combfilter

iTrader: (3)

Yes I know you guys can flame away all you want. I know you hate autospies, but I watched how this was calculated. In theory, based on the numbers here is the potential of the car.

Old dos program, but the physics are still the same.

It's basically the gearing that helps the IS-F. Larger rear tires, 2 low gears, traction control. this formula has been right on the money so far in the past.

Flame all you want, but here you go.
http://www.autospies.com/news/Does-L...ew-IS-F-21370/

Calculated 0-60 Times
4.4 secs. – 2008 Lexus IS-F
4.4 secs. – 2008 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG
4.7 secs. - 2008 BMW M3
4.8 secs. – 2008 Audi RS4 (450hp est)
4.9 secs. – 2007 Audi RS4

Calculated 0-100 Times
10.3 secs. – 2008 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG
10.5 secs. - 2008 Lexus IS-F
10.8 secs - 2008 Audi RS4 (450hp est)
11.1 secs. - 2008 BMW M3
11.3 secs. - 2007 Audi RS4

Calculated ¼ Mile Times
12.7 secs. @ 112.60 mph - 2008 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG
13.0 secs. @ 110.10 mph - 2008 Lexus IS-F
13.2 secs. @ 110.60 mph - 2008 BMW M3
13.2 secs. @ 108.20 mph - 2008 Audi RS4 (450hp est)
13.4 secs. @ 106.70 mph - 2007 Audi RS4

Yes we know there's a lot involved. But if you take the same numbers for each car, this is what you get. This isn't some program that has lets say 2 parameters.

flame away, but i bet this accurate to .1x on 0-60.

Cornellian

Hmmmm.... interesting!

The HP/TQ figure I predicted was pretty darn close, but the HP is a little off. Guess I was expecting that since, I didn't consider valve timing and didn't have exact numbers for the Rod Ratio... So, the error between theory and actual is about 8-10%.... not bad!

I'll probably make another program to figure out 0-60 and 1/4 mile times and see if it matches your's....

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

It would be extremely disappointing if the C63 was the only one of those cars that could get into the 12s very easily...

But anyways, I could swear Road & Track (or was it Car and Driver) have already done a preview of the M3 where they tested the 1/4 in somewhat poor conditions and got a 4.4 0-60 and a 12.X 1/4.

I hope this guy's right, though, I hate BMW.

MI6

Those times are off on the RS4/C63/M3...........

As any dolt can tell you those times are European 0-62 times, not 0-60.

So........RS4.. 0-62 4.9sec...........0-60 4.6 sec's (confirmed by several mags)

M3.....0-62 4.8sec..........0-60 4.5 sec's (car and driver actually got 4.4 sec's
in Ascaria Spain)

C63....0-62 4.5 sec's............0-60 4.2 sec's and for the IS-F..........based on this formula given above we could be looking as low as 4.1 sec 0-60.....

4TehNguyen

iTrader: (1)

id hope the BMW M3 can get past the mid 4s, since the 335 can already do high 4s. The ISF actually has the same width tires as the 350 (255)

combfilter

iTrader: (3)

wrong, they are all 0-60.

NINEZeRO

that is one of the most retarded estimates. how can the E92 M3 be not any faster than the e46? and the RS4 can get under 13 sec for sure on 1/4.

inxexisten

you do know these times are very dependant on temperature, levation, and so forth.... a good comparision would be to compare them all at the same location and within the same period of time

Cornellian

I think that when they put all these data for different cars, it would've been same conditions (e.g. temp, elevation, etc) because they were probably using the same code over and over again with different input variables.

BUT, I haven't seen the theory so can't say how accurate it is until I compare it with mine.

combfilter

iTrader: (3)

^^^ cornellian is correct. all of those factors are calculated the same for each car.

NINEZeRO - the e46 is not a sub 4.7 car stock so keep dreaming on that one. Also the rs4 is STOCK is a 1/4 @ 13.2 .

Again people this is theoretical!!!! I bet cornellian comes up with figures as close as these. The whole point of this was to show that the gearing of the is-f is what is making up for (lack in hp) I guess compared to the c63.

Please backup your rs4 STOCK 1/4 sub 13.00 in writting before saying i am retarded. Here's 13.2 from edmunds http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...9/pageNumber=4
oh and look at this one from yahoo.
http://autos.yahoo.com/audi_rs4_sedan-performance/ 13.69 there.. haha I didn't use that though. almost all the internets has the rs4 at 13.2 I think i found 1 site that was 12.9 but I took an average. Obvious i dind't use the 13.69 in the factors.


Cornellian do your figures with your tools.

combfilter

iTrader: (3)

agreed about the new m3. I think bmw created a beast with the 335i. All the way around from it's handling , power, and performance. I 've seen tracked ones at cresson race track here in texas out performing vettes. of course a lot of that is driver, but still. amazing car.

Cornellian

Well.... I just went back and modified my program for the HP/TQ. And, I must say, that you guys won't be disappointed with the HP/TQ curves! At least, I'm not! Of course, keep in mind that this is Theoretical! I'm sure, if I could compare my data to Lexus' theoretical, it would be pretty close. But, when I compared the IS350 engine dyno curves to my theory, there was an error of about 10%. Also based on my calculated guess, if you're thinking about the reliability of the piston rings, I think they're gonna be pretty reliable, just like the 2IS.

I guess I should start working on the 0-60 to 1/4 mile times.... Seems like it'll take me long time with my BUSY schedule.... lol. But, I'll try to come up with something soon.


One thing I AM curious about is, how did they manage to find out what the Frontal area/Weight/Drag/etc numbers are for the IS-F?!? I don't think they've been released.... or maybe they have?

combfilter

iTrader: (3)

drag was .31 by c&d. it wont matter for 0-60 though.

Cornellian

it won't matter AS MUCH up until about 35 mph, however, it will come into play after that for a very short window of time. Moreover, it provides a better result!

Aerodynamics always comes into play, no matter how fast you accelerate or how short the speed window is! In reality, drag in 0-60 can make a difference of few tenths of a second. This is exactly why dragsters are designed around aerodynamics!

The other player is frictional forces at the wheels.

combfilter

iTrader: (3)

well if this makes you guys happy i used .31 and the is350 is .28 so if anything it will be better. I also double it on another test (which would mean the thing was basically a brick driving down the road) and it was .10 off in 0-60 and .25 off 1/4 (which yes in the 1/4 that is a few car lengths)

dragsters run 1/4 not 0-60. their designs are that way for a lot more reasons than just aerodynamics. downforce is probably the biggest.

run your test. I was accurate with the new m3 with this so I am pretty sure it will be damn close on this. If not, everyone can come back to this thread and go "hey comb, remember this thread, you were way the f off"