Just in case Car and Driver’s rather dismal 1M Koop comparo-test victory didn’t make you run down to the nearest Bimmer dealer to spend $48,000 on a small, yet chunky two-door with sliding-caliper brakes, here comes Sport Auto with some impressive news: the 1M is faster than the current V8-powered M3…
…or is it?
From WorldCarFans, quoting 1addicts.net, quoting sport-auto.de:
Well, here’s an item that proves that being small and nimble has its advantages.
According to tests by German sports car magazine Sport Auto, the BMW 1-Series M Coupe has beaten its big brother the M3 in lapping the Hockenheim.
Sport Auto got a lap time of 1:14.1 for the 1-Series M while the quickest time around the track for the M3 (E92 M3 ZCP DCT) came in 0.1 second slower – 1:14.2.
That’s not much but still impressive.
On the Hockenheim, the 1-Series M clocked the 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) sprint in 4.7 seconds too.
Auto Sport also reported that the 1-Series M Coupe had a frisky tendency to spin its rear end out without the stability control engaged, but they see that as a good sign since most cars in its category would under-steer by design.
Here’s the list of Sport Auto’s track times for each model tested.
Porsche Cayman R PDK – 1:12.4
BMW E46 M3 CSL – 1:13.5
Porsche 987.5 Cayman S PDK – 1:13.9
Porsche 987.5 Cayman S MT – 1:14.0
BMW 1M Coupe – 1:14.1
BMW E92 M3 ZCP DCT – 1:14.2
Audi TT-RS Coupe – 1:14.3
BMW E92 M3 6MT (Cup+ Tires) – 1:14.3
Audi RS5 Coupe – 1:15.3
BMW Z4 35iS – 1:16.1
BMW 135i Coupe – 1:17.4
Predictably, this has led to a flurry to Twitter/Facebook/forum mania about the respective merits of the two BMWs, beating of e-chests, e-wailing, and e-gnashing of teeth. How the mighty have fallen! This, presumably, means that the 1M is faster than a CTS-V in equal hands, right? Not so fast. Let’s start by looking at the track:
Top speed for the E92 M3 was 190km/h, which is 118mph. (Although this particular graphic makes it appear as though that was the speed measured at the start/finish line, a comparison of several Sport Auto graphics makes it apparent that they are measuring max speed on the straight). This means we’re dealing with a much tighter track than what we might find in the United States. For a comparison, my Audi S5 was able to hit 142 on the back straight at VIR, and my VW Phaeton was able to do 134. My 3.4-liter 986S Boxster has no trouble clearing 135 on the back straight at Mid-Ohio. None of these cars have the power-to-weight ratio of a BMW 1M. The closest track I can think of to this Hockenheim layout is MSR Houston, which is longer but doesn’t have much more in the way of straight-ahead track surface. Even the Alan Wilson courses like BeaveRun have longer straights. Perhaps Waterford Hills might be a fair comparison; it takes some guts to get 120mph out of anything on the very short front straight there.
The shorter and slower the track, the less important power is. No wonder, then, that the 1M, which has tires and wheels very similar to that of the M3 while weighing about three hundred pounds less, has no trouble keeping up. Furthermore, the computer-controlled turbo generates maximum torque very early in the rev range and holds it steady, while the M3 has to build power over the entire rev range in the classic manner of a small-displacement normally-aspirated engine. (Yes, a four-liter V-8 is “small-displacement”.)
On a full-sized American track we might see the situation reverse itself. On the Nurburgring, which is fundamentally an eight-minute dyno test combined with an eight-minute shock dyno test, the same magazine reports that E92 runs 8:05 against the 1M’s 8:12. I’d like to see how Sport Auto managed another one of their one-tenth gaps, in this case the one between the stick-shift and PDK versions of the Cayman S. Shifting a “dogbox” sequential-box 911GT3 Cup takes more than one-tenth of a second, each time. Perhaps the gearbox is really heavy…
Perhaps BMW would like to replicate this test in the United States by providing TTAC with an example of each and letting us run them around Mid-Ohio with a Traqmate on them. We’d be able to determine if the price difference between the two cars led to a real-world driving experience upgrade. Perhaps we’ll pitch the Bavarians on the matter. I doubt they will give it… oh, more than a tenth-second’s worth of consideration.
Seven seconds isn’t much of a margin on an eight-minute track, but one-tenth of a second on a one-minute track is still far less. This is the kind of margin which can just as easily be the product of a two-or-three-degree drop of temperature or the random action of mild (~3mph) wind around the course. The cynic in me wants to suggest that Sport Auto didn’t work too hard to get that extra tenth out of the E92 M3. That wouldn’t have generated very many clicks, would it? “$75,000 BMW Beats $47,000 BMW, World Does Not End”. I would suggest that the random-chance factor at that track, using street cars on street tires, is about one second. In other words, the driver might turn in an identical performance two laps in a row and the times might diverge by a full second due to tire temperature, intake temperature, and other uncontrollable situations.
You forgot to ask the real important question – “Who gives a fuck, aside from people that will never own either of these cars?”
There’s a dealer with a custom billboard in Northern Indiana featuring a photo of a 1 series and the line ‘distilled, not reduced.’ Seems a perfect description when comparing a 1 with a 3.
If I want opposed pistons I’ll get a Volvo 240.
Eh? Volvo’s 140 and 240 series cars all had 4-cylinder inline engines.
Not sure if you were trying to be humorous but I believe Pete is correct.
He’s talking about brakes, I think.
It would be interesting to see MSRPs on the above track time list. I’d be willing to give up 5 seconds for the 135’s reduce price and operating costs.
Or perhps the rotation of the Earth’s magnetic core had a more dramatice effect on the M3 which carries more Iron in the vehicle. The variables that can make up the performance differences are infinite.
BMW versus BMW sounds like a comparison test right up Car and Driver or Inside Line‘s alley.
We all know that BMW is the best, but which is the best of all?
lulz. Which way is the “gotta have it” score going to go? Or are their heads going to explode like a robot trying to rhyme a word with orange?
In a way though, when two models of the same brand are compared it’s likely to be one of the more ‘objective’ comparos a car mag will ever do. I don’t know if this is a European car mag thing but German and Dutch car mags do this quite often actually and I think these are the more entertaining pieces.
For instance; Carrera S vs Carrera 4S…Or what is the best 3-series you can buy (wagon/coupe/sedan/cabrio/engine size/diesel/M-package etc).
i live to forage for orange porridge.
Hardly a shocker unless you believe all the hype about the M3. M3 sales have slipped to just over 2,000 units in the U.S. so fewer believe everyday. BMW needs to drop the price by like 30k or something… STAT!
I believe that Michael Cooper almost beat the mighty CTS-V in a M3. Hype, maybe so, but that thing seems pretty fast. It would help if it were a bit cheaper though.
Wasn’t Bob Lutz himself, at the wheel of the CTS-V?
No, it just means the redesign is coming soon, probably after the hype around the M5 dies down a bit.
Troll…must resist…darn…
The M3 beat the quattro RS5 round the TopGear track in the wet(!) by 1s…It also runs circles around the C63. These cars are priced at the same (or higher) level, so that’s just the going rate for this type of vehicle apparently and the M3 is clearly best.
Yeah you pay alot for those German cars but their performance doesn’t live up to all the hype while those auto makers laugh all the way to the bank. That’s all fine & good and you can also kid yourself that a Rolex has unmatched accuracy but in the end you are really talking about style, exclusivity and one upsmanship not actual performance.
Well, the M3 will go around a track, particularly a twisty short one like that, faster than the M5, right? Nobody freaked out about that one. Light weight is important.
Jack, I’m not sure if you’re having a bit of fun with the German language (in which case, kudos) but if you’re not, Bertel will probably have you know that it is the Hockenheimring, not the Hockenheim. The Hockenheimring is a race track near Hockenheim like the Nurburgring is a racetrack near Nurburg. I’m not a native speaker but I’m quite sure Heim and Burg both mean something like ‘village’ in the language of our eastern neighbours.
This apparently is one of their shorter track configurations. The full track trades German GPs with the new Nurburgring and used to be a fixture on the F1 calendar. Sadly, it got a redesign in 2001 that cancelled the characteristic high speed section through the forrest, which was a big part of the charm for fans, though most drivers claim the new track is quite enjoyable to drive (not like Spa or Suzuka, but a lot more than other Herman Tilke snorefests like Valencia or Bahrain).
I’m just quoting my source in the top part… in the bottom point, I say “Hockenheim layout” the same way one might say “Summit Point layout”.
My German is bad, but it’s not <i>that</i> bad. :)
We’re looking at these cars now to replace the C43. My argument is a couple versions of the Corvette will “run circles around” all of them, and I can repair it.
Keep the interesting stuff coming, it all helps.
If I could afford any of those cars and track performance was paramount then I would get a Lotus Elise.