Sydney NSCC dyno day this Sunday
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Sydney Australia
how would the zed compare to the E36 M3??
from memory the BMW does mid 5s 0-100, and I wouldnt be suprised if the M3 have better handling...
me and my mate who is deiving a M3 will be heading to Wakefield soon, just want to know what to expect then
from memory the BMW does mid 5s 0-100, and I wouldnt be suprised if the M3 have better handling...
me and my mate who is deiving a M3 will be heading to Wakefield soon, just want to know what to expect then
huh..... you asked the right person.... I used to own an AC Schnitzer tuned E36 M3 for 2.5 years..... and here you go...
Talking about the standard form, it already has 6 individual throttle body design + air box + high flow exhaust + equal length header + 11.3:1 high compression ratio, E36 M3 has better power output and better acceleration already in ANY gear because it has a very flat high torque curve from 3000 rpm all the way to nearly 6000 rpm. Also the advantage of the 2nd gear which can go up to 109km/hr, it will require less shifting time to go to 100. With minor mods (the schnitzer exhaust and the replacement air filter), I once pulled out nearly 195KW at the wheels too compare to the standard's 178KW. It is a power machine that I would say and if you do the sprint with the m3, zed is most likely gonna lose any day.
Handling wise, it is a FR and LOVES to oversteer which adds quite a lot of fun driving it, but I have to say this.... standard m3's handling is not as good as the zed's standard form, it still has quite alot of body rolls at corning, but the steering response/input is very nice and it is quite similar to the zed. But with the schnizter (or after market) sways and the suspension setup, the body roll problem can be improved slightly, and still does not perform as good as the zed.
Hope it helps and just wait until you go experience it!
cheers,
richie
Talking about the standard form, it already has 6 individual throttle body design + air box + high flow exhaust + equal length header + 11.3:1 high compression ratio, E36 M3 has better power output and better acceleration already in ANY gear because it has a very flat high torque curve from 3000 rpm all the way to nearly 6000 rpm. Also the advantage of the 2nd gear which can go up to 109km/hr, it will require less shifting time to go to 100. With minor mods (the schnitzer exhaust and the replacement air filter), I once pulled out nearly 195KW at the wheels too compare to the standard's 178KW. It is a power machine that I would say and if you do the sprint with the m3, zed is most likely gonna lose any day.
Handling wise, it is a FR and LOVES to oversteer which adds quite a lot of fun driving it, but I have to say this.... standard m3's handling is not as good as the zed's standard form, it still has quite alot of body rolls at corning, but the steering response/input is very nice and it is quite similar to the zed. But with the schnizter (or after market) sways and the suspension setup, the body roll problem can be improved slightly, and still does not perform as good as the zed.
Hope it helps and just wait until you go experience it!
cheers,
richie
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1
This is a comparison of a M3, 911, Corvette and Zed. They even take them to the track so you can see how they stack up. It was posted by Frosty, and is listed in the sticky note comparisons that Matt put up.
This is a comparison of a M3, 911, Corvette and Zed. They even take them to the track so you can see how they stack up. It was posted by Frosty, and is listed in the sticky note comparisons that Matt put up.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
how would the zed compare to the E36 M3??
from memory the BMW does mid 5s 0-100, and I wouldnt be suprised if the M3 have better handling...
I second what Z350Lover said above. Though there are 2 distinct models of e36 M3. One with a 3.0L engine (ie. pre '95) and one with 3.2L engine (ie. '95 onwards). There is a substantial difference in terms of perfromance between the two.
The stats for the e36 M3 are:
- weight = 1440kg (both)
- power = 213kW (3.0L) / 236kW (3.2L)
- torque = 300Nm @ 3600rpm (3.0L) / 320Nm @ 3600rpm (3.2L)
So, they weight roughly the same as the 350Z, always have more power (in particluar the 3.2L), but the torque advantage is in big favour of the 350Z with it's 363Nm. Still, that torque does not mean much when we are talking about outright acceleration (ie. optimal gear/revs). In those terms the the 3.0L e36 M3 should be a little bit quicker than the 350Z ... we're talking about couple car-lengthts to 160kph (or 400m). Though, the 3.2L e36 M3 is not that much slower than the current model. It will get to 160kph in 13secs or less and will cover 400m in mid 13s. That would put it good 4+ car-lengths ahead of the 350Z.
As far as track-speed goes, I'd have to give the edge to the 350Z as the 350Z is more suited to it. Still, they'd be close enough (in particular withthe 3.2L) that that the driver will make most of the difference on the track (that goes for al cars that can lap within 2secs of each other).
Also the advantage of the 2nd gear which can go up to 109km/hr, it will require less shifting time to go to 100.
On the street you will never notice it as you go by 'distance' and not time when you're racing someone. Whoever is ahead will be deemed the 'winner'. This is difficult thing to realize, but it is very possible to be behind and going quicker (or get to 100kph 1st and be behind). Good example is a WRX. Line one up with Ferrari and I'm pretty sure that over the 1st 60m the WRX will be ahead. Does not mean that it gets to any speed quicker than the Ferrari ... just means that it gets off the line better. The Elise example in my previous post is another good one. The launch is one of the most important aspects of 0-XXX drags ... it is sigfnificantly more important than where the shift-points are.
from memory the BMW does mid 5s 0-100, and I wouldnt be suprised if the M3 have better handling...
I second what Z350Lover said above. Though there are 2 distinct models of e36 M3. One with a 3.0L engine (ie. pre '95) and one with 3.2L engine (ie. '95 onwards). There is a substantial difference in terms of perfromance between the two.
The stats for the e36 M3 are:
- weight = 1440kg (both)
- power = 213kW (3.0L) / 236kW (3.2L)
- torque = 300Nm @ 3600rpm (3.0L) / 320Nm @ 3600rpm (3.2L)
So, they weight roughly the same as the 350Z, always have more power (in particluar the 3.2L), but the torque advantage is in big favour of the 350Z with it's 363Nm. Still, that torque does not mean much when we are talking about outright acceleration (ie. optimal gear/revs). In those terms the the 3.0L e36 M3 should be a little bit quicker than the 350Z ... we're talking about couple car-lengthts to 160kph (or 400m). Though, the 3.2L e36 M3 is not that much slower than the current model. It will get to 160kph in 13secs or less and will cover 400m in mid 13s. That would put it good 4+ car-lengths ahead of the 350Z.
As far as track-speed goes, I'd have to give the edge to the 350Z as the 350Z is more suited to it. Still, they'd be close enough (in particular withthe 3.2L) that that the driver will make most of the difference on the track (that goes for al cars that can lap within 2secs of each other).
Also the advantage of the 2nd gear which can go up to 109km/hr, it will require less shifting time to go to 100.
On the street you will never notice it as you go by 'distance' and not time when you're racing someone. Whoever is ahead will be deemed the 'winner'. This is difficult thing to realize, but it is very possible to be behind and going quicker (or get to 100kph 1st and be behind). Good example is a WRX. Line one up with Ferrari and I'm pretty sure that over the 1st 60m the WRX will be ahead. Does not mean that it gets to any speed quicker than the Ferrari ... just means that it gets off the line better. The Elise example in my previous post is another good one. The launch is one of the most important aspects of 0-XXX drags ... it is sigfnificantly more important than where the shift-points are.
Originally posted by ottonove
that's the E46 M3, but thx anyway
I know but if a Zed can beat the new one around a track, then the old one shouldnt be an issue as it has less power than the new.
that's the E46 M3, but thx anyway
I know but if a Zed can beat the new one around a track, then the old one shouldnt be an issue as it has less power than the new.
Oh DavidM:
Correction here...... for the E36 3.2L M3, it has the torque of 350Nm at 3200rpm. Although the zed has 10Nm more, but I still feel m3 pulls A LOT harder than the Zed, probably the max. torque happens at much lower rpm and last until 6000 rpm.
cheers,
richie
Correction here...... for the E36 3.2L M3, it has the torque of 350Nm at 3200rpm. Although the zed has 10Nm more, but I still feel m3 pulls A LOT harder than the Zed, probably the max. torque happens at much lower rpm and last until 6000 rpm.
cheers,
richie
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
Correction here...... for the E36 3.2L M3, it has the torque of 350Nm at 3200rpm.
I checked it again, and I'm finding 236lbf (ie. 320Nm) for the 3.0L model, and for the 3.2L 258lbf (ie. 350Nm) @ 3250rpm. So you are correct ... I got both of them wrong.
Although the zed has 10Nm more, but I still feel m3 pulls A LOT harder than the Zed, probably the max. torque happens at much lower rpm and last until 6000 rpm.
Yep, you're right, the 3.2L M3 was renowned for having the max-torque from 3250 - 6000rpm. Having that kind of torque available at just over 3000rpm would make for one very torquey car. In contrast the 350Z produces the maximum torque of 363Nm @ 4800rpm (even though 80% of it is meant to be available from something like 2000rpm onwards ie. 290Nm+).
I know but if a Zed can beat the new one around a track, then the old one shouldnt be an issue as it has less power than the new.
Yes, in that article the 350Z was just as quick as an e46 M3 and a 911 Targa. Even though, that may be the case at the odd track, most of the time the M3 and 911 will be quicker. Here's some examples of times by the same (pro) driver on each track:
Wakefield:
- e46 M3 = 1:12
- 350Z = 1:11.97
Winton:
- e46 M3 = 1:41.56
- 911 C2 = 1:42.01
- 350Z = 1:43.18
Hokenheim KK:
- 911 C4S = 1:15.9
- e46 M3 = 1:16.3
- 911 C2 = 1:17.1
- 350Z = 1:18.8
Nurburgring:
- 911 C2 = 8:17
- e46 M3 = 8:22
- 911 C4S = 8:23
- 350Z = 8:26
- e36 M3 '97= 8:34
So, yes, there are some tracks/instances where the 350Z is quicker than an e46 M3, but generally speaking the e46 is a quicker track car.
I checked it again, and I'm finding 236lbf (ie. 320Nm) for the 3.0L model, and for the 3.2L 258lbf (ie. 350Nm) @ 3250rpm. So you are correct ... I got both of them wrong.
Although the zed has 10Nm more, but I still feel m3 pulls A LOT harder than the Zed, probably the max. torque happens at much lower rpm and last until 6000 rpm.
Yep, you're right, the 3.2L M3 was renowned for having the max-torque from 3250 - 6000rpm. Having that kind of torque available at just over 3000rpm would make for one very torquey car. In contrast the 350Z produces the maximum torque of 363Nm @ 4800rpm (even though 80% of it is meant to be available from something like 2000rpm onwards ie. 290Nm+).
I know but if a Zed can beat the new one around a track, then the old one shouldnt be an issue as it has less power than the new.
Yes, in that article the 350Z was just as quick as an e46 M3 and a 911 Targa. Even though, that may be the case at the odd track, most of the time the M3 and 911 will be quicker. Here's some examples of times by the same (pro) driver on each track:
Wakefield:
- e46 M3 = 1:12
- 350Z = 1:11.97
Winton:
- e46 M3 = 1:41.56
- 911 C2 = 1:42.01
- 350Z = 1:43.18
Hokenheim KK:
- 911 C4S = 1:15.9
- e46 M3 = 1:16.3
- 911 C2 = 1:17.1
- 350Z = 1:18.8
Nurburgring:
- 911 C2 = 8:17
- e46 M3 = 8:22
- 911 C4S = 8:23
- 350Z = 8:26
- e36 M3 '97= 8:34
So, yes, there are some tracks/instances where the 350Z is quicker than an e46 M3, but generally speaking the e46 is a quicker track car.
I agree David, I have seen similar results in which the Zed didnt come first to the E46, but for the Zed to come first at least once it must be a similar match, so if your comparing to the older one with less power, older design, etc you could assume that it wouldnt be as close a match and the Zed might have the upper hand. Which by looking at the Nurburgring times seems to be a correct assumption.
You have to love the E46 M3 CSL though, if BMW's claims are correct, it can do a lap of Nurburgring in under 8 minutes.
You have to love the E46 M3 CSL though, if BMW's claims are correct, it can do a lap of Nurburgring in under 8 minutes.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
You have to love the E46 M3 CSL though, if BMW's claims are correct, it can do a lap of Nurburgring in under 8 minutes.
Yes and no. I love the CSL, but 1/2 of it's 'lapping ability' is purely due to the tyres. It has sticky R-spec tyres on ... stick those on any other car and you'll be good 15 secs quicker around N'ring as well. Stick those same tyres on a regular M3 and watch it's N'ring laptime tomble from 8:22 to 8:10 (or even bellow).
It's a bit unfair (by the BMW) to claim that the CSL laps the N'ring 30secs quicker than a regualr M3, as you can buy the same tyres for the regular M3s and then the CSL will lap only about 15secs quicker there. btw, same mob managed 7:50 around N'ring withthe CSL that managed 8:22 with the e46 M3.
ps. I can't dissagree with your e36 M3 vs 350Z assumptions, as I'd assume the same. Actually I'd assume that the 350Z would lap quicker than the e36 M3.
Yes and no. I love the CSL, but 1/2 of it's 'lapping ability' is purely due to the tyres. It has sticky R-spec tyres on ... stick those on any other car and you'll be good 15 secs quicker around N'ring as well. Stick those same tyres on a regular M3 and watch it's N'ring laptime tomble from 8:22 to 8:10 (or even bellow).
It's a bit unfair (by the BMW) to claim that the CSL laps the N'ring 30secs quicker than a regualr M3, as you can buy the same tyres for the regular M3s and then the CSL will lap only about 15secs quicker there. btw, same mob managed 7:50 around N'ring withthe CSL that managed 8:22 with the e46 M3.
ps. I can't dissagree with your e36 M3 vs 350Z assumptions, as I'd assume the same. Actually I'd assume that the 350Z would lap quicker than the e36 M3.
You have to watch those marketing figures then dont you, but all manufactures could use the same tactics to get their product out there if they wanted to, they're just not that 'dishonest' or perhaps they didnt think of it themselves.
As you said though only 1/2 of its abilities are due to its R-spec tyres, they have made some real changes to the car which, even without the N'ring time, are good enough for people to buy over a normal M3. If you take a car like the M3 and make improvments its only going to be better(to state the obvious), the only question is how much do they want to charge for those changes. And being BMW probabally quite a lot. They didnt list the price of the CSL on the site that I could see but the standard M3 is listed as $142,000, and the convertible at $158,000.
Imagine a 350z CSL...
As you said though only 1/2 of its abilities are due to its R-spec tyres, they have made some real changes to the car which, even without the N'ring time, are good enough for people to buy over a normal M3. If you take a car like the M3 and make improvments its only going to be better(to state the obvious), the only question is how much do they want to charge for those changes. And being BMW probabally quite a lot. They didnt list the price of the CSL on the site that I could see but the standard M3 is listed as $142,000, and the convertible at $158,000.
Imagine a 350z CSL...
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: NEWCASTLE - NSW - AUS
I've got 2 z's in the shed, and I've made about 20 runs in each -
I've measured out the 400 (accurately) but only use a stopwatch - and the AGGREGATE OF ALL RUNS is 14.45.
My car is the Hi-Tech, other is a mod rear muffler only (not cat back).
My car has 30,000k, other 12,000k.
Aggregate of all my runs 14.3.
All runs with 2 x 90kg aboard.
Various fuel levels.
The consistency of timing/run is slowest to fastest diff only .32
Have to work on the aggregates because of the human variations in individual timings, etc.
Overall, I'll bet my pants that the strip will be within .2 of my figures (and probably even closer).
BTW, all traction control runs have been eliminated since they were averaging up to .75 slower, and .4 on averages.
FROZZZZTY
I've measured out the 400 (accurately) but only use a stopwatch - and the AGGREGATE OF ALL RUNS is 14.45.
My car is the Hi-Tech, other is a mod rear muffler only (not cat back).
My car has 30,000k, other 12,000k.
Aggregate of all my runs 14.3.
All runs with 2 x 90kg aboard.
Various fuel levels.
The consistency of timing/run is slowest to fastest diff only .32
Have to work on the aggregates because of the human variations in individual timings, etc.
Overall, I'll bet my pants that the strip will be within .2 of my figures (and probably even closer).
BTW, all traction control runs have been eliminated since they were averaging up to .75 slower, and .4 on averages.
FROZZZZTY
wow... frosty, you are really a ZLover man!!! got 2 zeds all by yourself?
David:
I don't know if this is correct, but GTR R34 had done a VERY good time at the Nurburgring and held that record which no other production car could achieve for a long time?
cheers,
richie
David:
I don't know if this is correct, but GTR R34 had done a VERY good time at the Nurburgring and held that record which no other production car could achieve for a long time?
cheers,
richie
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
From: Sydney, Australia
DavidM - I'm betting that you'll be in for a surprise when you take on the XR6T. I think it will be as quick as the Z over a quater mile, if not marginally in front. Your HT exhaust may even things up or put you marginally in front though. I look forward to you report of the outcome.
Also, the regular XR6 is a quick big car in a straight line. The 100 odd rwkW from the ute does not sound right. Keep in mind that the XT has recorded mid 15s quaters and high 7s for the 0-100km/hr. That's very respectable for a repmobile!
The Aussie E36 and E46 M3's are very quick. The US versions that every Z owner claims they can beat or hang with must be vastly different form ours.
Also, the regular XR6 is a quick big car in a straight line. The 100 odd rwkW from the ute does not sound right. Keep in mind that the XT has recorded mid 15s quaters and high 7s for the 0-100km/hr. That's very respectable for a repmobile!
The Aussie E36 and E46 M3's are very quick. The US versions that every Z owner claims they can beat or hang with must be vastly different form ours.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: NEWCASTLE - NSW - AUS
Sorry - only one Z mine - the other's the son's!
I'd never have two - if I had that sort of dough, I'd have something with a suspension that didn't scrub the tyres and had an engine in. Fancy no adjustments in the suspension in a "sports" car!!
Re the .2 - what i'm trying to say is that given the home-grown strip, there's sure to be some discrepancies, but the number of runs and the number of different timers, etc, I think that i'll be pretty close in my calculations when I eventually get to the strip.
I'm waiting for Harry to challenge me!
BTW, went to the strip weekend before last and my son-in law's WRX with all my STI hot bits and new wheels and tyres etc was stolen.
I'ts a bloody bad feeling when you come to where the car was parked - and there's NOTHING! Poor bugger's devatated!
Brandt immobiliser, security carpark and all!
FUGGEN!
FROZZLEZ
RUN OUT OF PICS NOW
Hang about, more "man of the year" shots - thats the missus and nan in the cage.
I'd never have two - if I had that sort of dough, I'd have something with a suspension that didn't scrub the tyres and had an engine in. Fancy no adjustments in the suspension in a "sports" car!!
Re the .2 - what i'm trying to say is that given the home-grown strip, there's sure to be some discrepancies, but the number of runs and the number of different timers, etc, I think that i'll be pretty close in my calculations when I eventually get to the strip.
I'm waiting for Harry to challenge me!
BTW, went to the strip weekend before last and my son-in law's WRX with all my STI hot bits and new wheels and tyres etc was stolen.
I'ts a bloody bad feeling when you come to where the car was parked - and there's NOTHING! Poor bugger's devatated!
Brandt immobiliser, security carpark and all!
FUGGEN!
FROZZLEZ
RUN OUT OF PICS NOW
Hang about, more "man of the year" shots - thats the missus and nan in the cage.
Last edited by frosty; Apr 6, 2004 at 12:19 AM.
I'm sure David is readying his information as we speak.
Sorry to hear about the Rex.
I havnt actually been to the strip before so this is passed on knowledge, but at the strip isnt the ground so sticky it would pull the shoes off your feet in some shoes?
And launch is the most crucial part of the quater mile because this is where you can loose or gain the most amount of time?
So if those two facts are correct(not saying they are but if) then the best launch you could do off the strip would be quite different time wise to the best launch on the strip. And that might equate to more than 0.02 of a sec? Maybe not I dont know, but we'll see what David says on the subject.
Sorry to hear about the Rex.
I havnt actually been to the strip before so this is passed on knowledge, but at the strip isnt the ground so sticky it would pull the shoes off your feet in some shoes?
And launch is the most crucial part of the quater mile because this is where you can loose or gain the most amount of time?
So if those two facts are correct(not saying they are but if) then the best launch you could do off the strip would be quite different time wise to the best launch on the strip. And that might equate to more than 0.02 of a sec? Maybe not I dont know, but we'll see what David says on the subject.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 795
Likes: 0
From: Oz
You have to watch those marketing figures then dont you, but all manufactures could use the same tactics to get their product out there if they wanted to, they're just not that 'dishonest' or perhaps they didnt think of it themselves.
Most manufacturers don not put R-spec rubber on their cars .... but then the peple who buy them and god the the track often do. So most M3s that you'll see on he track will be on R-spc rubber.
The only other car I know off, that comes on R-spec rubber is Elise 111S (and few other models). They had one in the PCOTY about a year ago.
As you said though only 1/2 of its abilities are due to its R-spec tyres, they have made some real changes to the car which, even without the N'ring time, are good enough for people to buy over a normal M3.
Right on ... sorry if it sounded like I was bagging the CSL. It is about 120kg lighter than the regualr M3 (where a lot of the weight is taken from high up ie. the roof), has extra 10kW or so, beffier suspensnion and wider rims/tyres. Oh and some aero bits, interior and seats not only sportier but lighter.
Though, as someone already said, it costs $220k (ie. $75k more then regula M3). If you gave an M3 owner $20k to midify their car, then they could replicate all but 90kg of that weight saving there. So, the CSL is not big on 'value for money', but you do get the factory warranty, resale and and all that goes with it. I'd want one.
Imagine a 350z CSL...
Yep, that's what I want. Zed with extra 30kW, minus 100kg and all track ready suspension, interior etc.
I've measured out the 400 (accurately) but only use a stopwatch - and the AGGREGATE OF ALL RUNS is 14.45.
Hey Frosty, how do you do that? How do you know it's 400m ... have you measured it out? How do you manage to start and stop the timer at the right time as the start and end point are 400m appart (ie. hard to see from one end to the other accurately by a bystander)?
DavidM - I'm betting that you'll be in for a surprise when you take on the XR6T. I think it will be as quick as the Z over a quater mile, if not marginally in front.
I'd like to see, but I'll be surpised to see the XR6-T in front. Even with 240kW it has a lot going against it ie. 1700kg, reasonably skinny tyres, redline well under 6000rpm and crappy gearbox. Considering that in the comapros the SS Commodores are usually a fraction quicker (in particlar over 400m), and me knowing that I can hang with a HSV (260kW) makes me thing that my odds are pretty good. Still, I'm expecting it to be reasonably close ... I'll be very impressed if I can get 5 car-lengths on it by 160kph. Still, I won't know 'till I line one up. I'd expect to be dead even bellow 100kph (except for the launch).
And launch is the most crucial part of the quater mile because this is where you can loose or gain the most amount of time?
It's a big part of it (even though I'm no 400m runs expert). The launch translates to big difference once you're towards the far end of the track. You can loose or gain a lot of time here ... besides that it's just 3 shifts which I'm sure can lose some time (eg. loose a 10th at each shift and that is 0.3sec over 400m).
From what I gather best thing to do is a bit of a burn-out before you do your run (ie. to make the tyres sticky). That always helps (ask Lionking about that ... he's practiced it a couple times ;-). Also lowering your rfear tyre pressues (ie. to ~26psi) makes for a better launch. It's all about having as much grip as possible and translating it to forward momentum. Of course the track surface and conditions will play a big part as well. According to the mags just those 2 factors will account to around 0.5sec difference over 400m.
Most manufacturers don not put R-spec rubber on their cars .... but then the peple who buy them and god the the track often do. So most M3s that you'll see on he track will be on R-spc rubber.
The only other car I know off, that comes on R-spec rubber is Elise 111S (and few other models). They had one in the PCOTY about a year ago.
As you said though only 1/2 of its abilities are due to its R-spec tyres, they have made some real changes to the car which, even without the N'ring time, are good enough for people to buy over a normal M3.
Right on ... sorry if it sounded like I was bagging the CSL. It is about 120kg lighter than the regualr M3 (where a lot of the weight is taken from high up ie. the roof), has extra 10kW or so, beffier suspensnion and wider rims/tyres. Oh and some aero bits, interior and seats not only sportier but lighter.
Though, as someone already said, it costs $220k (ie. $75k more then regula M3). If you gave an M3 owner $20k to midify their car, then they could replicate all but 90kg of that weight saving there. So, the CSL is not big on 'value for money', but you do get the factory warranty, resale and and all that goes with it. I'd want one.
Imagine a 350z CSL...
Yep, that's what I want. Zed with extra 30kW, minus 100kg and all track ready suspension, interior etc.
I've measured out the 400 (accurately) but only use a stopwatch - and the AGGREGATE OF ALL RUNS is 14.45.
Hey Frosty, how do you do that? How do you know it's 400m ... have you measured it out? How do you manage to start and stop the timer at the right time as the start and end point are 400m appart (ie. hard to see from one end to the other accurately by a bystander)?
DavidM - I'm betting that you'll be in for a surprise when you take on the XR6T. I think it will be as quick as the Z over a quater mile, if not marginally in front.
I'd like to see, but I'll be surpised to see the XR6-T in front. Even with 240kW it has a lot going against it ie. 1700kg, reasonably skinny tyres, redline well under 6000rpm and crappy gearbox. Considering that in the comapros the SS Commodores are usually a fraction quicker (in particlar over 400m), and me knowing that I can hang with a HSV (260kW) makes me thing that my odds are pretty good. Still, I'm expecting it to be reasonably close ... I'll be very impressed if I can get 5 car-lengths on it by 160kph. Still, I won't know 'till I line one up. I'd expect to be dead even bellow 100kph (except for the launch).
And launch is the most crucial part of the quater mile because this is where you can loose or gain the most amount of time?
It's a big part of it (even though I'm no 400m runs expert). The launch translates to big difference once you're towards the far end of the track. You can loose or gain a lot of time here ... besides that it's just 3 shifts which I'm sure can lose some time (eg. loose a 10th at each shift and that is 0.3sec over 400m).
From what I gather best thing to do is a bit of a burn-out before you do your run (ie. to make the tyres sticky). That always helps (ask Lionking about that ... he's practiced it a couple times ;-). Also lowering your rfear tyre pressues (ie. to ~26psi) makes for a better launch. It's all about having as much grip as possible and translating it to forward momentum. Of course the track surface and conditions will play a big part as well. According to the mags just those 2 factors will account to around 0.5sec difference over 400m.