Well if you wanna do mag racing then the best an M3 ran was a 13.1 with a 0-60 of 4.7. Also if youre refering to me as the owner of the "Superior vehicle" you have me mistaken, i dont own an M3. But i have a friend who is interested to see a race between his M3 and the STI. We all know that off the line the STI has it. But what is not so clear is the roll on race, i think it will be close and that nobody is going to hand anyone there ass rather its going to be ending with maybe a car length between the two IMO. Both are great cars and i think we should do a roll on with them to settle this.Originally posted by Silver04Sti
Ok....enough horse s***.....this will be the only magazine racing I do on this thread but I'm sick of the "it can't be realistic to win a race with a mighty m3", let's look at some magazines I have in my possession for what its worth:
if you look at the September 1 '03 issue of Autoweek there is a write up about the Sti....and within that article the quote is as follows: "It's also three-tenths of a second better than the BMW M3 and four-tenths of a second better than the Mercedes AMG C32, both of which we tested last year".........
Motor Trend June 03" Sti 4.87/13.23
It did not have road test results in that issue but the mar 03 showed the m3 at 5.0/13.4.
Car and Driver June 03 Sti 4.6/13.2
Car and Driver Dec 02 BMW M3 4.8/13.4
Based on those stats, why is it sooooo unbelievable that an sti can take an m3 even if the m3 has more hp? Excluding the above, if you consider the Sport Compact thread where a stock sti ran 12.75 and 12.79 respectively in two runs, why is it such a shock? Not familiar with an m3 running 12's stock. I've seen no magazine to show stock times in that range, none!
What you guys are missing in your "not realistic" argument is torque. Its torque that really propels a car, not hp so although the m3 has more crank hp than the sti the stats above show that an "underpowered" car can take the higher hp m3 based on torque. I would love to see a torque to torque curve comparison of the two cars. Hell, even in previous posts m3 guys complained about the low end torque of the car.
Yes, its embarrassing that a 60K car can get beat by a car at half the cost but the statistics i've seen thus far for comparison have only supported that argument.
So if the guy from Lauderdale can get a few takers to run his "superior" vehicle, that's great.....I hope there is some data on this match up but from what i've seen and actually done myself against the same car (in my 02) I would venture to say that its the m3 owners who will be surprised by the results.