blktl1

Last night I was on route 23 and a M3 passed me while i was doing about 50. He slowed down and stayed at my side for a few minutes. He gave me a little rev and I said what the hell. We both took off and he slowly pulled About a half a car up to about 110 and then I gained ground and we were neck and neck and about 125. We both pulled over and talked. He was stock and was surprised That I was able to stay with him. I told him that if it was from a stop it would have been a diffrent story. He would have ripped me.

wackjum

I was in my Integra Type R cruising I-10 at about 60 mph when this Ferrari 360 Modena CS pull up beside me. I did the three horn thing and we both gassed it. It was close until 120 mph when my VTEC kicked in and I pulled 6 car lengths.

FiftyFive

i so hope your being sarcastic

wackjum

But I figured this was the making up stories thread anyway.

FiftyFive

but im not too too impressd with the new m3

wackjum

The new one will move. V8 M5 engine. 400 HP

Still, the current one is a force to be reckoned with. It has a max HP at 7,900 RPM. That's higher than the TL even revs.

Lancer Evo's can easily eat up a TL and M3's waste Evo's.

ccasmoe00

You are joking right? I dont think a Stock TL could keep up with an M3 on any straight. No matter if its from the dig or from a roll.

FiftyFive

m5 > m3

TL CHROMETIDE

That's what I thought

nikko

Most likely he didn't try to race you because new M3 is a beast from a stop or at any hwy speeds. This car pulls so fast that if he raced you he would've gotten 10 car lenght before you knew it.
BTW one of my workers has a Subaru WRX turbo (300hp) and and he lost a race to a new M3 few days ago.

Russdaddy

whatwasthat

must of been rebadged.. or soemthing..

NFLblitze1

or....he could just be lying...THERE IS NO WAY AN M3 COULD HAVE EVEN LOST IF IT TRIED TO LOSE

blktl1

You guys all just go by numbers. you think because a car is faster on paper that it is going to be faster in all conditions. Thats just shows you how stupid and arrogant you really are. every car runs different in different conditions and on different days. I agree I thought that it was odd that I was keeping up with an M3 but I did. I even pulled over to talk to the guy and he was impressed. Who knows. There may have been something wrong with his car. maybe his compression was off in a cylinder. I dunno but for all of you who say I am lying. SCREW all of you. I dont really give a shit about what you say or think cause you obviously were'nt there. So all of you can keep on flaming and me a lyer. Have fun boys. NOw I know why I dont post in this column anyway. so F _ _ k all of ya.

Bread-A Spec

yeah for sure.....but if from a stop,i would say WRX turbo will faster than a M3....but after 100km/h,the M3 will kick the WRX ass....

Sarushibai

lol racing is fun

Rock2534

if they both get good launches i don't see how, i think the sti would be right on its ass, but not ahead. And with regards to the TL-M3 run, it could happen, the guy in the M might have just floored it without downshifting while the TL did downshift, that could make them run even probably, cuz otherwise the M would have ran away.

6speedv6

If both cars were rolling on 19's, TL has intake and in 3rd gear from 50 mph and the M3 is also in 3rd gear, blktl1's story sounds very reasonable. I have TL, my brother has a 2001 M3. I've drive them both and when you see the HP and weight #'s, of both cars they are very close. M3 has ~45 more HP (333 vs. ~280), but weights ~150-200 pounds more (3,650 vs. 3,500).

Anyway, from a roll (50 mph in this case) it all comes down to how effectively is the drivetrain putting whatever amount of HP the car has to the ground.

*** 6speedv6 opens new browser window and starts looking for dyno sheets ***

CL Platano

lol...I hope he realizes the M3 was just pacing him.

Russdaddy

Don't take it personal because we second-guessed you. I'd have to see it to believe it. You have a TL that makes 270 HP at the crank(stock) and you come up here bragging that you beat the latest gen M3 and you expect for all of us to be amazed? Cmon man' get real. The first thing I'm gonna mutter is "booolshiet" and let it be known that I don't believe you.

nikko

First of all TL has 270HP not 280 as you mentioned. Second, keep in mind that we are talking about HP at crank not wheels. 2005 TL MT gets approx 220hp at wheels whereas 2005 M3 gets around 300HP at whells.
If you didn't notice a big difference between these two cars while driving them, consider the following:
-your brother's M3 has an engine or transmission problem.
-you didn't know how to push M3 to its limits.
From a roll (50mph) M3 would've killed TL w/o any doubt.
I drove both, 2005 TL MT and 2005 BMW M3 and all I can say is that M3 is on the same league with Evo or WRX!

wackjum

And furthermore, horsepower and torque numbers are not everything.

There's also the issue of redlines, gearing, and such. The M3 engine develops peak horsepower at 7,000 rpm. It still has a lot more to go. The TL engine can't even rev that high.

Even if the M3 and TL put out identical horsepower and torque figures and weighed the exact same, the M3 would win because it could keep itself in a lower gear longer.

chiawei

it depends on how good the M3 driver is. Also if it is SMG or 6 speed.

If the M3 is SMG and is cruising at high gear it will suffer greatly in acceleration, as SMG will protect itself from over revving by delaying down shift of more than one gear.

Unless you are in M3 power band, it is very easy to drive M3 slowly.

zerorwhp

Any E46 M3 (SMG or 3-pedal stick) is faster than any stock or bolt-on TL. End of discussion.

6speedv6

The TL has a CAI. Some claim more that 10Hp.

The % of power loss for both cars is about the same, meaning the difference at the wheels for both cars gets reduced almost the same amount. Also consider the 19" rims on the TL. Don't know about the b'mer.

No problems there.

Well, why don't you show me that on a road course. I'll let you keep up at VIR, if you have what it takes to show up.

https://acurazine.com/forums/automotive-news-6/toyota-corolla-news-120386/

According to that, C5 vettes are above. And I've had C5's for lunch at VIR.

Then again, I beat the drivers, NOT the cars.

nikko

Well your last statement is right....the only way to beat an M3 is when its driver doesn't have a clue how to drive it.
However most of M3 drivers are very "seasoned" so it's very unlikely that even a modded TL would be a serious competitor for a 2005 M3(from dig or roll).

ONAGER

first off there are 2 types of M3 drivers, those who want the rewards of the "perfect driving machine" and posers who want to be seen in an "m" badge car.... i have raced a M3 before, and while i wont claim that i won, i wouldnt say i got an outright spanking either.... the tl held its own very well

http://www.bimmerwerkz.com/forum/sho...ter+mile+times

here is a post (on a bimmer forum no less) where an m3 acknowleges that he got beat by an r32, now correct me if i am wrong, but the r32 vr6 only has 240 hp right? even with mods i dont see him gaining enough hp to make a huge difference... its all about gearing and power... the bmw driver admitted to being at too low rpm (3000 when the rolling race started) and his ass got walked...

yes the tl is only fwd but that matters far less from a roll then a stop, the tls drivetrain is very efficent, many stock manual tls have pulled 225-230 on the dyno stock.... thats only about a 15% loss. with a loss of 15% that puts the bimmer at 280hp, and with a more typical 18% loss (rear wheel drive is known to suck up a bit more power) he would be at about 270hp... either way the tl is behind, but the tl has a very wide usable power band, the bimmers is more "peaky" it produces great # but there all up high, catch it ouside of its power band and the car wont be very quick.....

its really all about the driver, i have seen 600 hp mustangs (347 supercharged stroker) lose to 400hp bimmers (turbo m3), its not all power and times the car is capable of, its the driver and the conditions at the time you run

ONAGER

pure bullshit... thanks for pointing this out....

an m3 can rev higher then a viper, can the m3 outrun the viper?
also the s 2000 revs higher then the m3 can the s2000 out run the m3?

revs although important dont mean a whole lot.... it all about weight, horespower, and gearing..... plain and simple

my 2004 yamaha roadstar warrior only revs up to 5000 rpm (big v twin) and on top of that it ONLY 85HP, 0-60 i would whip nearly any car on the road, my bike runs the quarter mile in 12.5 at 105mph, also enough to beat nearly any car... now above that my bike will lose, first off, it revs out at 130mph (most cars can top this #), and it doesnt have enough hp to go much faster (from 100 and up my bike will lose ground).... but the gearing and weight allow to whoop almost anything i stage against (for the races i do)....

my friend has a ninja 600, his bike has 120hp 35 more then my bike, 0-60 he's all mine, sometimes 3-4 bike lengths back... after that all i see are his tail lights.... but if it was only a 0-60 race, id eat him for lunch, and his bike redlines at 14,500... 3 times what my warrior does.... my gearing and powerband is far better for stop light runs....

sbuswell

my friend used to have a 98 M3, i think it put out about 287HP and it was a MT. I drove it and it was fast, but not much faster than my car. i am sure it was faster, but i didn't "feel" faster. now the new M3 is 333HP, that's a 46HP difference and I am sure it would "feel" a lot faster and be a lot faster than my car and I can keep up with 3rd gen AT TL's all day long easy.

wackjum

Thanks for proving how ridiculous you actually are.

I meant if given the torque/horsepower figures were exactly the same, the revs would still make the difference. Wait, I didn't mean that. I wrote that. Read it in my post.

ericajackhannahjamie?

fight nice guys

ndx2

welllll, the figures can't be EXACTLY the same if one revs higher the other, can it? But I'm sure you were just referring to peak ratings, which really don't mean shit.

I think you're thinking about the importance of the powerband being linear and wide.

Gearing is still more important, imo.

ONAGER

exactly my point... bonus points for you...

chiawei

If the M3 driver knows how to drive than the above statement would be true.

But there are a lot of M3 owners out there simply don't know how to drive.

Like i said, if you caught M3 in wrong gear, you could win easily. M3 is really punchless under 3500 RPM.

SaNJoSeTLRydEr

from wat i know..the M3 is one fast car...i dont think our TL can compare to it..its out of our league....if our TL got supercharge or turbo or watever to make our car faster den we maybe can compete with it....but yeah like blktl1 said..he was already rolling..so it would be a different story...but i dont think our TL can compete with the M3 anytime soon...

wackjum

My actual point is that the M3 is set up for racing (speed) whereas the TL is not. The higher rev limit is a good indication of this.

Between two theoretical cars with the same paper stats (HP and torque) but one with a higher redline, that one will pull longer and therefore be quicker on the accel. It will also have a higher top speed.

The NSX and S2000 were all built on this idea.

For an example of this, look at the Integra GS-R vs the Integra Type R. Here are the stats:
GS-R | 170hp @ 7,600 | 128 lb/ft @ 6,200
ITR | 195hp @ 8,000 | 130 lb/ft @ 7,500

Admittedly, gearing is different. So is the suspension. But primarily, the engine in the ITR can rev a lot higher and pull longer. This is what makes this car so much quicker than a normal Integra.


In context of the M3 vs TL discussion:

The M3 is a vehicle built for speed and acceleration. The TL is not. I don't know what the gearing ratios for the M3 and TL are. I do know the peak HP of the M3 comes higher than the TL. This alone tells me the M3 is going to have the advantage (moreso from a rolling run). When you figure in the higher HP, the M3 clinches the victory.

As for ONAGER.

You didn't have to call pure bullshit and throw up stupid examples of an S2000 vs a Viper. Don't read people's posts and pick out singular words to latch onto. Your example of a bike vs cars was pathetic and non-applicable to the current discussion. Your example of racing your friend's Ninja was also not very relevant.

Since you don't read people's posts in their entirety, I'll summarize the TL/M3 racing story for you:

A TL met an M3 on the highway, already moving at 50 mph. The race went up to 110 mph.

At what point did my summary or the original post mention "0" "60" or "standing start"?

MegaKillTron

hey wackjum what part of houston are you in?

EXLAX_MAN

more kill stories.... :silvercup

ONAGER

dude chill out and pull the panties out of you ass, lets not get into a big fight over bacically nothing.... you wont convince me and i wont convince you....

however i do stand by my original stmt that an engines ability to rev has very little to do with that cars abilty to accelerate.... in most cases the motors that can rev up that high are smaller displacement and they are peaky in there power delivery. and if you dont rev them out they are just not that fast.... the s2000 is wicked quick when you beat it, but from a rolling start at low rpm the cars a dog... many "professionals" (aka, the people who write for car and driver, and road and track) have said that, and although i dont own an s2000 a guy i work with does, we have gone out on many occations, below 6000 rpm the cars got nothing, once on the cam the car will scream. the m3 and for that matter the integra type r are the same way, there power is all up high, the power comes on hard in the upper part of the rev range...

now what does this have to do with anything? well you said the engine with the higher redline can stay in gear longer which means its faster WRONG....
although the engine will rev up higher, the gearing is also shorter to take advantage of the engines powerband (up high). the cars gearing is always going to correspond with the rev abilty of the motor... if a motor doesnt rev that high, the gears must be taller, or else you be shifting very quickly and you would run out of gear... the higher a motor revs the shorter the gears can be

example, my old car a contour svt topped out at 58 mph at the top of second gear, it only had a 6750rpm readline, my friend dave has a 89 civic crx with a b16, in second he will hit 60 mph at the top of second gear with his redline set at 8250, so although my cars redline was 1500 less, the the difference in mph at the top of second gear was less then 2 mph, although his reved up higher, my cars longer gearing meant we were doing almost the same mph at redline.... (and as an aside, his car was a dog below 5250 rpm when his cam switched over)...

why use this particular example? i know him, i know both cars very well (i helped put the motor in his car). and the cars peak horsepower ratings were pretty similar, both had 5 speed manual transmissions, and both are fairly small displacement (and a b16 falls in the same family as your integra example) ... his car would out accelerate mine, but that was due to a huge weight advantage (his car tipped the scales at only 1950 lbs with him in it!!). top speed? his car topped out at about 125 bouncing off the limiter, my contour kept pulling all the way to 143, if my max rpm is 1500 lower why is this wackjum? because my car had taller gearing... yet another example of why "gearing" not rpm is more of a deciding factor in this situation

it would be great if all motors produced the same hp on paper but they dont, and the amt of hp the produce is as numerous as how they produce it, chevy and dodge go large displacement (and relativly low rpm) hondas are small displacement that scream up 9000rpm, bmw has for the most part is like honda as they build high rpm screamers. catch one outside of its power band and they are not quick, keep the rpm up they can oull extremely hard

also i used the bike anology only because i again have first hand knowlege of them, and it again is a fairly clear cut example of how gearing determines acceleration more then how high an engine will rev.... and your right compareing bikes to cars isnt fair, but thats why i used my friends bike as an example, his bike has a close ratio transmission, mine does not, our gearing is significanly different. as is the way the motor works and how it produces power... and how they accelerate as well

also i did read the entire post, which is why i went on the internet and found a story (on a bimmer website no less) where a m3 lost a race from a rolling start, and the driver admitted to losing because he had the car in to high of a gear for the race.... now who is or is not reading the other ones post?

wackjum

Your point is taken on gearing.

Still, I stand by what I initially and still believe. The higher rev is a clear indication to me that the M3 is setup for accel whereas the TL is not. I did not look at gearing because I frankly don't know the specifics of the M3 or the TL.

I do know that on paper, the M3 and TL have almost similar torque figures. The M3 has an extra 50 or so horsepower. The M3 weighs more. I also did not and have not looked at the powerbands.

Armed with this information, the higher rev on the M3 points to a car that has a CLEAR paper advantage from a roll. Specifically what this race was concerning. Have I said anything wrong yet?