Here is your mustang Dyno.
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/att...2&d=1184864281

 

We were talking about E46 M3 RWHP numbers NOT Evo. I have no idea how much % of its crank HP Evo loses due to AWD parasitic loss - I don't have Evo. But No stock M3 will lose 30% of its 333HP crank HP to parasitic loss. If weather is hot and humid and if you ran the car 50 times it might stay in the 260 RWHP range but there is no way stock e46 M3 puts down anything below that on a proper dyno run. Your 230something is from an idiot who only ran the dyno upto 6000/6100 rev limit when you dyno. You need to get around that in order to dyno to 8000 redline.

 

Um care to post this properly first:

"Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator"

Secondly, i ask you again, do you know the difference between dynos? What you are saying with 270 plus rwhp figures for the e46 is that it has less than 19 percent parasitic drivetrain loss. You really want to stand by that account?

Ps it is also very amusing that you are resorting to personal attacks. It shows both your immaturity and fanboism.

 

This is from a MUSTANG dyno

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/att...2&d=1184864281

 

And go ask for dyno graphs at any M3 forums. You will see mustang puts down around 270something and dynojet will put down around 280something

 

The post of me evo dyno graph was to illustrate the potential loss when used on a mustang dyno. Since you are ignorant on its operations, MDs typically will dyno even less than your standard dynojet. This is because "loaded" roller drums are used to simulate how it would operate in a proper world. Having datalogged my car exensively on the dyno as well as out on the track, it is the most accurate method out there. Parasitic drivetrain loss as well as real world loading is a 1, 2 punch to any extravagent figures you may have thought. Again, do you really think a rwd setup has less than 19 percent loss in the real world? Also, being any a former avid drag racer, the best way to check numbers besides the dyno, is to back calculate its et and trap figures. Ask yourself if it really correlates...

 

so what is this dyno graph? an imaginary drawing?

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/att...2&d=1184864281

 

There is definitely something fishy when you cite the numbers from those dynos that close in figures. Having operated both mustang as well as dynojets dynos, the typical deviation is around 20 percent, yes percent and not whp), due specifically to the loaded drums of the mustang. I would surmise the dyno numbers you are citing (and that i cannot see for some reason), has its loaded setting turned off, or is miscalibrated.

And yes, i am familiar with e46s as many friends have them. Heck, i almost purchased it myself instead of the ls430 (it wasnt availalble immediately in the color i wanted).

 

for comparison sake, here is dynojet graph of an idiot who couldn't dyno past 6500. If you extrapolate the graph to 8000 you can clearly see it will put down 280something

http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=449&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1170832071

 

err..... do we need anymore e46 m3 and dyno info here? this is about the rs4 and the new m3. please take it to pm

 

dont need one as much since its not turboed, turboing a car adds all kinds of secondary upgrades to fully support a turbo

 

all 0-60 & 1/4 info taken from C&D
E46 M3 vs "regular" 3 Series (330i)
4.8s & 13.6s vs 5.6s & 14.3s. The gap is 0.8s & 0.7s for 0-60 & 1/4 respectively

E92 M3 vs 335i
4.4s & 12.9s vs 4.9s & 13.6s. The gap is 0.5s & 0.7s for 0-60 & 1/4 respectively.

How did the previous gen E46 M3 have a bigger gap between it and the top "regular" 3 Series comparing to the 335i and the E92 M3???

The gap to 1/4 is the same (0.7s). If you expect the gap between the 335i and E92 M3 to be the same (0.8s) as E46 M3 and 330i from 0-60, you are looking at 4.1s and it needs a lot more than 414hp? (420hp?) to do that. The CLK63 AMG Black Series achieves this 4.1s with 500hp.

You have to understand that improving from 6s to 5.5s is A LOT easier than 5s to 4.5s, 4.5s to 4s. Eventhough the gap (0.5s) is the same, the task to achieve it not.

Even with AWD and more HP (maybe same hp @ 420?), the RS4 does it in 4.6s to 60 and 13.2s to 1/4. Anybody who thinks that the RS4 can out run the E92 M3 in a straight line or a even road course is out of their minds. Heck, the RS4 can't even catch the 335i on a road course.