Quarter Mile Times for the new Gen M3?

[The Raptor]

I was talking to a guy here in Edmonton, and he tells me his stock 2002 M3 does 12.6s in the quarter? WTF? Was I stupid to laugh in his face? A stock M3 does 12.6s in Calgary?? Someone please shed some light on this for me?:dunno:

[Ekliptix]

they're not THAT fast

I'm guessing about 13.9? Check a Road & Track or Car & Driver in the back. Or someone here will tell you.

I love those cars sooooooooo much. I saw a black M3 convertible today. I'd personally get a white hard top though.:thumbsup:

[max_boost]

Yah he is shitting you man! Unless he has a supercharged E46M3 no way in hell he can get a 12.6 lol

Kennys AMG ran a 13.6 and he is slightly faster than a stock m3 I believe

Eliptix: Imola Red M3!!!

[The Raptor]

Ya that's what I told that mother.. what a lil shit! One of those daddy's boi's ya know.. he was like "I race in Asia man, you know that right?" ...HAHA I just laughed at him.. I said good for you..wooooo....I said my stock type R runs low 13s...LOL.. what a foo

[Silencer]

Road and Track gives 13.3 for the Euro-spec M3 with 343 DIN bhp.

[Silencer]

I would guess mid to high 13's with our lower-spec version.

[Redlyne_mr2]

owner of fast track ran his m3 last year the week after he bought it...he ran a 13.8 up in edmonton on a 30 degree day

[rage2]

The E46 M3 that ran the AMG pulled a 13.9 at Race City. The AMG pulled consistent 13.7@103mph :D.

When I drove the AMG, all I could get was 13.9. Gotta trim off some fat!

[HOK]

Originally posted by rage2
When I drove the AMG, all I could get was 13.9. Gotta trim off some fat!

HAHAHHA LOL i'm gonna use that excuse from now on too...

wait i only weight 160....

[semasema]

The Euro spec and North American M3 have the same engine and are pretty much the same cars (minor differences include small things like - Euro M3 has 19 inch wheels, North American 18 inch). The M3's hp is 343 DIN (measure used often in Europe) and 333 SAE (measure used often in North America).

Road and Track tested the M3 and they came up with:
1/4 mile - 13.3 seconds at 106.8 mph
0-60 mph - 4.7 seconds

Road and Track tested the SLK32 AMG and came up with:
1/4 mile - 13.5 seconds at 105.2 mph
0-60 mph - 5.0 seconds

From these numbers, it appears that the stock M3 is faster than the stock SLK32.

[rage2]

Originally posted by semasema
Road and Track tested the M3 and they came up with:
1/4 mile - 13.3 seconds at 106.8 mph
0-60 mph - 4.7 seconds

Road and Track tested the SLK32 AMG and came up with:
1/4 mile - 13.5 seconds at 105.2 mph
0-60 mph - 5.0 seconds

From these numbers, it appears that the stock M3 is faster than the stock SLK32.

Alas, one shall not trust bench racing, as we have learned many times on this forum. I have the vids of the runs between the 2 cars on the same night, against each other, so there's no excuses at all. The M3 actually beat kenny boy off the line. Kenny pulled away from 2nd gear on... Kenny also had a near full tank of gas (he's got a habit of forgetting to run the car dry before Secret Street)

I dunno what kinda crack R&T was on when they ran that SLK 32, kenny got 13.5@105mph here in Calgary... 4000ft elevation! The SLK 32 runs 13.0@110mph all day long at sea level, fastest stock SLK 32 timeslip I've seen being 12.9@110mph. Kenny ran 1 run at Mission before it rained, terrible launch (wheelspin up to end of 2nd gear), but managed a 13.5@109mph.

Like I said, if you want to see the vids of the M3 vs SLK 32, I'd be happy to post it up. The M3 is even with the C32, but will get beat every time by the SLK 32.

[T5_X]

C&D tested the AMG at 13.0@110

[Joe Malms]

Originally posted by The Raptor
Ya that's what I told that mother.. what a lil shit! One of those daddy's boi's ya know.. he was like "I race in Asia man, you know that right?" ...HAHA I just laughed at him.. I said good for you..wooooo....I said my stock type R runs low 13s...LOL.. what a foo

since he "races in asia" maybe he meant a stock m3 ran a 12 in the 1/4 km :p

[Stratus_Power]

too bad kenny's amg is automatic :P

[The Raptor]

no way a stock M3 at Calgary's altitude can run a 12.7 off the line. So it was good I laughed in his face...LOL :D

[lammer]

Originally posted by Stratus_Power
too bad kenny's amg is automatic :P


i think they are automatic only.

[T5_X]

Originally posted by The Raptor
no way a stock M3 at Calgary's altitude can run a 12.7 off the line. So it was good I laughed in his face...LOL :D

You should have kicked him in the face too :guns: :rofl:

[semasema]

Originally posted by rage2


Alas, one shall not trust bench racing, as we have learned many times on this forum. I have the vids of the runs between the 2 cars on the same night, against each other, so there's no excuses at all. The M3 actually beat kenny boy off the line. Kenny pulled away from 2nd gear on... Kenny also had a near full tank of gas (he's got a habit of forgetting to run the car dry before Secret Street)

I dunno what kinda crack R&T was on when they ran that SLK 32, kenny got 13.5@105mph here in Calgary... 4000ft elevation! The SLK 32 runs 13.0@110mph all day long at sea level, fastest stock SLK 32 timeslip I've seen being 12.9@110mph. Kenny ran 1 run at Mission before it rained, terrible launch (wheelspin up to end of 2nd gear), but managed a 13.5@109mph.

Like I said, if you want to see the vids of the M3 vs SLK 32, I'd be happy to post it up. The M3 is even with the C32, but will get beat every time by the SLK 32.

Okay, I agree that we always shouldn't trust car mags to give us the best times but I just wanted to post what R&T found. Should there be any credibility in their numbers though? I think so. I don't think any well known car magazine would have complete idiots testing out cars. Therefore I don't think their results should be totally disregarded as rubbish. This thread started off by questioning the M3's times so I decided to look it up along with the SLK's times and as a result of those times it appeared that the M3 was faster.

I never asked to see the vid and I don't care to see the vid. I believe you that the SLK did beat the M3 twice and I am sure that the SLK was on a full tank of gas. But what if the M3 had issues as well? Who knows, maybe the driver of the M3 missed a gear or was not as good of a driver as Kenny?

Whatever the case is, I believe both cars are very close in times. Car and Driver tested the SLK32 and M3 SMG and the SLK32 beat out the M3 SMG.

Car and Driver's times for the SLK are:
1/4 mile - 13.0 sec
0-60 mph - 4.5 sec

while for the M3 SMG (not the typical standard M3)
1/4 mile - 13.4 sec
0-60 mph - 4.8 sec

Should these results be fully disregarded as well? I hope no one is sensitive to these times or the fact that they are from a car mag. I just wanted to show what times other people have gotten. The C32 is also a very fast car but I think the M3 (SMG or standard) is the faster than it any day (stock vs stock).

[rage2]

I'm not even gonna bother with the bench racing. I've raced at least 5 M3's on the street, 1 at the track, and I know the SLK is faster everytime.

The M3 is faster in 1 category... blowing up :D.

[Hakkola]

LOL

[kenny]

Who cares!? When an E46 M3 races the SLK32, sometimes it'll beat it, sometimes it'll lose, depends on the conditions. Under IDEAL conditions for both cars, the SLK32 will edge it out, but by such a small margin. The M3 that I lined up against at Race City had a couple horrible runs where he ran 14.2 or so... but he got it down to 13.9. I'm sure with another driver the M3 could've been a bit quicker, but hey at least he has more car control! (shameless stab at the automatic bashers) haha.

With that said, I kinda wish I have a white e46 m3 cab w/ smg right now... oh well.

[The Raptor]

Originally posted by Ranger_X31


You should have kicked him in the face too :guns: :rofl:

Believe me.. I wanted to :D ... that lil shit...haha

[The Raptor]

Originally posted by semasema


Okay, I agree that we always shouldn't trust car mags to give us the best times but I just wanted to post what R&T found. Should there be any credibility in their numbers though? I think so. I don't think any well known car magazine would have complete idiots testing out cars. Therefore I don't think their results should be totally disregarded as rubbish. This thread started off by questioning the M3's times so I decided to look it up along with the SLK's times and as a result of those times it appeared that the M3 was faster.

I never asked to see the vid and I don't care to see the vid. I believe you that the SLK did beat the M3 twice and I am sure that the SLK was on a full tank of gas. But what if the M3 had issues as well? Who knows, maybe the driver of the M3 missed a gear or was not as good of a driver as Kenny?

Whatever the case is, I believe both cars are very close in times. Car and Driver tested the SLK32 and M3 SMG and the SLK32 beat out the M3 SMG.

Car and Driver's times for the SLK are:
1/4 mile - 13.0 sec
0-60 mph - 4.5 sec

while for the M3 SMG (not the typical standard M3)
1/4 mile - 13.4 sec
0-60 mph - 4.8 sec

Should these results be fully disregarded as well? I hope no one is sensitive to these times or the fact that they are from a car mag. I just wanted to show what times other people have gotten. The C32 is also a very fast car but I think the M3 (SMG or standard) is the faster than it any day (stock vs stock).

I don't think that anyone is bashing for bench racing.. however, if your going by those numbers when you go racing and telling your friends that the M3 runs 13.4 everywhere..well, that's just pretty naive. The way I see it, sometimes track testing of cars occurs at different tracks (different cities, different altitudes) will certainly give diff numbers.. a car tested in Calgary giving a 13.4s run in the quarter mile when taken to Cali will certainly run a lower number guaranteed, simple physics.

Altho I don't know which car is faster.. altho it appears to the SLK32.. All I do know is that the M3 stock running in Calgary will NOT do a 12.7 or 12.6 or anywhere near that... that's all I wanted to confirm... I just wanted the satisfaction of laughing in the guys face....

:thumbsup: :D

[max_boost]

Originally posted by rage2
I'm not even gonna bother with the bench racing. I've raced at least 5 M3's on the street, 1 at the track, and I know the SLK is faster everytime.

The M3 is faster in 1 category... blowing up :D.

SLK is faster only when Kenny is driving, not you! hehe j/k

[max_boost]

Originally posted by kenny
Who cares!? When an E46 M3 races the SLK32, sometimes it'll beat it, sometimes it'll lose, depends on the conditions. Under IDEAL conditions for both cars, the SLK32 will edge it out, but by such a small margin. The M3 that I lined up against at Race City had a couple horrible runs where he ran 14.2 or so... but he got it down to 13.9. I'm sure with another driver the M3 could've been a bit quicker, but hey at least he has more car control! (shameless stab at the automatic bashers) haha.

With that said, I kinda wish I have a white e46 m3 cab w/ smg right now... oh well.

I know of one, no two, actually three people that will be picking up M3 cabs next year hehe Maybe you can trade cars with them!

Regardless, I'm jealous of most cab owners, I want one so bad!!

[semasema]

Originally posted by The Raptor


I don't think that anyone is bashing for bench racing.. however, if your going by those numbers when you go racing and telling your friends that the M3 runs 13.4 everywhere..well, that's just pretty naive. The way I see it, sometimes track testing of cars occurs at different tracks (different cities, different altitudes) will certainly give diff numbers.. a car tested in Calgary giving a 13.4s run in the quarter mile when taken to Cali will certainly run a lower number guaranteed, simple physics.

Altho I don't know which car is faster.. altho it appears to the SLK32.. All I do know is that the M3 stock running in Calgary will NOT do a 12.7 or 12.6 or anywhere near that... that's all I wanted to confirm... I just wanted the satisfaction of laughing in the guys face....

:thumbsup: :D

Yup, it is pretty naive to tell friends that the M3 runs 13.4 everywhere. I don't do that though. I put those numbers up just for everyone here to view (Ekliptix asked for Road and Track and Car and Driver times so I posted them). Like I said, I hope no one takes offence to bench numbers. Place whatever weighting you want, it is your life.

[rage2]

Originally posted by kenny
Who cares!? When an E46 M3 races the SLK32, sometimes it'll beat it, sometimes it'll lose, depends on the conditions. Under IDEAL conditions for both cars, the SLK32 will edge it out, but by such a small margin. The M3 that I lined up against at Race City had a couple horrible runs where he ran 14.2 or so... but he got it down to 13.9. I'm sure with another driver the M3 could've been a bit quicker, but hey at least he has more car control! (shameless stab at the automatic bashers) haha.

With that said, I kinda wish I have a white e46 m3 cab w/ smg right now... oh well.

Way to end my trolling attempt with that Mr Nice Guy comment. Bastard! :D.