Truth about M3's>
Burning Brakes
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 924
Likes: 0
From: Washington DC
Oh, and for the record, I am very realistic about our cars' potential, I just find other things to discuss in this forum (speaking of which, this thread belongs in the racing forum so it should be locked and moved).
In my Type S, I have raced a stock 99 M3 (stick) with a very good driver and lost the race to around 80mph by about 2 car lengths. Almost all that distance he took me off the line all three times (The benefit of a stick vs auto). I could have probably reduced the gap by a car-length or so if I had torque braked off the line.
------------------
Silver CL-S w/ Navi, Spoiler, Wheel Locks, Trunk Tray, 19169, 9005
Toyo 235/45ZR17-97W* T1-S Proxes on 17X8 SSR Competition Wheels (47.2 lbs lighter than stock wheel+tire setup)
Comptech Sways
G-Tech (Full tank of gas, 60F, VSA off, SS) - 5.94 seconds
V-1 Hardwired
[This message has been edited by Technique (edited 04-25-2001).]
In my Type S, I have raced a stock 99 M3 (stick) with a very good driver and lost the race to around 80mph by about 2 car lengths. Almost all that distance he took me off the line all three times (The benefit of a stick vs auto). I could have probably reduced the gap by a car-length or so if I had torque braked off the line.
------------------
Silver CL-S w/ Navi, Spoiler, Wheel Locks, Trunk Tray, 19169, 9005
Toyo 235/45ZR17-97W* T1-S Proxes on 17X8 SSR Competition Wheels (47.2 lbs lighter than stock wheel+tire setup)
Comptech Sways
G-Tech (Full tank of gas, 60F, VSA off, SS) - 5.94 seconds
V-1 Hardwired
[This message has been edited by Technique (edited 04-25-2001).]
Suzuka Master
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,388
Likes: 1
From: Ninth Gate & So Cal
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by eclipse23:
Mods, PLUUUUUUEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSEEEEEEE
LOCK THIS THREAD IT IS USELESS.....
</font>
Mods, PLUUUUUUEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSEEEEEEE
LOCK THIS THREAD IT IS USELESS.....
</font>
Motion is now 2nd'd.
Motion to strike is requested....
------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI
- Mud guards
- Wheel locks
- Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (48lbs less than stock)
- Kevlar/SS Brake lines ordered
- Comptech headers & sways ready
- Silver AEM CAI ready
- 8 coats of Zaino magic
Banned
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,151
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between here and there, yet neither.
HAHAHAHA...just forget it....no matter what we do to our cars....it'll never be a BMW...in Toms eyes or any of the other M owners eyes, so that its a no-win situtation...except perhaps M3sins...he gives pretty reasonable explanations without trying to be high and mighty about it. Mods, I know this is an open forum, but alot of BMW owners with their superiority complexes have been camping here for awhile..I think you need to email them....
------------------
2001 Cl-S Black on Black with Navigation
Black Tint all around (15%~45%)
Weapon-R Dragon Filter
Weapon-R Coil-Overs
Koni Adjustable Struts
Comptech Sway Bars
Comptech Headers (hehehe...I got something for you drchang!!)
------------------
2001 Cl-S Black on Black with Navigation
Black Tint all around (15%~45%)
Weapon-R Dragon Filter
Weapon-R Coil-Overs
Koni Adjustable Struts
Comptech Sway Bars
Comptech Headers (hehehe...I got something for you drchang!!)
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pgatour1:
Or is this totally wrong becuase you are not at a constent speed of 60 but rather an Accl to 60. If the answer to that is yes let me know and I will re work the math. THanks, Anthony</font>
Or is this totally wrong becuase you are not at a constent speed of 60 but rather an Accl to 60. If the answer to that is yes let me know and I will re work the math. THanks, Anthony</font>
------------------
Gabriel
CL Type S
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Tom2:
gavriil,
You remind me of one of those guys that studies the books until no end and then tells everyone what SHOULD happen in any and all circumstances, without any real world experience.
Some of what you say is correct. Most of the stuff about the gearing is correct (but not all), the FWD vs RWD weight transfer stuff, the curb weight issues.......
With all your book knowledge, I'm SHOCKED that you didn't mention TORQUE. Forget all the sissy horsepower ratings, because torque is what it's all about when you're talking acceleration/drag racing. Maybe you should start comparing torque curves when you talk about engines.
A lot of readers here know all this stuff, but the truth of the matter is that it simply does not matter. Line two cars up and see which is faster. That's the bottom line.
</font>
gavriil,
You remind me of one of those guys that studies the books until no end and then tells everyone what SHOULD happen in any and all circumstances, without any real world experience.
Some of what you say is correct. Most of the stuff about the gearing is correct (but not all), the FWD vs RWD weight transfer stuff, the curb weight issues.......
With all your book knowledge, I'm SHOCKED that you didn't mention TORQUE. Forget all the sissy horsepower ratings, because torque is what it's all about when you're talking acceleration/drag racing. Maybe you should start comparing torque curves when you talk about engines.
A lot of readers here know all this stuff, but the truth of the matter is that it simply does not matter. Line two cars up and see which is faster. That's the bottom line.
</font>
Go chill Tom and do not think that anyone approaching a matter academicaly is wrong. I, and most people here, do not have time to go to the track like you. I have a life and a job which requires a lot of travel among other things. I will let the car mags to do the tests for me and the people here in the forums. You said it. They put a lot of extra weight and they dont launch the cars hard and that is why you are beating their time at the track. So? If they are doing the same to all cars then figures are consistent and that is what matters. We get the idea. We dont have to go to the track to prove mags wrong. We said it 1000000 times, there are too many variables. End of fricking story. Even 2 M3s are not the same...we know...we know. So let me keep reading the theory which is the hard thing to do and I will let the practice be done by other reliable sources.
If you have not been to the track, you cant talk cars according to Tom. What kind of shit is this?
You know, the guys that are working for F1 teams are, above all, academically UP THERE my friend. They do a lot of practical track testing but in order to make that engine turn 20,000 rpms there was a TON of computer simulation done. Theory goes first, then it is applied to practice and both make the difference. That is how it is with all professions and accross all industries. You do not have to tell me. I am out there too.
When car A has shorter gearing than car B and they both are the same cars, car A will win a fixed distance race, period. I dont need to go to your stupid track to prove that. Grow up. And I know I was comparing two differenct cars but that is not the point. The fact that I do not have to go to the track to prove that is the point.
ANYTHING ANYONES SAYS HERE THAT IN TOM'S EYES LESSENS HIS BRIDE E36 M3 SOMEHOW IS BULLSHIT UNLESS PROVEN AT THE TRACK. What a bunch of crap.
What kind of car do you think you are driving? An F50? Wake up and face reality. I think that you are the biggest mag racer of all, because I bet your head got too big from reading that article on C$D years ago, that announced the E36 M3 as the best handling car over $40K. I bet that helped your ego. I know you know the article I am talking about. You probably have it on the wall, framed.
Now as far as the torque comments you made. Tom wrote:
"Forget all the sissy horsepower ratings, because torque is what it's all about when you're talking acceleration/drag racing."
Before I prove you 101% wrong let me say that you have a disadvantage on this debate cos remember this is gavriil's terrotory...it is called "talking books". Wow...
IN ANY TYPE OF RAW ACCELERATION/DRAG RACING EVENT, HORSEPOWER IS WHAT WINS ALL ELSE EQUAL.
I dont care if your train makes one million lb-ft of torque at 1000 rpm. If you make 200 HP and I make 300 HP, I will win no matter how much less torque I make.
This is such a basic mistake that I dont even have to try. This is humiliating the more I think about it. You, TOM, the NON mag racer...the one that goes to the track with your mistress... the M3...to prove books wrong, does not know basic matters of engineering? Actually this is physics. Not even mechanics.
I cannot believe you are making me come down to this low point to have to explain this to you but you made this huge mistake so clearly that I am gonna have to. Here...it is simple even for people that denounce theory and their god is the track (like you...oh, the track and their M3 I forgot):
HP = (Torque*rpm)/5252
Even guys that believe in distributors instead of injection know this.
Can you see from that above formula why you are completely wrong? Let me take you by the hand...
Since Torque is multiplied by the rpm that torque figure is appearing at, it is NOT fixed. It is increasing as the RPM increases. Since the denominator is fixed then what makes the difference is that rpm number. The more you increase RPM the more HP you make...simple shit. Now let us keep Torque constant. Simply the more you raise RPM the more HP you make. HP = Power = Watts = WORK! The more work an engine can do the faster your little M3 will go. Wake up.
If an engine is making 200 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm, it is simply making 152HP at that point ONLY. If an engine is making 150 pounds of torque at 8000 rpm it is making 228 HP. The latter engine will push a car or anything else further, faster. Got it?
Why did you even say that? Where you trying to prove that because the E36 M3 makes a little more torque than the CLS, it should win or some completely wrong shit like that?
Bottom line...sometimes you say some things that are correct as long as the term M3 is not involved in the thread/convo. If it is, you are just the fricking KING of the thread and go so far to say completely inacurate statements and embarass yourself even to people that do not go to the track....us the poor mortals. Give me a freaking break...
I almost told Eclipse23 "Amen" to the couple of statements he made that were strong against your attitude about this M3 hot topic/button you got but I thought let's wait a little but you are getting worse and worse. Grow up and open some books you might learn something. Even mags will help your case, trust me. Non-mag, race boy.
------------------
Gabriel
CL Type S
You can find this here too...started a new thread cos something tells me we are starting all over again....
http://www.acura-cl.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004422.html
[This message has been edited by gavriil (edited 04-25-2001).]
[This message has been edited by gavriil (edited 04-25-2001).]
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,969
Likes: 0
From: NY
Gavrill,
Yes I know my whole thing was totally wrong. My physics teacher would be very upset. That is why I'm still going to try and work it out some way. I totally figured out I needed distance after I posted the message. I'm still really interested to see what the difference in ft. would be. There has got to be some way to at least get a ballpark figure (within a few feet.)
I really just want to know if .7 sec 0-60 difference is like 3 car lenghts or like 10 ft.
Yes I know my whole thing was totally wrong. My physics teacher would be very upset. That is why I'm still going to try and work it out some way. I totally figured out I needed distance after I posted the message. I'm still really interested to see what the difference in ft. would be. There has got to be some way to at least get a ballpark figure (within a few feet.)
I really just want to know if .7 sec 0-60 difference is like 3 car lenghts or like 10 ft.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pgatour1:
Gavrill,
Yes I know my whole thing was totally wrong. My physics teacher would be very upset. That is why I'm still going to try and work it out some way. I totally figured out I needed distance after I posted the message. I'm still really interested to see what the difference in ft. would be. There has got to be some way to at least get a ballpark figure (within a few feet.)
I really just want to know if .7 sec 0-60 difference is like 3 car lenghts or like 10 ft.</font>
Gavrill,
Yes I know my whole thing was totally wrong. My physics teacher would be very upset. That is why I'm still going to try and work it out some way. I totally figured out I needed distance after I posted the message. I'm still really interested to see what the difference in ft. would be. There has got to be some way to at least get a ballpark figure (within a few feet.)
I really just want to know if .7 sec 0-60 difference is like 3 car lenghts or like 10 ft.</font>
Here is how Tom2 would answer that:
"Go to the track and find out boy...why do you bother with that math mambo jambo?...heeeeeha"
------------------
Gabriel
CL Type S
I am Jack's need 4 SPEED!
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
From: houston, TX
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gavriil:
And you remind me of one of those rednecks that all they have learned in their mechanical life, in the farm garage, is that there is not replacement for displacement.
Go chill Tom and do not think that anyone approaching a matter academicaly is wrong. I, and most people here, do not have time to go to the track like you. I have a life and a job which requires a lot of travel among other things. I will let the car mags to do the tests for me and the people here in the forums. You said it. They put a lot of extra weight and they dont launch the cars hard and that is why you are beating their time at the track. So? If they are doing the same to all cars then figures are consistent and that is what matters. We get the idea. We dont have to go to the track to prove mags wrong. We said it 1000000 times, there are too many variables. End of fricking story. Even 2 M3s are not the same...we know...we know. So let me keep reading the theory which is the hard thing to do and I will let the practice be done by other reliable sources.
If you have not been to the track, you cant talk cars according to Tom. What kind of shit is this?
You know, the guys that are working for F1 teams are, above all, academically UP THERE my friend. They do a lot of practical track testing but in order to make that engine turn 20,000 rpms there was a TON of computer simulation done. Theory goes first, then it is applied to practice and both make the difference. That is how it is with all professions and accross all industries. You do not have to tell me. I am out there too.
When car A has shorter gearing than car B and they both are the same cars, car A will win a fixed distance race, period. I dont need to go to your stupid track to prove that. Grow up. And I know I was comparing two differenct cars but that is not the point. The fact that I do not have to go to the track to prove that is the point.
ANYTHING ANYONES SAYS HERE THAT IN TOM'S EYES LESSENS HIS BRIDE E36 M3 SOMEHOW IS BULLSHIT UNLESS PROVEN AT THE TRACK. What a bunch of crap.
What kind of car do you think you are driving? An F50? Wake up and face reality. I think that you are the biggest mag racer of all, because I bet your head got too big from reading that article on C$D years ago, that announced the E36 M3 as the best handling car over $40K. I bet that helped your ego. I know you know the article I am talking about. You probably have it on the wall, framed.
Now as far as the torque comments you made. Tom wrote:
"Forget all the sissy horsepower ratings, because torque is what it's all about when you're talking acceleration/drag racing."
Before I prove you 101% wrong let me say that you have a disadvantage on this debate cos remember this is gavriil's terrotory...it is called "talking books". Wow...
IN ANY TYPE OF RAW ACCELERATION/DRAG RACING EVENT, HORSEPOWER IS WHAT WINS ALL ELSE EQUAL.
I dont care if your train makes one million lb-ft of torque at 1000 rpm. If you make 200 HP and I make 300 HP, I will win no matter how much less torque I make.
This is such a basic mistake that I dont even have to try. This is humiliating the more I think about it. You, TOM, the NON mag racer...the one that goes to the track with your mistress... the M3...to prove books wrong, does not know basic matters of engineering? Actually this is physics. Not even mechanics.
I cannot believe you are making me come down to this low point to have to explain this to you but you made this huge mistake so clearly that I am gonna have to. Here...it is simple even for people that denounce theory and their god is the track (like you...oh, the track and their M3 I forgot):
HP = (Torque*rpm)/5252
Even guys that believe in distributors instead of injection know this.
Can you see from that above formula why you are completely wrong? Let me take you by the hand...
Since Torque is multiplied by the rpm that torque figure is appearing at, it is NOT fixed. It is increasing as the RPM increases. Since the denominator is fixed then what makes the difference is that rpm number. The more you increase RPM the more HP you make...simple shit. Now let us keep Torque constant. Simply the more you raise RPM the more HP you make. HP = Power = Watts = WORK! The more work an engine can do the faster your little M3 will go. Wake up.
If an engine is making 200 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm, it is simply making 152HP at that point ONLY. If an engine is making 150 pounds of torque at 8000 rpm it is making 228 HP. The latter engine will push a car or anything else further, faster. Got it?
Why did you even say that? Where you trying to prove that because the E36 M3 makes a little more torque than the CLS, it should win or some completely wrong shit like that?
Bottom line...sometimes you say some things that are correct as long as the term M3 is not involved in the thread/convo. If it is, you are just the fricking KING of the thread and go so far to say completely inacurate statements and embarass yourself even to people that do not go to the track....us the poor mortals. Give me a freaking break...
I almost told Eclipse23 "Amen" to the couple of statements he made that were strong against your attitude about this M3 hot topic/button you got but I thought let's wait a little but you are getting worse and worse. Grow up and open some books you might learn something. Even mags will help your case, trust me. Non-mag, race boy.
</font>
And you remind me of one of those rednecks that all they have learned in their mechanical life, in the farm garage, is that there is not replacement for displacement.
Go chill Tom and do not think that anyone approaching a matter academicaly is wrong. I, and most people here, do not have time to go to the track like you. I have a life and a job which requires a lot of travel among other things. I will let the car mags to do the tests for me and the people here in the forums. You said it. They put a lot of extra weight and they dont launch the cars hard and that is why you are beating their time at the track. So? If they are doing the same to all cars then figures are consistent and that is what matters. We get the idea. We dont have to go to the track to prove mags wrong. We said it 1000000 times, there are too many variables. End of fricking story. Even 2 M3s are not the same...we know...we know. So let me keep reading the theory which is the hard thing to do and I will let the practice be done by other reliable sources.
If you have not been to the track, you cant talk cars according to Tom. What kind of shit is this?
You know, the guys that are working for F1 teams are, above all, academically UP THERE my friend. They do a lot of practical track testing but in order to make that engine turn 20,000 rpms there was a TON of computer simulation done. Theory goes first, then it is applied to practice and both make the difference. That is how it is with all professions and accross all industries. You do not have to tell me. I am out there too.
When car A has shorter gearing than car B and they both are the same cars, car A will win a fixed distance race, period. I dont need to go to your stupid track to prove that. Grow up. And I know I was comparing two differenct cars but that is not the point. The fact that I do not have to go to the track to prove that is the point.
ANYTHING ANYONES SAYS HERE THAT IN TOM'S EYES LESSENS HIS BRIDE E36 M3 SOMEHOW IS BULLSHIT UNLESS PROVEN AT THE TRACK. What a bunch of crap.
What kind of car do you think you are driving? An F50? Wake up and face reality. I think that you are the biggest mag racer of all, because I bet your head got too big from reading that article on C$D years ago, that announced the E36 M3 as the best handling car over $40K. I bet that helped your ego. I know you know the article I am talking about. You probably have it on the wall, framed.
Now as far as the torque comments you made. Tom wrote:
"Forget all the sissy horsepower ratings, because torque is what it's all about when you're talking acceleration/drag racing."
Before I prove you 101% wrong let me say that you have a disadvantage on this debate cos remember this is gavriil's terrotory...it is called "talking books". Wow...
IN ANY TYPE OF RAW ACCELERATION/DRAG RACING EVENT, HORSEPOWER IS WHAT WINS ALL ELSE EQUAL.
I dont care if your train makes one million lb-ft of torque at 1000 rpm. If you make 200 HP and I make 300 HP, I will win no matter how much less torque I make.
This is such a basic mistake that I dont even have to try. This is humiliating the more I think about it. You, TOM, the NON mag racer...the one that goes to the track with your mistress... the M3...to prove books wrong, does not know basic matters of engineering? Actually this is physics. Not even mechanics.
I cannot believe you are making me come down to this low point to have to explain this to you but you made this huge mistake so clearly that I am gonna have to. Here...it is simple even for people that denounce theory and their god is the track (like you...oh, the track and their M3 I forgot):
HP = (Torque*rpm)/5252
Even guys that believe in distributors instead of injection know this.
Can you see from that above formula why you are completely wrong? Let me take you by the hand...
Since Torque is multiplied by the rpm that torque figure is appearing at, it is NOT fixed. It is increasing as the RPM increases. Since the denominator is fixed then what makes the difference is that rpm number. The more you increase RPM the more HP you make...simple shit. Now let us keep Torque constant. Simply the more you raise RPM the more HP you make. HP = Power = Watts = WORK! The more work an engine can do the faster your little M3 will go. Wake up.
If an engine is making 200 lb-ft of torque at 4000 rpm, it is simply making 152HP at that point ONLY. If an engine is making 150 pounds of torque at 8000 rpm it is making 228 HP. The latter engine will push a car or anything else further, faster. Got it?
Why did you even say that? Where you trying to prove that because the E36 M3 makes a little more torque than the CLS, it should win or some completely wrong shit like that?
Bottom line...sometimes you say some things that are correct as long as the term M3 is not involved in the thread/convo. If it is, you are just the fricking KING of the thread and go so far to say completely inacurate statements and embarass yourself even to people that do not go to the track....us the poor mortals. Give me a freaking break...
I almost told Eclipse23 "Amen" to the couple of statements he made that were strong against your attitude about this M3 hot topic/button you got but I thought let's wait a little but you are getting worse and worse. Grow up and open some books you might learn something. Even mags will help your case, trust me. Non-mag, race boy.
</font>
------------------
you are not your fukking signature.
Race Director
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,969
Likes: 0
From: NY
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by gavriil:
Here is how Tom2 would answer that:
"Go to the track and find out boy...why do you bother with that math mambo jambo?...heeeeeha"
</font>
Here is how Tom2 would answer that:
"Go to the track and find out boy...why do you bother with that math mambo jambo?...heeeeeha"
</font>
HAHAHAH, very good. Gave me a good laugh. But I still got to find this out. It is driving me insane trying to do all the scenarios. Also about the whole magazine and book thing. I read every book and magazine I can get my hands on. Reading brings in knowledge of not only what you are looking for but a world of other things. Since I can't take all the cars go to the track with similar conditions and drivers I can't compare like that. I need to take the magazines and also take into effect all the other varibles that can effect times. Also garvill that long quote you wrote was very good. That is what comes from reading, intelligence like that. Good job keep it up.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 8
From: Washington DC (NOVA)
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by pgatour1:
HAHAHAH, very good. Gave me a good laugh. But I still got to find this out. It is driving me insane trying to do all the scenarios. Also about the whole magazine and book thing. I read every book and magazine I can get my hands on. Reading brings in knowledge of not only what you are looking for but a world of other things. Since I can't take all the cars go to the track with similar conditions and drivers I can't compare like that. I need to take the magazines and also take into effect all the other varibles that can effect times. Also garvill that long quote you wrote was very good. That is what comes from reading, intelligence like that. Good job keep it up.
</font>
HAHAHAH, very good. Gave me a good laugh. But I still got to find this out. It is driving me insane trying to do all the scenarios. Also about the whole magazine and book thing. I read every book and magazine I can get my hands on. Reading brings in knowledge of not only what you are looking for but a world of other things. Since I can't take all the cars go to the track with similar conditions and drivers I can't compare like that. I need to take the magazines and also take into effect all the other varibles that can effect times. Also garvill that long quote you wrote was very good. That is what comes from reading, intelligence like that. Good job keep it up.
</font>
Whispering: "only if these guys knew that I was really paying you to say all that...hehe"
Hey if you want to solve that fast, read about derivatives. That is what represents the rate of change of anything...in this case...speed.
But of course in all fairness no math formula can take into consideration variables like driver ability. Although even that can be represented in a mathimatical formula it is too complex to prove with our current resources. In the future we might be able to consider for that. Or maybe there IS a formula for that I dont know of it. Maybe in F1? I doubt it though.
But all ELSE CONSTANT, you should be able to find out exactly how much distance of a descrepancy we are talking about here just by using math.
------------------
Gabriel
CL Type S
[This message has been edited by gavriil (edited 04-25-2001).]
Drifting
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
From: Houston
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by maddogtx:
EricL,
Apologies. The message was in fact for rxxxxx.whatever. All I know is that I beat a S2000 by 2+ cars, and that same S2000 beat a CL-S by 1-2 cars. Granted there is always margin of error I should still be able to beat a CL-S. That's all I'm saying. My friend Buddha suggested I run with Webtoker who has Comptech heades, exhaust, VTECH controller, AEM CIA. This should be a much better race. He'll be there Sat. I'll ask if he wants to run, and I'll post afterwards.
</font>
EricL,
Apologies. The message was in fact for rxxxxx.whatever. All I know is that I beat a S2000 by 2+ cars, and that same S2000 beat a CL-S by 1-2 cars. Granted there is always margin of error I should still be able to beat a CL-S. That's all I'm saying. My friend Buddha suggested I run with Webtoker who has Comptech heades, exhaust, VTECH controller, AEM CIA. This should be a much better race. He'll be there Sat. I'll ask if he wants to run, and I'll post afterwards.
</font>
------------------
2001 Acura 3.2 CL Type-S
Comptech Springs, Exhaust, Headers
Denso Spark Plugs
Apexi V-AFC
AEM CAI
[This message has been edited by WebToker (edited 04-25-2001).]
Suzuka Master
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,388
Likes: 1
From: Ninth Gate & So Cal
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
damn gavriil-you typed all that shit in the little reply box??? dude.
</font>
damn gavriil-you typed all that shit in the little reply box??? dude.
</font>
------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI
- Mud guards
- Wheel locks
- Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (48lbs less than stock)
- Kevlar/SS Brake lines ordered
- Comptech headers & sways ready
- Silver AEM CAI ready
- 8 coats of Zaino magic
I am Jack's need 4 SPEED!
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
From: houston, TX
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by EricL:
Hmmm.... cut-and-paste can help
</font>
Hmmm.... cut-and-paste can help
</font>
regarding the M3 v. ESS thing:
i just love the fact that my 'cheapo' car can torment some dude in a beemer.
i'm in it mostly for the fun, tho-the M3's are sweet
------------------
you are not your fukking signature.
Suzuka Master
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 7,388
Likes: 1
From: Ninth Gate & So Cal
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
guess i never have that much to say...i can just picture someone writing a 'paper' in MS Word or something just for the forum. you guys-geez
</font>
guess i never have that much to say...i can just picture someone writing a 'paper' in MS Word or something just for the forum. you guys-geez
</font>
OH BOY, make a suggestion, and a train runs ya down...
------------------
Silver 2001 CL-S with NAVI
- Mud guards
- Wheel locks
- Toyo T1S 235/45ZR17-97W* Proxies on 17x8" SSR Competition wheels (48lbs less than stock)
- Kevlar/SS Brake lines ordered
- Comptech headers & sways ready
- Silver AEM CAI ready
- 8 coats of Zaino magic
Intermediate
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: ny
FYI...the test that had the S2000 at 0-60 in 4.9 seconds was wrong. they actually put the same 0-60 time as the NSX. They also put the NSX braking distance and engine size under the S2000. They noted the correction a few months later.
------------------
93 RX7 R1 don't feel like listing all mods
98 5.9 limited Grand Cherokee K&N gen 2 FIPK
2001 CL-S (w/nav) girlfriends but its as good as mine
------------------
93 RX7 R1 don't feel like listing all mods
98 5.9 limited Grand Cherokee K&N gen 2 FIPK
2001 CL-S (w/nav) girlfriends but its as good as mine
Intermediate
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: Houston, TX
rwwlaw,
As one of your comrades mentioned earlier there was an obvious mistake with MT's numbers. There is no way the S2000 runs a 4.9 0-60. I'm an honest person and will not make crap up to prove a point. Buddha was there and can vouch for me. I believe if driven right the S2000 does low-mid 5's. I raced against an older, more experienced driver so I knew he'd give me a good run.
At least Technique was honest about his post. I absolutely agree that the M3 has the advantage b/c of the manual transmission. Webtoker has agreed to run Sat night so we'll be sure to keep you guys posted.
------------------
'99 BMW M3
Dinan Stage II
As one of your comrades mentioned earlier there was an obvious mistake with MT's numbers. There is no way the S2000 runs a 4.9 0-60. I'm an honest person and will not make crap up to prove a point. Buddha was there and can vouch for me. I believe if driven right the S2000 does low-mid 5's. I raced against an older, more experienced driver so I knew he'd give me a good run.
At least Technique was honest about his post. I absolutely agree that the M3 has the advantage b/c of the manual transmission. Webtoker has agreed to run Sat night so we'll be sure to keep you guys posted.
------------------
'99 BMW M3
Dinan Stage II
Thread Starter
Instructor
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
From: New York
My point about the Road and track comment was such: Many people on this board appear to be quoting the magazines to determine which cars are faster! This was obviously a sarcastic remark on my part and not meant to be taken seriously. I do however give up! This is not the same type of board as others I have been on! I have never met SO MANY keyboard and magazine racers! I wonder how many actually change their own oil. The people this is directed to know who they are. Best of Luck all this is the end of my involvement with this post forgive me for bothering!
Good Night
Good Night
Banned
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,518
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, Illinois
Here is my defense 
:
Alright needle dick, I want quotes! I want quotes on where I had bad stuff to say about the CLS (if ever) WITHOUT pointing out its great performance qualities. Give it up, your making yourself look more stupid everytime you post.
Also, why did you pick 'Technique'? Is it the up and down motion you do with the tweezers and magnifying glass when you watch a porno on Friday night because no 'real' woman wants to see your zit infested ass??
Close this thread already! Its getting to be useless! Hopefully I'll have some results after this weekend when I might have someone in a stock/modded CLS race me.
------------------
'98 Dakar Yellow ///M3
www.BMWExperience.com
Forums are now open at www.BMWExperience.com
0-60 5.53 sec G-Tech
[This message has been edited by M3Sins (edited 04-26-2001).]
:Alright needle dick, I want quotes! I want quotes on where I had bad stuff to say about the CLS (if ever) WITHOUT pointing out its great performance qualities. Give it up, your making yourself look more stupid everytime you post.
Also, why did you pick 'Technique'? Is it the up and down motion you do with the tweezers and magnifying glass when you watch a porno on Friday night because no 'real' woman wants to see your zit infested ass??
Close this thread already! Its getting to be useless! Hopefully I'll have some results after this weekend when I might have someone in a stock/modded CLS race me.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Technique:
I don't have a clue what you are talking about when you say "1989 Corolla".
You always talk in a "bad way" about the Type S, why even deny it? You are hanging out in an Acura Forum and CONTINUOUSLY beating the same dead horse "The Type S isn't as fast as all you people think it is!!!". Dude, no one cares about your opinion. I have seen stock Type S's run 6-flat and others run 7-flat. Who gives a shit? Go to your BMW forum and have a circle jerk with your fellow M3 owners if you want to feel good about yourself.
</font>
I don't have a clue what you are talking about when you say "1989 Corolla".
You always talk in a "bad way" about the Type S, why even deny it? You are hanging out in an Acura Forum and CONTINUOUSLY beating the same dead horse "The Type S isn't as fast as all you people think it is!!!". Dude, no one cares about your opinion. I have seen stock Type S's run 6-flat and others run 7-flat. Who gives a shit? Go to your BMW forum and have a circle jerk with your fellow M3 owners if you want to feel good about yourself.
</font>
'98 Dakar Yellow ///M3
www.BMWExperience.com
Forums are now open at www.BMWExperience.com
0-60 5.53 sec G-Tech
[This message has been edited by M3Sins (edited 04-26-2001).]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jterp7
3G MDX (2014-2020)
9
Feb 3, 2016 08:34 PM