Road tests The Official Car Lap Times Thread - Supertest Results / Acceleration / Track Battles etc...

[Frankie G]

Actually Gebhardt did well. His laptime was just 3.3 seconds slower than the laptime done by BMW M test driver Jorg Weidinger.

This is just me -- and I could very well be wrong on this -- but I don't find JW the quickest of factory drivers. I'm sure he's incredibly talented in his field but that M4 CSL time seemed a tad laboured IMO. I feel the M3 CS is capable of so much more...conditions permitting.

BMW ///M isn't doing official laptimes with non CS/CSL variants

I'm still a little curious as to why the M5 CS never got an official timed lap on this day, despite what looks like a prepped and ready-to-go example in the background.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Soup]

Sport Auto Supertest - BMW M3 CS (583 PS / 670 Nm)

NBR - 7:27
Vmax: 290 km/h
Max Lateral G-Force: 1,35g
Air / Asphalt Temperature: 6c / 10c

HHR - 1:52,0
Vmax: 257 km/h
Max Lateral G-Force: 1,25 g
Air / Asphalt Temperature: 6c / 4c

Acceleration:

0-40: 1,0
0-100: 3,4
0-160: 7,0
0-200: 10,9

Slalom 18m: 72,7 km/h
Slalom 36m: 140 km/h

Braking:

100-0(Cold): 37,7 m
100-0(Warm): 32,5 m
200-0(Warm): 129,1 m

200-0 (km/h): 4,6s

0-200-0 (km/h): 15,5s

Tire Brand: Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2
Tire Size: 275/35/19 | 285/30/20

Weight: 1,760 kg
Weight Distribution: 53,9/46,1%

Price as Tested: 162,860 €

Overall Rating (100 points): 78 pts

Driver: Christian Gebhardt

 

[Soup]

Blast from the Past Supertest - Aston Martin DBS

NBR - 8:02
Vmax: 265 km/h
Max Lateral G-Force: 1,25g
Air / Asphalt Temperature: - / -

HHR (Short) - 1:13,5
Vmax: 198 km/h
Max Lateral G-Force: 1,20 g
Air / Asphalt Temperature: - / -

Acceleration:

0-40: 1,6
0-100: 4,6
0-160: 9,5
0-200: 13,8

Slalom 18m: 68,2 km/h

Braking:

100-0(Cold): 34,6 m
100-0(Warm): 34,6 m
200-0(Warm): 140,2 m

Tire Brand: Pirelli P Zero
Tire Size: 245/35/20 | 295/30/20

Weight: 1,727 kg
Weight Distribution: 52,6/47,4%

Price as tested: 240,482 €

Overall Rating (100 points): 62 pts

Driver: Horst von Saurma

 

[Revvd]

They also tested the Mercedes AMG GT63 4Matic in this issue.
They weighed it in at 1,910 kg with full 70 liter tank (54/46 weight distr.)
It posted a 1:18.8 m lap at Anneau du Rhin using Michelin PS 5S MO and cc. brakes (17°C air temp / 21°C track surface)
0-100: 3.2
0-200: 11.5

I can't get over the weight

 

[bmwz4coupe]

They also tested the Mercedes AMG GT63 4Matic in this issue.
They weighed it in at 1,910 kg with full 70 liter tank (54/46 weight distr.)
It posted a 1:18.8 m lap at Anneau du Rhin using Michelin PS 5S MO and cc. brakes (17°C air temp / 21°C track surface)
0-100: 3.2
0-200: 11.5

I can't get over the weight

The 4door or the new coupe?

 

[Bridster]

They also tested the Mercedes AMG GT63 4Matic in this issue.
They weighed it in at 1,910 kg with full 70 liter tank (54/46 weight distr.)
It posted a 1:18.8 m lap at Anneau du Rhin using Michelin PS 5S MO and cc. brakes (17°C air temp / 21°C track surface)
0-100: 3.2
0-200: 11.5

I can't get over the weight

Yeah, not brilliant. Lap time is slow too, as expected. The 992 Turbo (non-S, so only 580PS) did 1:17.8 on P Zeros, so on slower tires as well. No wonder that MB didn't take it to Nurburgring.

 

[Revvd]

The 4door or the new coupe?

Oh, sorry. I forgot to specify. It's the coupe.
(man, does the naming scheme suck for these)

 

[Revvd]

Any predictions for the Nordschleife lap time, anyone?

 

[manuelf]

Sport Auto Supertest - BMW M3 CS (583 PS / 670 Nm)



Weight: 1,760 kg
Weight Distribution: 53,9/46,1%

Price as Tested: 162,860 €

Overall Rating (100 points): 78 pts

Driver: Christian Gebhardt

Here you have it! M3 CS being 5kg HEAVIER than the plain M4 Competition xDrive in the supertest!
Despite weight-measures like carbon front lid, carbon mid-console, titan muffler, lighter wheels ... so they weren't even able to compensate the minimal lighter weight of G82 over G80!
But you pay 40k€ more for 1 or 2 seconds better Nordschleife time!?
At least the ranking done by sport auto perfectly reflects this "disaster": M3CS got 2 points less than M4 Competition xDrive... because value/price does play a small role!

 

[Bridster]

Looking forward to the lap, but no prediction. Them having a full Ferrari team of 14 people "supporting" the test - as always - puts a lot of doubt into how representative of a customer car this will be. The lap time will depend on how much Ferrari decides to message the result.

Sport Auto did a Supertest of the standard SF90 a few years back, but never published the result - presumably because they were stopped by Ferrari who weren't happy with the result.

 

[mihc]

Any predictions for the Nordschleife lap time, anyone?

Since the 296 GTB did 6:59, I would guess that SF90XX should do laptime between 6:47-6:49.

 

[Revvd]

Sport Auto did a Supertest of the standard SF90 a few years back, but never published the result - presumably because they were stopped by Ferrari who weren't happy with the result.

From what I've read on Gebhardt's instagram, the SF90 Supertest was axed due to them being unable to do a Nordschleife lap for whatever reason. I wanna say the weather didn't allow for it, but can't remember exactly.
Since Nordschleife is such a crucial part, and it's what makes a Supertest, they just decided to not publish the rest and skip it in favor of the future SF90 version.

Since the 296 GTB did 6:59, I would guess that SF90XX should do laptime between 6:47-6:49.

That's fair. I would also say 6:4x is warranted over the 6:5x of AMG BS and 992.1 RS

 

[Bridster]

From what I've read on Gebhardt's instagram, the SF90 Supertest was axed due to them being unable to do a Nordschleife lap for whatever reason.

On that same instagram he even posted him driving on the final straight (with the time showing 6:XX:XX) and it was completely dry... So yeah, that "whatever reason" is only one reason.

Ferrari do this all the time. They come up with some time in their simulator that you need to match or exceed. If you do, awesome. If you don't, then they say that the conditions weren't good enough and that maybe you can try later (in translation, never), or that you didn't try enough and it wouldn't be a "fair" representation of their car, so sorry, can't publish it!

Well, that's just my interpretation anyway. Maybe the reason it didn't get published has nothing to do with Ferrari and is uniquely Sport Auto's problem. But I very much doubt it.

 

[Revvd]

I would think Sport Auto has enough integrity to not let Ferrari have any such editorial veto over their articles on a condition that a certain lap time is achieved. That would be a very serious ethical issue on their part.

CG says the last attempt (out of the three) failed because of localized rain in one small part of the track. That thing is so long that one part being dry doesn't mean anything at all.

I could easily picture the car straight up having a mechanical issue and/or a track closure due to crash/oil leak from other car in the industry pool ruining their lap in the other two attempts. Those are much more plausible explanations.
The vagueness only invites speculations such as yours. I'll give you that.
They should honestly just turn all that into an article along with the dyno run and other test results (and driving impressions). It's such a waste to not tell the story.

 

[Bridster]

I would think Sport Auto has enough integrity to not let Ferrari have any such editorial veto over their articles on a condition that a certain lap time is achieved. That would be a very serious ethical issue on their part.

CG says the last attempt (out of the three) failed because of localized rain in one small part of the track. That thing is so long that one part being dry doesn't mean anything at all.

I could easily picture the car straight up having a mechanical issue and/or a track closure due to crash/oil leak from other car in the industry pool ruining their lap in the other two attempts. Those are much more plausible explanations.
The vagueness only invites speculations such as yours. I'll give you that.
They should honestly just turn all that into an article along with the dyno run and other test results (and driving impressions). It's such a waste to not tell the story.

Ethical issues? Yeah, you could say that. I am sure there are many magazines with "ethical issues". The fact is that they probably have no choice. If they do publish, then they get no cars from Ferrari from then on and that's not something they can afford. With the rise of Youtube and other media, magazines sadly don't have the power they've once had.

Just as an example, when Evo was testing the SF90 around Anglesey, they found out that Ferrari have covertly been using race fuel for that test. But, did they turn them away? Did they insist they'd use a normal fuel and rerun the test? Of course not. They just complained but then let the lap time stand like dickless clowns. That's just the reality - manufacturers, especially prominent ones like Ferrari, hold all the power and magazines will go out of their way to not anger them in any way.

Maybe the final reason for the Sport Auto Supertest cancellation was weather, but then you say other two were just crashes, oil leaks or mechanical issues? That's really unlucky, huh. Well, maybe, I don't watch the Supertest closely enough, so I don't know how often these issues arise, or if there has ever been any other car that went through THREE rounds and still haven't been able to complete a lap. Certainly if it also didn't happen to be a Ferrari I would believe it more.

 

[Revvd]

Just as an example, when Evo was testing the SF90 around Anglesey, they found out that Ferrari have covertly been using race fuel for that test. But, did they turn them away? Did they insist they'd use a normal fuel and rerun the test? Of course not. They just complained but then let the lap time stand like dickless clowns. That's just the reality - manufacturers, especially prominent ones like Ferrari, hold all the power and magazines will go out of their way to not anger them in any way.

I'm pretty sure I've read that article, but don't remember any funny business regarding the fuel. I gotta re-read it. Or did that info came about after it was published?

 

[Bridster]

I'm pretty sure I've read that article, but don't remember any funny business regarding the fuel. I gotta re-read it. Or did that info came about after it was published?

No, it was in the article. Can't remember the issue, though.

 

[Bridster]

I'm pretty sure I've read that article, but don't remember any funny business regarding the fuel. I gotta re-read it. Or did that info came about after it was published?

Oh, now I remembered, it wasn't actually Evo and the SF90, but when Autocar tested the 296 GTB.

 

[bmwz4coupe]

Oh, now I remembered, it wasn't actually Evo and the SF90, but when Autocar tested the 296 GTB.

Well, it was a Ferrari of course.
I wonder how much high octane fuel improves the performance compared to normal fuel…?

 

[manuelf]

Well, it was a Ferrari of course.
I wonder how much high octane fuel improves the performance compared to normal fuel…?

I would say: From POV of the OEM it doesn't really matter. With modern FI engines uploading an improved setup to the ECU temporarily before the Test is easier ... nobody cares for durability there.