Car Talk - Non S2000 General Motoring and Non S2000 Car Talk

Chalk and Cheese

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:19 PM
  #131  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

Originally Posted by Nottm_S2,Mar 28 2009, 09:18 PM
feel free to quote something different
From the log book.
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:29 PM
  #132  
CiderBoy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,070
Likes: 0
From: Brizzle
Default

Originally Posted by Moggy,Mar 28 2009, 09:18 PM

You are right about the E90M3 Vs E39M5 - New M3 has a bit of a weight advantage.
I know I'm right... and Gad is wrong!

I wonder if he has now dipped below 90%? He won't be happy!
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:34 PM
  #133  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

Well, you are right and you are wrong.

Those numbers would suggest the E90 is as fast as the E60 M5 - which it isn't.
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:39 PM
  #134  
CiderBoy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,070
Likes: 0
From: Brizzle
Default

Originally Posted by Moggy,Mar 28 2009, 09:34 PM
Well, you are right and you are wrong.

Those numbers would suggest the E90 is as fast as the E60 M5 - which it isn't.
Pull the other one!

I never made the comparison, but it was clearly the E39 M5 vs the E90 M3 and it was clearly wrong.

In terms of the E90 vs the E60 there is no doubt that the M5 is the quickest.

So... I was not wrong (I have a higher being right SLA than Gad does!)
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:42 PM
  #135  
gaddafi's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
Default

Originally Posted by Moggy,Mar 28 2009, 09:34 PM
Well, you are right and you are wrong.

Those numbers would suggest the E90 is as fast as the E60 M5 - which it isn't.
quite

Ciderboy's figures for the M3 are fantasy

I've driven two

they certainly did not feel like sub 4.5 secs to 60, let alone sub 10secs to 100

there would be no reason for such a performance advantage

as I have already posted, the weight difference is negligible, the bhp difference is negligible and the E39 torque is way up on that of the M3

the performance is closely matched - very similar to the E46 M3
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:48 PM
  #136  
CiderBoy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,070
Likes: 0
From: Brizzle
Default

Originally Posted by gaddafi,Mar 28 2009, 11:24 AM
as I posted in my M5 thread, compare the new M3 to the old M5:

M3 only 40kg lighter - that's before you add any extras......
I think this is probably leading to your incorrect conclusion Gad.

I thought the new M3 was signficantly lighter than the old M5.

Off to find the stats...
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:50 PM
  #137  
MB's Avatar
MB
Member
Member (Premium)
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 33,838
Likes: 23
From: Sunshine Coast - England UK
Default

You have driven the E90 M3 V8, Gad?

Thoughts?
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:51 PM
  #138  
gaddafi's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
Default

Originally Posted by CiderBoy,Mar 28 2009, 09:48 PM

I thought the new M3 was signficantly lighter than the old M5.
not so

the new M3 is 40kg lighter than the old M5 - before you add any extras

to all intents and purposes, there were no extras for the E39 M5 that could add weight
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 01:54 PM
  #139  
gaddafi's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 31,739
Likes: 69
From: Survivalist enclave
Default

Originally Posted by MB,Mar 28 2009, 09:50 PM
You have driven the E90 M3 V8, Gad?

Thoughts?
no faster than my M5 and no more kit- why spend another
Reply
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 02:07 PM
  #140  
CiderBoy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,070
Likes: 0
From: Brizzle
Default

Mmmmm...

E90 M3 quoted as 1605k here.

E39 M5 quoted as 1720k here. I've seen other higher figures.

Where did you get your figures from Gad?

Not wikipedia?
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:12 AM.