.0 has a limiter set to 149 mph, and with a tune obviously I can't compete so he'd walk me if he had it tuned to remove the limiter.

Looking at the numbers side by side. We have 3420 lbs vs 3605, 280-290 rwhp vs 350-360 rwhp, 7900 rpm vs 7000 rpm, .31 vs .38 CD, 13.7 vs 13.4 and 14.05 60-130 time and 220 lb driver vs whoever I run across. These are the numbers stacked up side by side. I would say I have a good chance but there's that part of me that says nah man you're gonna get smoked. So trust me, I believe and am listening to everyone who tells me I am crazy.

All in all, putting these numbers into retrospect, I wish I could just run my M3 right now and do some 60-130 logs, or run a 5.0. However, due to forseen circumstances, it's just not possible. However, what I do have is physical facts and some light opinion on what would happen when I do encounter a new 5.0. I'd expect a good run, and definitely look forward to running one.

Really after videos and doing this research actually has brought me closer to the new 5.0. I feel if I bought one I would be happy, with running low 12's with bolt ons and having an awesome track day car. I think I am going to do it. Thank you for reading.













:lol Puhhhlease.

A little extension here, for onyourleft. You know you my homie man. I cannot see how your car is struggling with the new 5.0's. I wish you had video. Your car is definitely one of my favorites here. Going back to the other thread I see what you mean about aero. I like this video and chose it just for you. Very clean race between an E46 M3 ZCP (don't know if it's the US or Euro cat version, I will assume Euro since it says 340 cv) so it makes 343 hp. Also I cannot tell if the E46 M3 has a passenger which would make a difference. But what I do know is, is the S52 in the E36 is the Euro version and it's a very quick car. As speeds increase the E46 M3 begins its pull. Also something else I found out. The E46 M3 has a better CD than the Z4m. The Z4M is .35 to .31. Which I found was a little odd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSb6oxKu134

[Butters Stoch]

Nicely done.

[GG///M3]

I trained you well

[cm8 6spd]

Good research. However, I think you're bat p00p crazy to think you have a chance of pulling the new 5.0. You trapped 104.x. Let's say now you'd trap 107. Most bone stock 5.0s I've seen trap 109-111. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a decent run, but as the speeds increase you're gonna get walked. The extra 60-70whp he has on you, and buttloads of torque, not to mention gearing, should outweigh the slight difference in CD. That's all.

[StinkyM]

Good research. However, I think you're bat p00p crazy to think you have a chance of pulling the new 5.0. You trapped 104.x. Let's say now you'd trap 107. Most bone stock 5.0s I've seen trap 109-111. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a decent run, but as the speeds increase you're gonna get walked. The extra 60-70whp he has on you, and buttloads of torque, not to mention gearing, should outweigh the slight difference in CD. That's all.

True, but I want to dig into my 104 and run somewhere else like Atco when I get the chance. Because it's obvious my car has a lot more in it. Not to mention I've pulled a new SS and they're not 104 mph cars. So my 104 is definitely definitely improveable. My friends Z went 106 and I walked him, the nismo Z I walked would go anywhere from 104-109, etc etc. Also some 5.0's in unfavorable conditions have gone as low as 108. I hate bench racing. I really do. I miss driving my car so much. It's just a matter of time before I catch up with all of you.

[cm8 6spd]

^ That's a true statement, and I'm not trying to downplay your car or be a cruddy poo-face.

Was the SS auto? Because I've seen modded auto's trap less than stock 6MTs.

If you do come to Atco, please let us know.

[StinkyM]

^ That's a true statement, and I'm not trying to downplay your car or be a cruddy poo-face.

Was the SS auto? Because I've seen modded auto's trap less than stock 6MTs.

If you do come to Atco, please let us know.

The SS was a 6 spd car. Will do. Whenever I go back to NJ 9 times out of 10 I go to Atco. It's less than 20 minutes from my house and my buddy lives right up the street. Just thought of this but, when I went home in June. I got there on Friday night at 10 pm right before the lanes close, and someone broke hard on the track causing a long cleanup. Couldn't get any runs in and I was leaving the next week. That night would have been great. 70 something degree temps. I know for sure I will be running at Atco in June next year. Sucks because it will be in the heat, but I know some nights in NJ the temps can drop in the 60's.

[cm8 6spd]

Come up one night in the fall. I think Atco is in North Jersey, right? Island is there too. Either way.

[StinkyM]

Come up one night in the fall. I think Atco is in North Jersey, right? Island is there too. Either way.

Atco is in south jersey. Englishtown is in north. I don't mind heading up that way as long as you're all available. I know last time I tried to get the word out no one was available except me and jon and I wasn't going to get into NY until like 1 or 2 am. In June I should have a little more time. Probably like 5-10 days of free time to get some runs in. I just ask that you guys try to meet me half way. I already have to drive 2 hours so if you don't mind driving like an hour we could get some good runs.

**After watching my videos on youtube. I probably would get walked pretty bad by a new 5.0. It's time for an upgrade I guess. :(
(

[bigbeansm3]

Holy freakin' ricer thread stinky.

Lol @ thinking 20lbs of unsprung weight is going to do anything significant...especially considering you have larger rotors so it's really a lot less than 20lbs.

I removed 60lbs of rotating weight from my E46 and barely noticed a difference.

[cm8 6spd]

^ WUT lol. A reduction of 60lbs of rotating mass would be equivalent to taking like 300+lbs out of the car; essentially gutted.

[03basesedan]

If you're trapping 104.xx, there is just now way you're going to stop a 5.0's pull at any speed.

Even with your current mods, you will not stop a 5.0's pull up top, at any speed. Having driven both cars, a 5.0 pulls just fine up to 140. It got there far more quickly than the last E46 M3 I drove. Mods or not, you have a steep hill to climb.

I think it would be best if you just found one and raced it instead of worrying about unsprung weight and doing a bunch of bench racing.

[bigbeansm3]

^ WUT lol. A reduction of 60lbs of rotating mass would be equivalent to taking like 300+lbs out of the car; essentially gutted.

Meh, it wasn't a huge difference.

Car was a turd before and a roach after, lol.


If you're trapping 104.xx, there is just now way you're going to stop a 5.0's pull at any speed.

Even with your current mods, you will not stop a 5.0's pull up top, at any speed. Having driven both cars, a 5.0 pulls just fine up to 140. It got there far more quickly than the last E46 M3 I drove. Mods or not, you have a steep hill to climb.

I think it would be best if you just found one and raced it instead of worrying about unsprung weight and doing a bunch of bench racing.

This.

[redfoot]

It's been a while for me, but you need to break out a dynamics book if you want the low down on exactly how much 20+ lbs of rotational mass will slow you down from a 40 roll. It's negligible.
There are 87 other factors that have a much greater influence on the outcome before an extra 20lbs of wheel weight ever will.

If you wanna talk from a dig, you'll have a much more valid conversation, maybe a tenth or two at best over a 1/4.

And drag coefficients from 2 different vehicles are useless with out total frontal area, because drag is calculated by drag coefficient x frontal area. A peterbuilt and a F150 could theoretically have the same drag coefficients but the PB is obviously gonna deal with more drag.

Just some points you need to rethink in your analysis, but the rest is interesting.

[Butters Stoch]

INCORRECT :nono

No hill he cant climb. He is an ADVENTURER and WILL climb the hill or mountain.

Lets have this same conversation with a 5.0 and an E46 M3
both with 150k on the ticker.
Right now the mustang may be "somewhat" strong cause its new.
Lets put some miles on that american made beauty and see how it runs.

[03basesedan]

INCORRECT :nono

No hill he cant climb. He is an ADVENTURER and WILL climb the hill or mountain.

Lets have this same conversation with a 5.0 and an E46 M3
both with 150k on the ticker.
Right now the mustang may be "somewhat" strong cause its new.
Lets put some miles on that american made beauty and see how it runs.
Hey, if it runs anything like an LS1, it'll be fine. Mine LS made 396rwhp at 104k miles!

[OnUrleft]

One of the main reasons the early model GT500's and Mustangs had trouble from roll races was not just their mass but their "Sti" like aero if you catch what i'm saying. The newer Mustangs are lighter, and a lot more aerodynamic then the original body cars.

20lbs of sprung weight is enough to show a noticeable gap on a sub 400hp car and your trap speed is mis-leading, there is more on the table. People always underestimate what weather and track conditions to do e.t and speed

[redfoot]

It has been dyno verified many times, every three pounds of wheel weight, at the drive wheels, takes away 1 whp.

So, at 11 lbs wheel weight difference in the op, we are talking ~4 whp.


It has a much greater effect when you are talking handling characteristics

[Butters Stoch]

Hey, if it runs anything like an LS1, it'll be fine. Mine LS made 396rwhp at 104k miles!

Well then,
283k factory block and 100 more hp and tq than your ls.
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p625/Butters03/2012-08-17_18-27-14_599.jpg

[StinkyM]

Holy freakin' ricer thread stinky.

Lol @ thinking 20lbs of unsprung weight is going to do anything significant...especially considering you have larger rotors so it's really a lot less than 20lbs.

I removed 60lbs of rotating weight from my E46 and barely noticed a difference.

It was to be expected. There's not much I can do right now honestly. It sucks having this as my only option for racing right now. However, when I was in the states. I literally frequented 13 different forums trying to find runs. Not many people are down to run, or not many people are available, or simply not many people see me as being a worthy run. There was times when I was willing to drive 2 and a half hours but the locals were not willing to drive 30 minutes to one hour to meet up. So it's a bunch of bs yes. However, this is all I have.


If you're trapping 104.xx, there is just now way you're going to stop a 5.0's pull at any speed.

Even with your current mods, you will not stop a 5.0's pull up top, at any speed. Having driven both cars, a 5.0 pulls just fine up to 140. It got there far more quickly than the last E46 M3 I drove. Mods or not, you have a steep hill to climb.

I think it would be best if you just found one and raced it instead of worrying about unsprung weight and doing a bunch of bench racing.

Remember how back a couple years ago, when people were saying your G35 couldn't possibly walk E36 M3's? And you posted some videos? That's what this is like right now. They said your trap speeds are not enough nor were your mods. But you proved them wrong.

And climbing a steep hill I will. The E46 M3 has a lot of options as a N/A car. Far more then the typical 3 series. So I will just have to pay to play. Once I do, a stock 5.0 will be a thing in the past. One phone call to VAC is all it will take and a very very hefty check.


It's been a while for me, but you need to break out a dynamics book if you want the low down on exactly how much 20+ lbs of rotational mass will slow you down from a 40 roll. It's negligible.
There are 87 other factors that have a much greater influence on the outcome before an extra 20lbs of wheel weight ever will.

If you wanna talk from a dig, you'll have a much more valid conversation, maybe a tenth or two at best over a 1/4.

And drag coefficients from 2 different vehicles are useless with out total frontal area, because drag is calculated by drag coefficient x frontal area. A peterbuilt and a F150 could theoretically have the same drag coefficients but the PB is obviously gonna deal with more drag.

Just some points you need to rethink in your analysis, but the rest is interesting.

Very true, however like I said the new 5.0 does not have any posted CD so I treaded lightly while using the GT500's CD. I also explained the differences as well. My analysis is not 100% correct. I'm no scientist just an overly excited car enthusiast. I love all cars no matter what make and model and like to forsee these machines take shape and progress into the future.


One of the main reasons the early model GT500's and Mustangs had trouble from roll races what not just their mass but their "Sti" like aero if you catch what i'm saying. The newer Mustangs are lighter, and a lot more aerodynamic then the original body cars.

20lbs of sprung weight is enough to show a noticeable gap on a sub 400hp car and your trap speed is mis-leading, there is more on the table. People always underestimate what weather and track conditions to do e.t and speed

This is all true. Weather and track conditions play a huge role in ET and Trap speed. I will reference a neon I had ran down Atco many many times. Probably 20 passes in this car. Same exact modifications, same track, just different times throughout the year. I went from a 2.1 60' 16.3-16.4 average down to a 15.7-15.9 @ 87 mph average in 2005-06 just by different conditions. I have the time slips somewhere and when I get back home later today I will post them. Weather and conditions play a major role. Also the track does. There's tracks like MIR, VIR, and Atco where records are broken constantly. You want to know what your car runs at best, you run there. That's what I will do and hopefully in the same conditions as to what I ran in SC to show there is a difference in track alone. Atco to me is the best track in the country hands down. Typically the best prep, times, and most fun. Except those days where you get 2 runs in if you show up around like 8 or 9 and wait 2 hours in between each run.


What we are all saying is correct. Call me a ricer please because I am and look at every aspect of a race before it happens. I analyse, pre judge the driver, and then head out. 9/10 I am usually correct in the outcome. This time however I will say I am wrong once again. I do not believe my car as of right now has what it takes to take on a new 5.0. But we will see as next year I plan to return and definitely get the runs in. I know it sounds like lost hope but it's all I have. We will see how far off I am. I do expect a good race until higher speeds where his power will take over. My best bet is a 40 roll. Eliminates drivers excuses and is a strong point for both cars. My car has what it takes to keep up until 100 mph I will say and he will pull.

[cmzwirner]

Well then,
283k factory block and 100 more hp and tq than your ls.
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p625/Butters03/2012-08-17_18-27-14_599.jpg

Have you dynod it yet, or are you just guessing?

[Disgustipated]

^ WUT lol. A reduction of 60lbs of rotating mass would be equivalent to taking like 300+lbs out of the car; essentially gutted.

Physics don't work like that, unfortunately. :) 60 lbs of rotating mass isn't the same as 300 lbs of normal weight... It isn't even the same as 100 lbs of normal weight.

[StinkyM]

Physics don't work like that, unfortunately. :) 60 lbs of rotating mass isn't the same as 300 lbs of normal weight... It isn't even the same as 100 lbs of normal weight.

From an ET stand point, there's a difference. Especially when it's as drastic as 20 lbs of rotating mass. A simple flywheel has the chance to lower ET's. I will reference E36 M3's that have seen ET's drop from lightweight flywheels.

[Haifisch M3]

And drag coefficients from 2 different vehicles are useless with out total frontal area, because drag is calculated by drag coefficient x frontal area. A peterbuilt and a F150 could theoretically have the same drag coefficients but the PB is obviously gonna deal with more drag.

Just some points you need to rethink in your analysis, but the rest is interesting.
+1

Mustang frontal area= 24.2 sq ft, CD=.36 that makes the cda = 8.71
E46M3 frontal area = 23.5 sq ft, CD=.32__ CDA= 7.52
E36M3 frontal area= 20.23 sq ft, CD = .33__ CDA= 6.67

CDA is the number that matters, a bread-truck with a dolphin nose can have a great cd but the cda would be huge

[jbimflyer]

Hey, if it runs anything like an LS1, it'll be fine. Mine LS made 396rwhp at 104k miles!

I think I was there for that Dyno... and little Jon was diggin your camera. :D

[TheCPE]

I'm the 5.0 guy who did the 60-130 testing you referenced.

For starters, an E46 without FI isn't going to hang with a stock 5.0.

The first thing people want to know when you get a time slip is the DA. Without that the slip is meaningless. You can't compare a time slip with a DA of 3,000 to one with a DA of -1000.

Similarly you can't compare 60-130s without looking and correcting for the DA. I provided all the DA data with my runs, you failed to mention it with the e46 numbers so I'm assuming it was left out.

From my own testing with my Pbox a 10 degree difference in temperature makes nearly a second difference in the 60-130 time. Also the humidity here in FL is ridiculous and that hurts your power as well. If we don't know the DA of the quoted e46 run it is pointless to compare them and I think it is fair to say that in NJ the guy probably had a nice DA compared to the hot humid air in FL.

Further although a 3% slope is allowed I can testify as well that a 0% to -3% slope will have about a 10% difference in time. My run was on a flat surface, you failed to mention the e46 slope.

As an engineer I can appreciate the thought you've put into your analysis and I understand you like your car, however you are going to come off as being defensive and a fan boy when you try to marginalize a 100hp difference in stock forms.

BTW, after a tune and exhaust only I dropped my 60-130 (still with the terrible air in FL) to 12.4 which is a 12% time decrease for $500 in mods.

Anyway, that is my two cents.

[m3guy35]

Good research. However, I think you're bat p00p crazy to think you have a chance of pulling the new 5.0. You trapped 104.x. Let's say now you'd trap 107. Most bone stock 5.0s I've seen trap 109-111. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a decent run, but as the speeds increase you're gonna get walked. The extra 60-70whp he has on you, and buttloads of torque, not to mention gearing, should outweigh the slight difference in CD. That's all.

You'd be surprised as to how much difference coefficient drag makes.

X5M - .38 CD 555 horsepower
E92 M3 - .30 CD 414 horsepower

141 more horsepower and weight should be less of a factor at higher speeds. Watch the race.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZQ88ffJsrU&playnext=1&list=PL74810DC083FE24E5&feature=results_main

Look at this race between Shelby GT500 600hp vs E60 M5. You can see the CD really slow the Mustang down in the upper speeds. These races usually go up to 150 mph I believe.

It's true that after 110 mph the coefficient drag really starts to come into play. Mustang owners would know it themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvzR5s5aL1Y&feature=relmfu

[Yonkersracing]

Not talking shit or downplaying your car but I don't think you would be able to pull a stock 5.0 let alone a stock SS Camaro. My buddies stock SS went 111 traps bone stock, I think he was the 4th fastest stock in the country at the time. The new 5.0 should go around there, even at a bad track or less than spectacular driver they should be able to get 108-110 traps out of them which is more than an E46 with your mods on the average should trap. I guess it is possible though, I've seen some stock E46's go as fast at 106 traps, but the 2 or 3 that I saw get dyno'd at my friends shop years ago, didn't make a whole lot of power with bolt ons versus stock. Maybe they weren't tuned, but there was one that had full bolt ons and cams and was only making something like 30whp over stock.

Here is the Camaro I was talking about against Bob Ross' Turbo E30 and a buddy of mines N55 335xi w/ Vishnu software, it has a downpipe too, I don't remember if he had it in when this run happened though. Every car had a passenger and the E30 was not running at it's full potential.

http://youtu.be/PTlxeO7NYLo

[gunmetalgreen]

LOL seriously who cares? If you want to see if your car is faster just spend all the time you wasted making this pointless thread, doing all the reasearch and just go race one. You guys kill me.

So like if I got into a fight with this guy that weights x amount and I weigh y amount but we have been fighting pretty much the same, but I have special gloves and stuff so I might be able to overcome him in specific areas.

:killshot:

[StinkyM]

I'm the 5.0 guy who did the 60-130 testing you referenced.

For starters, an E46 without FI isn't going to hang with a stock 5.0.

The first thing people want to know when you get a time slip is the DA. Without that the slip is meaningless. You can't compare a time slip with a DA of 3,000 to one with a DA of -1000.

Similarly you can't compare 60-130s without looking and correcting for the DA. I provided all the DA data with my runs, you failed to mention it with the e46 numbers so I'm assuming it was left out.

From my own testing with my Pbox a 10 degree difference in temperature makes nearly a second difference in the 60-130 time. Also the humidity here in FL is ridiculous and that hurts your power as well. If we don't know the DA of the quoted e46 run it is pointless to compare them and I think it is fair to say that in NJ the guy probably had a nice DA compared to the hot humid air in FL.

Further although a 3% slope is allowed I can testify as well that a 0% to -3% slope will have about a 10% difference in time. My run was on a flat surface, you failed to mention the e46 slope.

As an engineer I can appreciate the thought you've put into your analysis and I understand you like your car, however you are going to come off as being defensive and a fan boy when you try to marginalize a 100hp difference in stock forms.

BTW, after a tune and exhaust only I dropped my 60-130 (still with the terrible air in FL) to 12.4 which is a 12% time decrease for $500 in mods.

Anyway, that is my two cents.

I appreciate you stopping in and posting. However There was no information on the e46 m3's run. I stated that. I also stated that since it was done in I it was more then likely perfect sea level or below sea level conditions. Ala perfect conditions. I said that as well. Also your below what seems like average runs is also the reason I quoted the magazine times. Those are the only two 60-130 times for the Mustang had there been more, I would have added it as well. I also have said now for the 3rd time I believe I was wrong to say I could run with a new 5.0. I even put it in bold writing. One thing I am not is a fanboy. I do not down play any car to justify my own. I may thin slightly highly of mine from time to time but I know what it is capable of. Just like you know what your 5.0 is capable of.

How did you find this anyway?

[Yonkersracing]

lol these forums are the best, pure entertainment for hours if needed

[StinkyM]

Not talking shit or downplaying your car but I don't think you would be able to pull a stock 5.0 let alone a stock SS Camaro. My buddies stock SS went 111 traps bone stock, I think he was the 4th fastest stock in the country at the time. The new 5.0 should go around there, even at a bad track or less than spectacular driver they should be able to get 108-110 traps out of them which is more than an E46 with your mods on the average should trap. I guess it is possible though, I've seen some stock E46's go as fast at 106 traps, but the 2 or 3 that I saw get dyno'd at my friends shop years ago, didn't make a whole lot of power with bolt ons versus stock. Maybe they weren't tuned, but there was one that had full bolt ons and cams and was only making something like 30whp over stock.

Here is the Camaro I was talking about against Bob Ross' Turbo E30 and a buddy of mines N55 335xi w/ Vishnu software, it has a downpipe too, I don't remember if he had it in when this run happened though. Every car had a passenger and the E30 was not running at it's full potential.

http://youtu.be/PTlxeO7NYLo

Stock M3's have gone anywhere from 107-109. Different track times cannot be compared. Simply stupid. One track may have a slight downgrade, one may have 1 more tree which brings in more oxygen. Etc etc. You cannot compare different tracks.

And it's very possible for my car to pull a new ss from an 80 roll. After they shift into 4th gear around 110 mph the rpm drops out of powerband hence right exactly where my car began it's ever so slight pull. Just after 110 mph and somewhere in between that and 120 mph we shut down. I do not know what else to tell you. Random encounter so I do not have video evidence. I wish I did. He even got the jump. His windows were down and mine were up. There's really nothing else I can say. He was marine and in uniform?


I'm the 5.0 guy who did the 60-130 testing you referenced.

For starters, an E46 without FI isn't going to hang with a stock 5.0.

The first thing people want to know when you get a time slip is the DA. Without that the slip is meaningless. You can't compare a time slip with a DA of 3,000 to one with a DA of -1000.

Similarly you can't compare 60-130s without looking and correcting for the DA. I provided all the DA data with my runs, you failed to mention it with the e46 numbers so I'm assuming it was left out.

From my own testing with my Pbox a 10 degree difference in temperature makes nearly a second difference in the 60-130 time. Also the humidity here in FL is ridiculous and that hurts your power as well. If we don't know the DA of the quoted e46 run it is pointless to compare them and I think it is fair to say that in NJ the guy probably had a nice DA compared to the hot humid air in FL.

Further although a 3% slope is allowed I can testify as well that a 0% to -3% slope will have about a 10% difference in time. My run was on a flat surface, you failed to mention the e46 slope.

As an engineer I can appreciate the thought you've put into your analysis and I understand you like your car, however you are going to come off as being defensive and a fan boy when you try to marginalize a 100hp difference in stock forms.

BTW, after a tune and exhaust only I dropped my 60-130 (still with the terrible air in FL) to 12.4 which is a 12% time decrease for $500 in mods.

Anyway, that is my two cents.

Also an E46 M3 definitely does not need FI to keep up with a stock 5.0. VAC has built quite a few N.A 450+ RWHP E46 M3's.

[Yonkersracing]

and it's very possible for my car to pull a new ss from an 80 roll.

:95:95

if you're not pulling a new 5 liter, you're not pulling the Maro...

[StinkyM]

:95:95

if you're not pulling a new 5 liter, you're not pulling the Maro...

I quit. Different cars different gearing.

[Yonkersracing]

I quit. Different cars different gearing.

I quit after 80 roll w/ a basically stock M3.

[StinkyM]

I quit after 80 roll w/ a basically stock M3.

I'm sorry it was a random enconter. He didn't feel the need to slow down. No honks; just a nod and I was already on 4th gear. He downshifted and we both went. Sorry we didn't slow down to your desired 40 roll. I can't wait til we run. I can't wait.

[TheCPE]

How did you find this anyway?

This thread was linked by someone in the original forum where I posted my 60-130 testing. When I saw you were referencing my testing I figured I'd put in my two cents.

Everybody likes their car and wants to think it is fast, and that it is a drivers race with cars out of its range. Just be honest and objective though and people wont call you a fan boy.

As far as SS vs SRT8 vs 5.0 I've seen a few different opinions posted in here about how those three compare. Your best bet is going to be against the 6.1 SRT8, You would still most likely lose but that is your closest match up. I put a big hurt on one of them, bus lengths, after my tune and exhaust. The SS is next, at a 1/2 mile roll race event I went up against an SS with every bolt on that was making 425rwhp and on the hit I spun and he pulled a car, by the top of third I'd pulled back and inched by slightly. I only have 3.55 gearing btw, another 5.0 with 3.73 gearing was there as well and he pulled a car on me every time from 30-140ish.

I'm waiting to come across the 392 SRT8, I figure it'll be interesting.

[StinkyM]

This thread was linked by someone in the original forum where I posted my 60-130 testing. When I saw you were referencing my testing I figured I'd put in my two cents.

Everybody likes their car and wants to think it is fast, and that it is a drivers race with cars out of its range. Just be honest and objective though and people wont call you a fan boy.

As far as SS vs SRT8 vs 5.0 I've seen a few different opinions posted in here about how those three compare. Your best bet is going to be against the 6.1 SRT8, You would still most likely lose but that is your closest match up. I put a big hurt on one of them, bus lengths, after my tune and exhaust. The SS is next, at a 1/2 mile roll race event I went up against an SS with every bolt on that was making 425rwhp and on the hit I spun and he pulled a car, by the top of third I'd pulled back and inched by slightly. I only have 3.55 gearing btw, another 5.0 with 3.73 gearing was there as well and he pulled a car on me every time from 30-140ish.

I'm waiting to come across the 392 SRT8, I figure it'll be interesting.

And I will agree. Problem is, there's too many of them on the road not willing to run. Just like the SS's. I've driven the 6.1. It moves pretty good once rolling. The 392 is pretty quick although the times do not suggest. I guess their average is high 12's @ 113 ish? For 470/470 that's pretty sluggish even if it is moving 4000lbs. But they are fast once moving though once again. I would expect a 392 to put a hurting on even a stock 2013.

I hate fanboyism, and I know this thread is full of it. Definitely not my type of character. However, like I said before. I do not have the option to run my car at all. In fact if you're on the east coast you have a better chance of running my car against one right now, lol. Anyone in SC that would like to pull my M3 out of storage for some 5.0 runs?

[Yonkersracing]

I'm sorry it was a random enconter. He didn't feel the need to slow down. No honks; just a nod and I was already on 4th gear. He downshifted and we both went. Sorry we didn't slow down to your desired 40 roll. I can't wait til we run. I can't wait.

I'm sorry but no amount of gearing excuses is changing the fact that a stock SS is out trapping you by at least 4-5mph. Only way gearing played a role from your 80mph roll is if he didn't downshift into the right gear. This is logic, your M3 trapped 104...on a good day, maybe it's trapping 107. Still 4mph slower than my friends bone stock SS Maro.

And it's not my desired 40 roll, pretty much any youtube roll vid you see unless the cars are making 600+whp are going from 2nd gear 40 rolls. 80mph rolls are for cars that get no traction at 40, which I'm sure your sub 300whp M3 doesn't have too many issues with. I can't wait to run you either, but by the time you are ready (2013 setup), I will have a lot more stuff done, so I hope your 2013 setup is good for more than just another 30-40whp... :)

[BobRoss]

40mph rolls are pretty much common place everywhere ive checked. digs, 20, 40, 60-140 (for the big boys).
80 rolls are just silly with a 13 second car.

[03basesedan]

Well then,
283k factory block and 100 more hp and tq than your ls.
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p625/Butters03/2012-08-17_18-27-14_599.jpg
That's great, but what does it prove? Surely an LS engine/5.0 can't make it to 283k! :rolleyes

What makes you think the new 5.0 engine doesn't have longevity? We all know that unless you have a Saab, or a 1.8T VW, longevity all depends on how you maintain your engine.



Remember how back a couple years ago, when people were saying your G35 couldn't possibly walk E36 M3's? And you posted some videos? That's what this is like right now. They said your trap speeds are not enough nor were your mods. But you proved them wrong.

And climbing a steep hill I will. The E46 M3 has a lot of options as a N/A car. Far more then the typical 3 series. So I will just have to pay to play. Once I do, a stock 5.0 will be a thing in the past. One phone call to VAC is all it will take and a very very hefty check.

Lol, yes, I remember. I got sick of the doubts, so I found a couple of ran them. Have you considered a used S/C kit for your car?


I think I was there for that Dyno... and little Jon was diggin your camera. :D
Yes, I remember, lol. It didn't make 396 on that run, but after I fixed the fuel issue, it did that number on a DJ.

[ashram]

Im gonna have to agree with others and say your m3 will not stand a chance against a new 5.0 . How much whp are you making? Do you have any quarter mile track slips? If your m3 is trapping 110 mph which i seriously doubt then you may have a chance against a 5.0. I love the e46 m, but its just not in the same performance league of the 5.0 .

[Butters Stoch]

That's great, but what does it prove? Surely an LS engine/5.0 can't make it to 283k! :rolleyes

What makes you think the new 5.0 engine doesn't have longevity? We all know that unless you have a Saab, or a 1.8T VW, longevity all depends on how you maintain your engine.

Lol, yes, I remember. I got sick of the doubts, so I found a couple of ran them. Have you considered a used S/C kit for your car

Yes, I remember, lol. It didn't make 396 on that run, but after I fixed the fuel issue, it did that number on a DJ.

What it proves is a factory stock internal BMW engine with 283k can handle up to 20psi with good hardware and tune if properly maintained.
NO WAY will a 5.0 or ls engine with that kind of mileage withstand that kind of punishment, don't care how it was maintained.
Their might be a couple out there but it would be a miracle.

What makes me think a 5.0 doesn't have longevity?
Keeping it in stock trim it may, heavily modified, boosted, or driven hard nope. Ive owned many mustangs, there is a special place in my heart for them. They are fun to drive every now and then. But they just aren't built as well for the long haul.

[BobRoss]

lol.

Cliffnotes:
StinkyM has big dreams

[StinkyM]

I'm sorry but no amount of gearing excuses is changing the fact that a stock SS is out trapping you by at least 4-5mph. Only way gearing played a role from your 80mph roll is if he didn't downshift into the right gear. This is logic, your M3 trapped 104...on a good day, maybe it's trapping 107. Still 4mph slower than my friends bone stock SS Maro.

And it's not my desired 40 roll, pretty much any youtube roll vid you see unless the cars are making 600+whp are going from 2nd gear 40 rolls. 80mph rolls are for cars that get no traction at 40, which I'm sure your sub 300whp M3 doesn't have too many issues with. I can't wait to run you either, but by the time you are ready (2013 setup), I will have a lot more stuff done, so I hope your 2013 setup is good for more than just another 30-40whp... :)

For the last time. He was rolling on a highway doing 80 mph. I rolled up beside him. Completely random, already set in 4th gear. No honks, nothing. He looked over and heard my intake as I gassed it a bit to let him know I was game. His window was down, he looked over, downshifted and I took off. He shifted into 4th and I began a slight pull. I swear this is the last time I will explain what happened and why it was an 80 roll. I did not anticipate it being an 80 roll nor was it prematurely setup as an 80 roll. So let that go.

Now back to the trap speed talk. This car here traps 2 mph more then I do and I walk him off a 40 roll every time. He trapped a few 106's to my 104's at the same track at different times AND HE WAS STOCK... ADD FULL BOLT ONS AND A GOOD TUNE AND I AM SURE HE TRAPS A GOOD 107. And since we're talking average trap speeds. The average for 07+ Z's is 106-109 mph. 370Z's are the same. We even ran at the same track but in different conditions. OMG!!!!OMG!!!OMG!!!!! For the last time quit debating about what this SS ran at this track in these conditions. A) He did not run where I ran B) He did not run in the same conditions C) I do not care because of A and B. Yes, I know the average trap is 109-111. Yes, this I know. Look at the average trap speeds for an M3. 105-108 mph. It all depends on track and conditions. I can't wait to rerun my car at Atco just to prove the difference. Some people fail to realise the difference a track makes. PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T SPEND HALF THEIR LIFE DRIVING IN 10-15 DIFFERENT STATES EVERY YEAR!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64znaX9SRBY

Unless you're going boost, or a big shot, you'll still have a long way to go. Put it into real world terms. My car is getting dropped off while I am in NJ next June. Hopefully for some head, cam, exhaust, and suspension work. My numbers and 2013 setup have been exteneded as my budget increased.

People are bashing and bashing and bashing away. I admitted I was a little off on saying I probably couldn't pull a 5.0. A Camaro SS is already known to be slower than the GT. Check the first post. 0-60, 0-100, 0-120 60-130, average 1/4 mile come on man and you're telling me a SS is on par? Nah.


That's great, but what does it prove? Surely an LS engine/5.0 can't make it to 283k! :rolleyes

What makes you think the new 5.0 engine doesn't have longevity? We all know that unless you have a Saab, or a 1.8T VW, longevity all depends on how you maintain your engine.


Lol, yes, I remember. I got sick of the doubts, so I found a couple of ran them. Have you considered a used S/C kit for your car?


Yes, I remember, lol. It didn't make 396 on that run, but after I fixed the fuel issue, it did that number on a DJ.

I do like the S/C kits for the E46 M3. However, after talking to VAC; staying N/A makes me appreciate owning my car a little more. :redspot

For those that are new here. Here's my car against cars that trap higher then me and the aftermath. 106 mph traps: Even hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhaJU5wr3zU&list=UU3lVDDYp2NbztMiif-y9x5w&index=9&feature=plcp

105 mph Evo X.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgr3dbCbNLA

Also for those saying Aero doesn't matter. Mind you this is more than 3000' above sea level.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4QaeGayvkQ&feature=channel&list=UL

[cmzwirner]

Why does this thread even exist? Just race a 5.0. They are everywhere around here, and i live in the twilight zone. Go and post on the mustang boards saying you want to run a stock 5.0. It shouldnt be too hard to find someone who wants to play in our area. Then post videos on here of you losing.

Oh crap. You mentioned the 370z. Here come more unfunny jokes.

[GG///M3]

Why does this thread even exist? Just race a 5.0. They are everywhere around here, and i live in the twilight zone. Go and post on the mustang boards saying you want to run a stock 5.0. It shouldnt be too hard to find someone who wants to play in our area. Then post videos on here of you losing.

Oh crap. You mentioned the 370z. Here come more unfunny jokes.

Can you get to the track so we can see what you trap at 10psi?


Im gonna have to agree with others and say your m3 will not stand a chance against a new 5.0 . How much whp are you making? Do you have any quarter mile track slips? If your m3 is trapping 110 mph which i seriously doubt then you may have a chance against a 5.0. I love the e46 m, but its just not in the same performance league of the 5.0 .




lol.

Cliffnotes:
StinkyM has big dreams

I think with a good driver the m3 could win very narrowly, but 1 mistake the 5.0 would win with ease. The 370z would destroy both with great ease, and much weeping while I film on my skate board.

[StinkyM]

Why does this thread even exist? Just race a 5.0. They are everywhere around here, and i live in the twilight zone. Go and post on the mustang boards saying you want to run a stock 5.0. It shouldnt be too hard to find someone who wants to play in our area. Then post videos on here of you losing.

Oh crap. You mentioned the 370z. Here come more unfunny jokes.

Do people even read threads, or do they just post at the end? Clearly I cannot race my car. You're most definitely closer to my car than I am. There are none in my area. There were none in SC. None in NJ. None in between South Dakota, NJ, and SC that were willing to meet up. What more do you want from me?

[cmzwirner]

No. I can post a thread full of HOURS OF RESEARCH/theoretical crap boasting that i could run a 10.9 if there was a polarity shift 5 seconds into the run, and venus and jupiter were aligned.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8424/7807684602_0495c292f2_c.jpg

[GG///M3]

Do people even read threads, or do they just post at the end? Clearly I cannot race my car. You're most definitely closer to my car than I am. There are none in my area. There were none in SC. None in NJ. None in between South Dakota, NJ, and SC that were willing to meet up. What more do you want from me?

Some are busy installing many head gaskets incorrectly to read threads. I think if you are a proper driver you could hang with or even beat 1 narrowly. Worry not about the humans.

[Butters Stoch]

Some are busy installing many head gaskets incorrectly to read threads. I think if you are a proper driver you could hang with or even beat 1 narrowly. Worry not about the humans.

Correct

[cmzwirner]

Jimmies:

[ ] Rustled
[x] Unrustled

This section. :rofl

[GG///M3]

Reading comp is king.

[TheCPE]

I think with a good driver the m3 could win very narrowly, but 1 mistake the 5.0 would win with ease.

:lol



The 370z would destroy both with great ease, and much weeping while I film on my skate board.

I'm sure hoping you aren't being serious...

[GG///M3]

:lol



I'm sure hoping you aren't being serious...

You are here with zero posts. Welcome to Bfc. How are you feeling this sabbath? Is that 5.0 stock you own? Maybe you can race him to view the out come on a highway on the plutonian intergalactic hwy west of stammiesville?

[Yonkersracing]

Yes it is on par, when two cars in stock form both capable of running high 12s @ ~110 mph they are on par with each other.

I've done my own research, I don't need to read your bias.

[cmzwirner]

It took me hours to make that post.

[cmzwirner]

It took me hours to make that post.

[GG///M3]

Unfortunately,
by spending the time to create such the above post
shows us your Garanimals were significantly moved.

To each his own.
Allow the OP his findings without naysayethness.

Correct.


It took me hours to make that post.

It's like the head gasket jobs... Hi 5

[cmzwirner]

Correct.



It's like the head gasket jobs... Hi 5

Do you ever post anything useful? I swear, you are one of the dumbest people i have ever seen on BFC. Go and finish your build. Its been two years.

[GG///M3]

You always post the most useful things on this forum. I swear I wish I knew what I was doing on my car. I need to hope I can run my car for more then 6 months without the head gasket popping.

I agree.

Correct.

[GG///M3]

OP any runs setup against a stock 5.0 stang? It shall be interesting to see the out come.

[cmzwirner]

It was warranted. I was questioning the point of this Deadliest Warrior esque thread comparing two cars, and you and GG come in and insult the length of my build rather than pertaining to the point of the thread. It is ironic that you two have builds going on that are over two years old. I also get the impression that neither of you have ever done any extensive work on these cars. How can you throw insults like that around with no experience what-so-ever?

And AFAIK im fully welcome in the FI section. Some guy got mad that i was posting my cars legitimate results. Sure, i have much to learn when compared to the senior members there, but i contribute far more than either of you do. Unless you consider useless/senseless haikus and derailing good threads quality contributions to the forums.

But what did you expect as a response? Something nice? When some moron insults me on a job that he himself has never done, you bet im going to respond like that.

[milKt]

It was warranted. I was questioning the point of this Deadliest Warrior esque thread comparing two cars, and you and GG come in and insult the length of my build rather than pertaining to the point of the thread. It is ironic that you two have builds going on that are over two years old. I also get the impression that neither of you have ever done any extensive work on these cars. How can you throw insults like that around with no experience what-so-ever?

And AFAIK im fully welcome in the FI section. Some guy got mad that i was posting my cars legitimate results. Sure, i have much to learn when compared to the senior members there, but i contribute far more than either of you do. Unless you consider useless/senseless haikus and derailing good threads quality contributions to the forums.

But what did you expect as a response? Something nice? When some moron insults me on a job that he himself has never done, you bet im going to respond like that.

Totally hilarious. My car has been driving before yours and my "need" to feel my posts are better or more informative than any other member's posts is zero. You're arrogant comments remind me of other "I post more relevant info than you" type of members on the forums here. So disgusting. Really. Just ugly ship.

I did NOT mention anything about your multiple HG issues Colin.
Your use of the term "derailing threads" sounds like you've been speaking to the Stammies and other douche bags. Again, you haven't been around long enough for me to even consider your posts seriously. Seriously. Get.

You have much to learn. Start with your manners please. Or are you not new to the troll role? It seems your button pressing is fine tuned.

Again,
Please go somewhere else to do this. You're "derailing this thread".

but seriously,
Stop ruining Stinky's thread.

MODS Please clean up this garbage/rubbish.

To the others..... a suggestion (http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=278057)








.

[Rudolph320i]

alright everyone chill out a little alright? its obvious no one is gonna change anyone else's minds so lets stop trying to prove who's prettier.

[Butters Stoch]

Boy do I feel left out ; (