P1 V M3 (E46)
16 July 2002, 08:56 PM
#92
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You dont see any 4wd f1 cars cause its not allowed 
.
The elise was built as a track car and handles better than quiet a few single seaters race cars. Also depends on the track i doubt an Elsie could live with a P1 at Snetterton. Cant get 5 adults and luggage in an elise either . Dont even go there when its raining, icey or snowing .
.The elise was built as a track car and handles better than quiet a few single seaters race cars. Also depends on the track i doubt an Elsie could live with a P1 at Snetterton
. Cant get 5 adults and luggage in an elise either . Dont even go there when its raining, icey or snowing .
17 July 2002, 12:38 AM
#94
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My business partner has an M3 E46 and I an STI7 warrender 340bhp and we swap cars no and again whilst the M3 is smooth and very quich and will blend much better in most situations it will not hold it's own against the STI with a few mods the STI is a better performing car but should not try and compete in the luxury or image dept.
Having said that the STI gets more wows and looks than the BEEMER.
It depends what you want.
An article in one of the big mags said the Porsche was an unbelievable all round car but then they got into the M3 and it made you wonder what was the point of buying the Porsche as it did every thing as well for less money.
Then they jumped into a UK STI7 and they wondered what was the point of buying an M3 as the Scoob did everything better then the M3. And that was with only 263 bhp.......IMAGINE.
J.
Having said that the STI gets more wows and looks than the BEEMER.
It depends what you want.
An article in one of the big mags said the Porsche was an unbelievable all round car but then they got into the M3 and it made you wonder what was the point of buying the Porsche as it did every thing as well for less money.
Then they jumped into a UK STI7 and they wondered what was the point of buying an M3 as the Scoob did everything better then the M3. And that was with only 263 bhp.......IMAGINE.
J.
17 July 2002, 01:31 AM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChrisP...
£500 in one year, that was poor....
I bought a Astra GSi (dont larf) 16v on a Jplate, for £5950 a couple of years ago, I owned it for 18months put 11,000 miles on it and then sold it for £5900.
I was totally shocked, the guy met me at a service station, never haggled, and paid in cash, why cant every sale be like that.
As for the M3 v P1, I have a TypeR v6, and my mate who always has to go one better is now taking delivery of his M3 in september. The fact he does'nt really know how to drive a car like that means that my scoob will be far quicker.
Yep I would take the M3 over a scoob, but only if someone else is paying, I imported mine brand new myself and in total spent 18k, with the 20K+ i saved I now have a GSXR750 and an RSV Mille, I've raced both against both cars and never saw either after i cogged 3rd on the rear wheel.
Guess it all comes down to buy what you can justify and enjoy, no matter what you have there's always gonna be someone else with somthing quicker....
£500 in one year, that was poor....
I bought a Astra GSi (dont larf) 16v on a Jplate, for £5950 a couple of years ago, I owned it for 18months put 11,000 miles on it and then sold it for £5900.
I was totally shocked, the guy met me at a service station, never haggled, and paid in cash, why cant every sale be like that.
As for the M3 v P1, I have a TypeR v6, and my mate who always has to go one better is now taking delivery of his M3 in september. The fact he does'nt really know how to drive a car like that means that my scoob will be far quicker.
Yep I would take the M3 over a scoob, but only if someone else is paying, I imported mine brand new myself and in total spent 18k, with the 20K+ i saved I now have a GSXR750 and an RSV Mille, I've raced both against both cars and never saw either after i cogged 3rd on the rear wheel.
Guess it all comes down to buy what you can justify and enjoy, no matter what you have there's always gonna be someone else with somthing quicker....
17 July 2002, 06:39 AM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joseph
As always some unbalanced words.
Having owned, not just driven both an M3 and STI UK I just dont agree with you. Pointless discussing as your too blinkered in everything with regards to your STI. You not seeing people looking at you in the M3 proves the blinkered perspective
Jonathan
As always some unbalanced words.
Having owned, not just driven both an M3 and STI UK I just dont agree with you. Pointless discussing as your too blinkered in everything with regards to your STI. You not seeing people looking at you in the M3 proves the blinkered perspective
Jonathan
17 July 2002, 07:45 AM
#97
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey I love all this. My point of view is (and thats all that matters to me anyway ), the M3 is a very well engineered car, I'm sure it handles far better than a P1 too, but is also one of the blandest looking cars on the market. The same people checking out the M3 as it drives past also look longingly at 330 and 318Ci's - there just aren't enough visual queue's to differentiate the M3 from the run of the mill BM;s for my taste (and boy is that front bumper ugly!).
I really wish I'd liked the looks of the car, but I'd much rather a 911, even at 50% more expensive. Since I can't fit the kids in the back of a Porker I'll make do with my Scoob - whose whole driving experience can't be beaten (for me).
If I had £250k to spare I might consider the M3 CTR - homologation special for the GT racing series - now thats a car..LOL but it would have to join the Radical, 964RS, 22B and 996GT3 I'd have already stocked the garage with.
LOL
Chuck
C
[Edited by chuckster - 7/17/2002 7:57:14 AM]
), the M3 is a very well engineered car, I'm sure it handles far better than a P1 too, but is also one of the blandest looking cars on the market. The same people checking out the M3 as it drives past also look longingly at 330 and 318Ci's - there just aren't enough visual queue's to differentiate the M3 from the run of the mill BM;s for my taste (and boy is that front bumper ugly!). I really wish I'd liked the looks of the car, but I'd much rather a 911, even at 50% more expensive. Since I can't fit the kids in the back of a Porker I'll make do with my Scoob - whose whole driving experience can't be beaten (for me).
If I had £250k to spare I might consider the M3 CTR - homologation special for the GT racing series - now thats a car..LOL but it would have to join the Radical, 964RS, 22B and 996GT3 I'd have already stocked the garage with.
LOL
Chuck
C
[Edited by chuckster - 7/17/2002 7:57:14 AM]
17 July 2002, 09:18 AM
#98
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is very educational. look at what I have learnt so far .
1. Once up and rolling it doesnt matter how heavy your vehicle is. I could be driving a Cheiftan tank powered by elastic bands but once moving it would still be as fast as anything else.
2. Taking into account transmission losses a P1 has about 19bhp which is why it is so dog slow look at the 0-60 times.
3. Compare with M3. It actually has more bhp at the wheels than at the flywheel because it is made in Germany and has a nice leather interior.
4. Torque doesnt mean anything unless you drive a tractor and want to plough a field.
.1. Once up and rolling it doesnt matter how heavy your vehicle is. I could be driving a Cheiftan tank powered by elastic bands but once moving it would still be as fast as anything else.
2. Taking into account transmission losses a P1 has about 19bhp which is why it is so dog slow look at the 0-60 times.
3. Compare with M3. It actually has more bhp at the wheels than at the flywheel because it is made in Germany and has a nice leather interior.
4. Torque doesnt mean anything unless you drive a tractor and want to plough a field.
17 July 2002, 10:13 AM
#99
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
touche wilf on an excellent reply.
I must admit, I dont know why everyone goes on about transmission losses so much, if it were so important, I am sure the manufacturers would quote power at the wheels as industry standard.
As for weight making no difference once its rolling, that is bollocks.
Weight is not a factor when looking to achieve a maximum speed as the only factors that need to be overcome are mechanical and aerodynamic friction, that does not mean that extra weight will make no difference in hopw fast you get there.
f=ma therefore acceleration = force/mass
ie, bigger mass, slower acceleration, no question.
But on a more important note we have to consider shallow things.
I agree with chuck. The M3 is common place, I saw another 3 today on the way to work (probably 3 of the 5 I saw yesterday on the way to work).
but then the impreza is feckin ugly, the old one in rallyed up form was tolerable, but the fugly is well...fugly.
So, we have common yet stylish or rare yet hideous.
I prefer common yet stylish. Of course the 22B is rare and gorgeous, the best of both worlds, but then if every scoob looked like a 22B, I would probably get used to it and hate it too.
I must admit, I dont know why everyone goes on about transmission losses so much, if it were so important, I am sure the manufacturers would quote power at the wheels as industry standard.
As for weight making no difference once its rolling, that is bollocks.
Weight is not a factor when looking to achieve a maximum speed as the only factors that need to be overcome are mechanical and aerodynamic friction, that does not mean that extra weight will make no difference in hopw fast you get there.
f=ma therefore acceleration = force/mass
ie, bigger mass, slower acceleration, no question.
But on a more important note we have to consider shallow things.
I agree with chuck. The M3 is common place, I saw another 3 today on the way to work (probably 3 of the 5 I saw yesterday on the way to work).
but then the impreza is feckin ugly, the old one in rallyed up form was tolerable, but the fugly is well...fugly.
So, we have common yet stylish or rare yet hideous.
I prefer common yet stylish. Of course the 22B is rare and gorgeous, the best of both worlds, but then if every scoob looked like a 22B, I would probably get used to it and hate it too.
17 July 2002, 01:49 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Once up and rolling it doesnt matter how heavy your vehicle is. I could be driving a Cheiftan tank powered by elastic bands but once moving it would still be as fast as anything else.
I know where you are coming from but unfortunately Shaggy is sort of right on this one. Once the vehicle (or any object for that matter) is in motion, the weight, although still relevent, is not so much of a handicap, in terms of how much force is needed to increase velocity. Practical example A standard Skyline is quicker to 100MPH than a P1 but is slower to 60mph.
2. Taking into account transmission losses a P1 has about 19bhp which is why it is so dog slow look at the 0-60 times.
Sorry but AWD does suffer from larger transmission losses than RWD or FWD been proven on dynos time and again but I would say the P1 is nearer to 18 BHP than 19
3. Compare with M3. It actually has more bhp at the wheels than at the flywheel because it is made in Germany and has a nice leather interior.
Can't argue with you on this one
4. Torque doesnt mean anything unless you drive a tractor and want to plough a field.
You do drive a tractor
If you don't believe me look at the origin of the flat four engine
I know where you are coming from but unfortunately Shaggy is sort of right on this one. Once the vehicle (or any object for that matter) is in motion, the weight, although still relevent, is not so much of a handicap, in terms of how much force is needed to increase velocity. Practical example A standard Skyline is quicker to 100MPH than a P1 but is slower to 60mph.
2. Taking into account transmission losses a P1 has about 19bhp which is why it is so dog slow look at the 0-60 times.
Sorry but AWD does suffer from larger transmission losses than RWD or FWD been proven on dynos time and again but I would say the P1 is nearer to 18 BHP than 19
3. Compare with M3. It actually has more bhp at the wheels than at the flywheel because it is made in Germany and has a nice leather interior.
Can't argue with you on this one
4. Torque doesnt mean anything unless you drive a tractor and want to plough a field.
You do drive a tractor
If you don't believe me look at the origin of the flat four engine
17 July 2002, 01:54 PM
#103
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 7,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorrt steve but
"I know where you are coming from but unfortunately Shaggy is sort of right on this one. Once the vehicle (or any object for that matter) is in motion, the weight, although still relevent, is not so much of a handicap, in terms of how much force is needed to increase velocity. Practical example A standard Skyline is quicker to 100MPH than a P1 but is slower to 60mph."
is bollocks!
force is always equal to mass times accerelation. rolling or not.
if people start bringing in general relativeity and accelertating reference frames then I am going to have to get medievel on their *****!
"I know where you are coming from but unfortunately Shaggy is sort of right on this one. Once the vehicle (or any object for that matter) is in motion, the weight, although still relevent, is not so much of a handicap, in terms of how much force is needed to increase velocity. Practical example A standard Skyline is quicker to 100MPH than a P1 but is slower to 60mph."
is bollocks!
force is always equal to mass times accerelation. rolling or not.
if people start bringing in general relativeity and accelertating reference frames then I am going to have to get medievel on their *****!
17 July 2002, 02:41 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't help it, I had to post again.
W9GTR; Adam is right, a heavier car will take more force to accelerate it rolling or not.
By your own example, try increasing the speed of a heavier car versus a lighter car once they're both moving and you'll see.
Think of the extremes you would be able to kick a rolling skateboard and probably instantly accelerate it to 30mph. Assuming you could run that fast, how long would it take you to push a car to 30mph?
Also Droid42; you say that the BMW has 305 BHP at the wheels (338 at FW) and P1 190 (276 FW). By this you are suggesting that a P1 loses 32% of it's power through the drive train (almost certainly lower) compared to 9.75% for a BMW? I think the whole transmission losses thing is completely overstated and unrealistic when compared to the actual performance figures.
Neil.
[Edited by Neil F - 7/17/2002 3:10:30 PM]
W9GTR; Adam is right, a heavier car will take more force to accelerate it rolling or not.
By your own example, try increasing the speed of a heavier car versus a lighter car once they're both moving and you'll see.
Think of the extremes you would be able to kick a rolling skateboard and probably instantly accelerate it to 30mph. Assuming you could run that fast, how long would it take you to push a car to 30mph?
Also Droid42; you say that the BMW has 305 BHP at the wheels (338 at FW) and P1 190 (276 FW). By this you are suggesting that a P1 loses 32% of it's power through the drive train (almost certainly lower) compared to 9.75% for a BMW? I think the whole transmission losses thing is completely overstated and unrealistic when compared to the actual performance figures.
Neil.
[Edited by Neil F - 7/17/2002 3:10:30 PM]
17 July 2002, 06:40 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is very educational. look at what I have learnt so far .
1. Once up and rolling it doesnt matter how heavy your vehicle is. I could be driving a Cheiftan tank powered by elastic bands but once moving it would still be as fast as anything else.
I don't personally agree with this one and have lost track of who said it.
2. Taking into account transmission losses a P1 has about 19bhp which is why it is so dog slow look at the 0-60 times.
The P1's 0-60 times are good compared to RWD because of a much better 0-30mph time due to greater traction. Anyone who thinks that 0-60 is determined solely by P.W.R needs, umm, a physics lesson.
3. Compare with M3. It actually has more bhp at the wheels than at the flywheel because it is made in Germany and has a nice leather interior.
What do you mean? The M3 is quoted as having 338bhp at the flywheel, which is completely unverified. Standard European M3's have shown 305bhp at the wheels. Are you saying I'm lying?
4. Torque doesnt mean anything unless you drive a tractor and want to plough a field.
Yes, you do need a physics lesson. Torque at the flywheel means nothing because torque at the flywheel does not accelerate the car. Torque at the driven wheels does accelerate the car but is dependent on gearing and so varies considerably depending on the type of engine installed in the car and the gearing that the manufacturer decided to install. Power at the wheels is constant in any gear (aside from slight variations in power loss in different gears) and is easily the best measure of a car's overall performance.
Very clever reply Wilf but completely content-free
Ian.
1. Once up and rolling it doesnt matter how heavy your vehicle is. I could be driving a Cheiftan tank powered by elastic bands but once moving it would still be as fast as anything else.
I don't personally agree with this one and have lost track of who said it.
2. Taking into account transmission losses a P1 has about 19bhp which is why it is so dog slow look at the 0-60 times.
The P1's 0-60 times are good compared to RWD because of a much better 0-30mph time due to greater traction. Anyone who thinks that 0-60 is determined solely by P.W.R needs, umm, a physics lesson.
3. Compare with M3. It actually has more bhp at the wheels than at the flywheel because it is made in Germany and has a nice leather interior.
What do you mean? The M3 is quoted as having 338bhp at the flywheel, which is completely unverified. Standard European M3's have shown 305bhp at the wheels. Are you saying I'm lying?
4. Torque doesnt mean anything unless you drive a tractor and want to plough a field.
Yes, you do need a physics lesson. Torque at the flywheel means nothing because torque at the flywheel does not accelerate the car. Torque at the driven wheels does accelerate the car but is dependent on gearing and so varies considerably depending on the type of engine installed in the car and the gearing that the manufacturer decided to install. Power at the wheels is constant in any gear (aside from slight variations in power loss in different gears) and is easily the best measure of a car's overall performance.
Very clever reply Wilf but completely content-free
Ian.
17 July 2002, 06:44 PM
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit, I dont know why everyone goes on about transmission losses so much, if it were so important, I am sure the manufacturers would quote power at the wheels as industry standard.
Adam,
Do you really believe that? Doesn't it make sense to you that:
1. Power at the flywheel is different to power at the wheels due to transmission losses
2. It's power at the wheels that gives the car energy, not power at the flywheel
3. AWD transmissions lead to much greater power losses than 2WD transmissions
Let me know which one of those you don't understand and I'll try to explain it to you in more detail.
Ian.
Adam,
Do you really believe that? Doesn't it make sense to you that:
1. Power at the flywheel is different to power at the wheels due to transmission losses
2. It's power at the wheels that gives the car energy, not power at the flywheel
3. AWD transmissions lead to much greater power losses than 2WD transmissions
Let me know which one of those you don't understand and I'll try to explain it to you in more detail.
Ian.
17 July 2002, 07:46 PM
#115
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In wrxshire
Posts: 6,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Babber YH(notification)M
So let me get this straight if I put ten concrete blocks in the boot to add weight and disconnect the front diff making it two wheel drive I will have a car thats as quick as an M3. Right wheres me toolbox and is B&Q still open.
So let me get this straight if I put ten concrete blocks in the boot to add weight and disconnect the front diff making it two wheel drive I will have a car thats as quick as an M3. Right wheres me toolbox and is B&Q still open
.
17 July 2002, 09:32 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this straight if I put ten concrete blocks in the boot to add weight and disconnect the front diff making it two wheel drive I will have a car thats as quick as an M3
Not quite. You also need 340'ish bhp at the flywheel.
(That was too easy )
Ian.
Not quite. You also need 340'ish bhp at the flywheel.
(That was too easy
)Ian.
17 July 2002, 10:32 PM
#118
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
17 July 2002, 10:41 PM
#120
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At higher speeds aerodynamics become much more of an issue than mass and power, which is why cars with completely different power to weight ratios start to accelerate at more similar rates and may max out at the same speed. A point well illustrated by the fact that a 200 bhp 4x4 Calibra has about the same top speed as a 276 bhp STI Impreza and will accelerate at a more similar rate the closer it gets to this speed despite being obviously slower at lower speeds. There are loads of other example showing how irrelevant power and weight can be to acceleration at higher speeds - look at Caterhams and Westfields. This is probably why people think that once a car is on the move, weight is less of an issue during acceleration. Actually it's the wind resistance that starts to even things out.
[Edited by scoobysnacks - 7/17/2002 11:19:54 PM]
[Edited by scoobysnacks - 7/17/2002 11:19:54 PM]