M3/M4 (SportAuto) And the M3 GTS Nurburgring lap time is....

[Sunny]

Also the Contis on the GTS are better than the CUP+ as well.

So let me get this straight, you class the Porsche situation the same as that of the two BMWs, where in the case of the Beemers the improvement was only 2 whole seconds and with the Porsche it was 17 seconds.

The GTS uses Pirreli corsas not contis. Once again your facts are wrong.

But the bigger question is, do you actually suffer from ADD or just fake it? Your earlier argument was GTS was only 17 secs faster than E92 M3, while CSL was 32 secs faster than E46 M3, NOT that GTS was only 2 secs faster than CSL, we all know that. Here is your quote:

The CSL with only 17 more horsepower and weighing 110kgs less lapped a full 32s quicker, the GTS with an extra 30hp and weighing 75kgs less can only lap 17s.

Which is why I used the Porsche example to show how stupid that argument is - the 996 GT3 RS is 30 secs faster than normal 996 while 997 GT3 RS is only 17 secs faster than normal 997.

Anyway I am done wasting my time with you, pretty convinced that your posts belong to some 'special' internet. Hopefully some mod will realize soon enough your stupidity is not amusing anymore and ban you.

 

[bum-man]

I have some doubts about the track too, but then again it would have been severely irresponsible for SportAuto to test a car with semi-slicks on a high speed track that is damp.

 

[DeDe]

Didn't they also test Carrera GT in wet and then test it again in dry later?

That was done on partly wet track, that's why they didn't post the exact time, just <7.40 min. After that von Saurma did a 7.32 min with that particular testcar. That was the last time they post "semi-wet" time in Supertest.

 

[south]

no im not im proving it was that's why you have the video of one of the three runs clearly showing wet spots..

Enough! Here's a Sportauto video of some promo shots during the GTS supertest: Videos und Web-TV zur Nordschleife, Motorsport und Automessen | Sportauto

If your logic is true (which I doubt), this proves that the GTS test was performed in the dry. If your logic is not true, we can continue believing Sportauto's claim that they only do their tests in the dry. Either way, it was dry.

Lap times is not on some linear scale than decreases proportionally with every extra HP gained or weight saved. There are just too many variables especially when you base you whole argument on one lap time from 4 cars (E46 M3, CSL, E92 M3, GTS) from years apart with different specs, tires, everything.

That are great points, and I'm thankful that you mentioned them.

We also need to consider that the Michelin Cup tires the CSL had are more extreme than the Pirelli Zero Corsas of the GTS.

All of that being said, the N-Ring result is disappointing. Not so much in comparison to other M3 models (IMO), but because it's missing BMW's claim.


Best regards,
south

 

[hilalpro]

Enough! Here's a Sportauto video of some promo shots during the GTS supertest: Videos und Web-TV zur Nordschleife, Motorsport und Automessen | Sportauto

If your logic is true (which I doubt), this proves that the GTS test was performed in the dry. If your logic is not true, we can continue believing Sportauto's claim that they only do their tests in the dry. Either way, it was dry.


That are great points, and I'm thankful that you mentioned them.

We also need to consider that the Michelin Cup tires the CSL had are way more extreme than the Pirelli Zero Corsas of the GTS.

All of that being said, the N-Ring result is disappointing. Not so much in comparison to other M3 models (IMO), but because it's missing BMW's claim.


Best regards,
south

are you kidding me? never i said ever the m3 gts northloop laptime was wet or semi wet i was and still against the "sportauto never test semi wet laps" logic my logic is 100% correct and go read this thread's first page.. you can also find the video that im talking about..


you can think what you want (i doubt your logic) but i have a video showing a semi wet lap during the three runs of the gt3 7:40

 

[south]

are you kidding me? never i said ever the m3 gts northloop laptime was wet or semi wet

Great, and nothing else than the GTS matters in this thread.


Best regards,
south

 

[hilalpro]

Great, and nothing else than the GTS matters in this thread.


Best regards,
south

then We know that but we have to prove what we want, or else we should open a new thread for every body trying to reply to a thought..

but because it's missing BMW's claim.

that's not why, almost every IT is slower than FC in the Northloop.. i think the ring is not suitable for it.. or the car is really what it is..

 

[footie]

The GTS uses Pirreli corsas not contis. Once again your facts are wrong.

But the bigger question is, do you actually suffer from ADD or just fake it? Your earlier argument was GTS was only 17 secs faster than E92 M3, while CSL was 32 secs faster than E46 M3, NOT that GTS was only 2 secs faster than CSL, we all know that.

You are quite right I was mistaking the M3 for the GTS rubber spec.

Now let discuss the rubber, corsas compared to CUP and CUP+, the simply answer is they sit between them though they are actually closer to the originals in dry grip ability. So as I continue to state, with grippier rubber, superior hp and torque everywhere in the rev range, M-DCT compared to manual, less weight and a supposably race developed suspension it was only able to improve 17s on the stock M3 and 2s against an older (7yrs) design with less power and torque to weight ratio.

Which is why I used the Porsche example to show how stupid that argument is - the 996 GT3 RS is 30 secs faster than normal 996 while 997 GT3 RS is only 17 secs faster than normal 997.

I am not 100% sure but I believe the 996 GT3 used the same original CUP tyres as the CSL used compared to the CUP+ of the latest version, yet Porsche still improved that car's time by 17s compared to BMW's effort of 2s. A valid reason for using it as an example in my book.

Anyway I am done wasting my time with you, pretty convinced that your posts belong to some 'special' internet. Hopefully some mod will realize soon enough your stupidity is not amusing anymore and ban you.

I'm curious as to your name on other forums as I'm sure it isn't sunny. But once again I will remind you that I have NEVER insulted you, so maybe it's time for the mods to step in a curb your remarks because I am starting to get tried of them. There is no need to resort to such behaviour when we are all adults.

 

[Sunny]

Lol, I don't why I bother to reply, but maybe because poking holes in your idiotic posts is so easy, I am afraid I actually might be enjoying it - sort of like watching Jerry Springer show or jack ass - guilty pleasure and instant gratification, but you actually feel more stupid later.

Now let discuss the rubber, corsas compared to CUP and CUP+, the simply answer is they sit between them though they are actually closer to the originals in dry grip ability.

Can you provide even one link to back up this claim? If not, like most of your other posts, it is just conjecture and assumptions on your part that you try to pass off as facts.

I am not 100% sure but I believe the 996 GT3 used the same original CUP tyres as the CSL used compared to the CUP+ of the latest version, yet Porsche still improved that car's time by 17s compared to BMW's effort of 2s. A valid reason for using it as an example in my book.

Instead of 996 GT3 RS vs 997 GT3 RS mk2, let me use 997 GT3 RS mk 1?

996 GT3 RS (380HP) - 7:47
997 GT3 RS mk1 (415 HP) - 7:48

Oh wait, what it is slower??? hmmm wonder what Footie's spaghetti logic says in this case.

ps. For the more sane people, still reading these silly posts, my point is not which is faster/slower, but the idiocy in looking at one lap time set years apart and creating conspiracy theories.

I'm curious as to your name on other forums as I'm sure it isn't sunny. But once again I will remind you that I have NEVER insulted you, so maybe it's time for the mods to step in a curb your remarks because I am starting to get tried of them. There is no need to resort to such behaviour when we are all adults.

No we are not all adults here. It would be a huge stretch of imagination to pass off your the unsubstantiated crap load you post here as coming from an adult. And it is not this one time, it is multiple threads/topics starting with you claiming how hanging an engine from in the front of the front axis as no effect on a car's dynamics to how M3 being tested against the RS5 was a stripped out ringer despite South providing facts to otherwise to how you have 'inside information' on whole Porsche/VW saga to your attempts to redefine what 'bogging down' just cause there was a video of the RS5 doing it. If you want to make a credible claim, do some research and substantiate it with facts - not bull shit and innuendos followed by a stupid "".

 

[AdvEvo]

The GTS is too heavy and too expensive for a car that does 7.48 on the ring.

A GT3 clubsport does 7.40 and is cheaper too buy. You must have very big bmw glasses on, if you even consider the GTS as a trackday weapon.

The GTS was a good package if the car had cost aproxx 90.000 euro. But at 138.000 it is of course far too expensive for what you get.

The 125 which are already sold is an easy job of course. Most of the cars are bought by people who are collectors of bmw and 125 people are easy to find within europe. The most orange GTS are put away in garages instead of driving it hard on trackdays always a few exception of course.


Bmw did completely wrong with the GTS. They should make 1///M coupe for drivers which is affordable and is a car which is not to expensive to go full attack on track. That s image maker for bmw.

PS the Corsa tires used on the GTS have more grip than the Pilot sport cup. A friend of mine tested both on his car.

 

[footie]

^ what, someone else that rates the corsas superior to the CUP+. Hope you don't receive the same treatment from a certain member how frankly should have been reigned in by now.

Back to the GTS, I completely agree, for the money and dare I say the stats it should delivery in buckets, especially with past history, the CSL achieved so much from far less, the E9? M3 exceeds all hopes yet here we have a car which isn't living up to the hype or price tag, it fact that it's probably incredible fun to drive isn't quite enough for the type of punser who buys these cars, it's results on the track that matter. If it were one and a half times the M3 then we would all be praising these results but at the moment we aren't.

 

[330CIZHP]

It is still difficult for me to believe that GTS would be that much slower than a GT3, let alone GT3 RS. It has everything going for it. Gearbox, engine, power, torque, chassis balance, weight distribution etc.

I am not entirely convinced SportAuto is NOT biased towards Porsche.

I mean, Horst Von Saurma is one of Porsche's Nurburgring 24-hours race car driver for the Porsche 911 GT3 Cup car so naturally he understands Porsches a lot better than other cars.

 

[Sunny]

^ what, someone else that rates the corsas superior to the CUP+. Hope you don't receive the same treatment from a certain member how frankly should have been reigned in by now.

Ah, nice try trying to club yourself with AdEvo. He said Corsas are even better than cups, which is not what you claimed, according to your fictitious claims it was between cup and cup+.

But the big difference is he has credibility and you don't. His racing/drifting videos back up his claims, and you? nada.

It is still difficult for me to believe that GTS would be that much slower than a GT3, let alone GT3 RS. It has everything going for it. Gearbox, engine, power, torque, chassis balance, weight distribution etc.

I am not entirely convinced SportAuto is NOT biased towards Porsche.

I mean, Horst Von Saurma is one of Porsche's Nurburgring 24-hours race car driver for the Porsche 911 GT3 Cup car so naturally he understands Porsches a lot better than other cars.

I think it is not fair to blame any one of bias with out proof. HVS is been a professional driver/journalist and been doing this for a long time so really not fair to blame him of bias just cause the result is not what we expect. I think GTS is at the level of GT3 mk1, but Porsche moved the game along considerably with mk2 and that is what the result shows.

 

[hilalpro]

that's a damned shame for BMW look at this! vs 996 GT3 rs
http://www.fastestlaps.com/comparisons/458effc68f06a-vs-_BMW_M3_GTS.html

IMO
put the 400hp Power mods of alpina( production B3 S) in a 135i ((e82) performance option) add that gts spoiler and tires to it and it would smoke this in almost every way..

lightness and torque is the key here along with semi slick tires and the spoiler ..

 

[footie]

I think GTS is at the level of GT3 mk1, but Porsche moved the game along considerably with mk2 and that is what the result shows.

Where as Porsche continue to improve with each replacing version of their most focused trackday car BMW fail to make much more than a token improvement of 2 seconds. It may well be a great car but it's hardly a giant leap forward over the several year old design of the CSL and yet they are asking a ridiculous price for such a small improvement. GT3 money for a car little quicker than a C2S with PDK.

Now, the above argument has substance if you believe that either the 7:48 time of the GTS is typical or the one which I believe is the more likely, that the time of 7:50 achieved for the CSL was a freak, a one off that was never repeated. If you entertain the notion that the CSL is a light car with limited power then it should be better with short/technical courses like Hockenheim compared to quicker courses where peak speed plays a role like is the case with the N-ring. I think a good gauge of the CSL is the latest Cayman S with PDK, similar weight (1385kg vs 1375kg) and their respective performance is almost identical as is their track times else where, Tsukuba the difference is only 0.15s in favour of the Porsche and in Hockenheim it's 0.4s in favour of the BMW. But the difference between the two at the N-ring is huge, 16s of difference is unthinkable.

So I ask the question, is the GTS such a failure in only beating the CSL by 2s or is the more likely thing that the CSL's time of 7:50 a one off freak which will never be seen again. If your opinion is like mine and the CSL is the odd one out then BMW's achievements with the GTS don't appear to be that bad and only is it's price a failing.

 

[Mr Robert]

I don't think the time by the CSL is a one-off as there is nothing to suggest that. Nothing at all.

Furthermore, times set by BM on Tsukuba are.. well.. take a look here:

 

[footie]

^ I was simply offering up a notion comparing similar cars with similar performance on similar tracks with similar times. You have the Cayman S and CSL with near enough identical acceleration, so neither car is able to put away on the straights, I am also nearly sure that the Cayman S was on similar r-compound rubber which makes these comparisons even more relevant. Plus your time you are quoting for the CSL at Tsukuba is wrong, it's 1:06.88 and not 1:08.33.

Here is a direct comparison between the CSL and Cayman S with PDK.

Tsukuba : 1:06.88 vs 1:06.655
Hockenheim Short : 1:13.5 vs 1:13.9
0-100 km/h : 4.8 vs 4.5
0-200 km/h : 16.7 vs 17.0
Quarter mile time : 12.968 vs 12.9
Power/weight ratio : 0.19 vs 0.17

N-ring : 7:50 vs 8:06

You are perfectly within your right to disagree with me that the CSL time is wrong but I don't recall (rightly or wrongly) anyone repeating that time or even getting close at any point since which does seem rather odd. Now if I am wrong and someone can show data that has the CSL posting similar times at the ring then we must all conclude that the GTS is indeed failing the sum of it's parts on a track where it's development was born.

 

[Mr Robert]

If the 1:08:33 is wrong, in your opinion (I got the figure from the old BM website), that could be because they have tested the car more than one time.

Look at the contemporary 996 Turbo. Quite consistant. I'm not sure how much difference there is in the actual track, in terms of condition, betweem 2003 and 2010... but I would guess that the condition isn't static, not only in terms of weather, but also in condition of tarmac.

 

[footie]

If the 1:08:33 is wrong, in your opinion (I got the figure from the old BM website), that could be because they have tested the car more than one time.

Look at the contemporary 996 Turbo. Quite consistant. I'm not sure how much difference there is in the actual track, in terms of condition, betweem 2003 and 2010... but I would guess that the condition isn't static, not only in terms of weather, but also in condition of tarmac.

Hey, I only trying to make a case for the 7:48 time of the GTS, playing devil's advocate so to speak in suggesting that the CSL might well be the red herring here, if you look at cars with similar performance and track times else where and no that the GTS has made little headway in the pass seven years.

I think the most telling thing in this discuss will be if the CSL ever repeated this kind of time, if not then I think it's isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the time it achieved was a freak one off and not consistant with the stats of the car and it's data else where.

 

[Mr Robert]

...and I'm just saying that the CSL performed very consistently compared to the contemporary Porsche 911 Turbo. Just saying.

I don't know if anyone else really do run and report Nurburgring times like SA.