221kW 350Z tested in latest Motor...

DavidM - I bought the mag today and in the article, the author states that they did not have the timing equipment available for the test. So the 0-100 and 400m results are either hand timed or taken from previous tests from possibly another source.

Also, in the 20km/h rolling starts, the M3 gets a 1/2 car length jump immediately on the Z. Is this due to a slightly faster reaction by the M3 driver, or simply just because the M3 has better gearing / power? I suspect the latter.

Then the article states "The shift to 2nd saw the M3 get ahead by a full length." Which shift is he talking about, the Z's 1-2nd or the M3's. Also, does the M3 extend to a full car length during the Z's 1-2 gear change or by the end of the M3's 2nd gear??? This part of the comparison is poorly written and ambiguous.

Furthermore, the article states "From there, thanks to a sloppy shift into 3rd gear it was all over." So the Z driver screws up a gear change and the Z sucks????
I'm the first to admit that the M3 is without a doubt faster to 100 and over 400m than a Z with equal drivers in each car, but it would be nice if the testers could have run the 20km/h rolling starts again, as there are drivers of Zeds that are not schmucks and can handle quick gear changes and I would have liked a fairer comparison.

This test really did not tell me just how much quicker and where the M3 is quicker than the Z.

Coincidently, last night, I had a M3 ride my rear end. The driver had probably read the article and was looking for a Z to pick on. Unfortunately, we were in heavy thraffic in the middle of the city, so I could not even try to take him on. Pity, I would liked the opportunity to line up my stock Z with any M3, just to see how much quicker the M3 is.

Finally, in summary, in the article, the Z was rated about 90% as competant on the road as the M3, but for the money and attitude (looks) the Z was their pick.

I bought the mag today and in the article, the author states that they did not have the timing equipment available for the test.

I read that a few times just to make sure I understand what the article is saying. This is what it sais "With our Vbox pressed into service elsewhere, we were unable to run our usual battery of back-to-back numbers in the 350Z and the M3".

First I thought as you (and AntonioB) that the numbers listed are from another test. Though I have searched through every single Motor test that had a 350Z in it, and I could not find anywhere exactly the same numbers as listed in this article. Therefore I concluded from that line in the article that they were not able to do "back to back" testing, but they did do testing later on when they did no longer have both cars. Though the M3 numbers are lifted from another article so I pressumed that they only managed to run the new 350Z.

So I'm really just reading between the lines, but the numbers published have never been published before ... I know that much.

So the 0-100 and 400m results are either hand timed or taken from previous tests from possibly another source.

I don't think it's either as:
a) As I mentioned before, these 350Z numbers are listed in Motor for the 1st time.
b) I can't see how they could hand-time 400m run and also get the trap-speed (to the the last 10th of the kph).

Also, in the 20km/h rolling starts, the M3 gets a 1/2 car length jump immediately on the Z. Is this due to a slightly faster reaction by the M3 driver, or simply just because the M3 has better gearing / power? I suspect the latter.

Yeah, I had to read this a few times as well to try and make sence out of it. The way I read it is that the M3 pulled away 1/2 a car-length while they were both in the 1st gear. Then in 2nd gear it pulled the gap to 1 car-length. I don't think the article meant that the gap grew to 1 car-length during the change ... but again, I'm reading between the lines.

I don't know how much difference the 'reaction time' made in this run as the gap was only 1/2 a car-length by the end of 1st gear. Also from the way I understand what is written there, it seem that the M3 did 'lunge' ahead straight away, but it couldn't have been much as it sounds like the gap 'grew' to 1/2 a car-length by the top of 1st.

Though, that inial jump could very well be due to reaction time as I don't think that the M3 would have an advantage at 20kph. At this speed the 350Z would have just over 2100rpm on the tacho while the M3 would have just over 2500rpm. I can't see having the 3.2L M3 have more power there than the 3.5L in the 350Z. Afterall, their peak torque is about the same, and the M3 is about 60kg heavier.

Though the reason why the M3 would be pulling away once in it's stride is simply due to the power. Afterall, it still has over 35kW more at its disposal.

Furthermore, the article states "From there, thanks to a sloppy shift into 3rd gear it was all over." So the Z driver screws up a gear change and the Z sucks????

Yep, that's what it sounds like. I don't know why they did not re-run it again as I was really interested to hear what happens in 3rd gear as the M3 has much taller 3rd gear than the 350Z. M3's 3rd gear takes it all the way to 162kph while the 350Z's takes it to 148kph (with the 7,000rpm redline).

This test really did not tell me just how much quicker and where the M3 is quicker than the Z.

Yep, I do wish it gave us more info as well. From what I can gather there's that 1 car-length to around 100kph and that's about all it told us.

I would liked the opportunity to line up my stock Z with any M3, just to see how much quicker the M3 is.

Likewise. Though, the only M3s I seem to meet are at the track. And here in terms of lap-times there's nothing between my 350Z a well driven M3 (on the same tyres). I would pressume that it does have a straightline advantage though.

You also gotta remember, SMGII switches gears in 0.08 seconds, whereas manually its about 0.6 ... over two gear changes that's almost a full second difference.

And oddly enough the manual is still quicker. In my BMW-club magazine they had an awesome article where they compare dthe manual and SMG M3s. They had some very good timing equipment that measured the speed at every increment. The manual was always quicker and the gear-changes were about the same speed.

Iggy:

It is 80ms on the SMG2 and it was said that this cannot be performed by any experienced racing driver... but with the previous SMG gearbox, I recalled that there was one driver in the world who could match that fast shifting number, but I cannot remember who that was...

But I will still get the Manaul box m3 ANY DAY.... got problems with a lot of SMG and SMG2 already around the world.... just sooner or later... I experienced that many times, even stucked on the road and needed for the tow truck to tow the car back into BMW... how bad was that man... the also the bill didn't come cheap with SMG hydrulic pump, one pump will cost you 3K and within 1 year time, there was 3 pumps got replaced last time... although 2 of them were under warranty, I simply wasted a lot of time going back and forth and couldn't really enjoy the drive.... also tell you one thing.... the SMG will require frequently clutch change than the manual version... because of the fast change...etc I guess everyone now knows about how bad the SMG is now besides the performance part.... so if you want to get a M3/M5.... get the MANUAL VERSION for lower cost!

cheers,

richie

perhaps Motor ran some tests on the Z at a later date and printed those numbers. If that was the case, it makes comparison with the M3 even harder to guage, more so if as you say, they lifted the M3 times from another test.

Yep, I totally agree with you. All we have to go on is that description from 20 to 100kph roll ... that's all. The published figures in the article are not really comarable between the two cars as they were not tested at the same time/place.

Do you remember what the times were for the SMG II gear changes vs the manual changes in that BMW magazine?

Give me a couple days and I'll dig up the info, including the results.

As for Manual vs SMG being faster!?!?!?!? WTF? I've got 3 friends who have had/have SMG2 M3s, and I've been in them while being driven in the top mode (ie no traction control, launch control switched on, fastest possible shifts) and the shifts were **** quick... instant almost! No way a manual could be faster.

Well the tests say otherwise. Once I dig up the write-up/test from the BMW-magazine, I'll post the results. But the manual was quicker in all the tests/increments. We're talking about a few 10th here and there but the the BMW-club people were suprised as well. The actual shift might be quicker, but combine with all that goes with it (ie. clutch dis/engabement, throttle control etc) and the manual is quicker. On top of that they did test the SMG in every single possible mode and published the numbers.

Also the motoring mags have got quicker numbers out of the manual than the SMG ... though, those were neiver thested on the same day unlike the BMW-club test I am refering to. That was had a single purpuse to compare the acceleration of the SMG vs manual M3 ... is was a very good read so I'll dig it up.

just cannot understand the REASON for the manual being faster when all logic suggests otherwise. Perhaps it's because if you dump the clutch at 7000 you get a faster time and the SMG won't allow that? That's the only reason I can think off

I don't know 'why' it is quicker either, but it's not just the launch that is quicker (from what I remember). Though, I read this like year ago, so my recollection may be a bit hazy ... but I will find the test-data and post it here once I do.

Though, keep in mind we're talking about a coupple 10th quicker here and there ... nothing that a human body could pick up in terms of feel.

Also at the track the pro drivers normally say that they'd be quicker with the manual M3 after they get out of the SMG one. Again not sure why, but I'll read their comments from PCOTY/BFYB articles to see if they say anything specific.

, I've shifted in 0.3sec 2nd to 3rd and thought that was pretty **** quick!

Yep that is quick. According to my data from Winton it took me 1/3sec to do the 3th-to-4th gear-change and 1/2sec to do the 2th-to-3rd change.

OK guys, I scanned the article from the BMW-club magazine. There was no data table (as I previously thought), but it's all discussed in the article.

(rememner to click on the images in order to expand them and be able to read them)

(click on the image in order to be able to read it)

(click on the image in order to be able to read it)

(click on the image in order to be able to read it)

Interesting reading ... must note that they are talking about SMGI, which is slower than SMG2 and does not have launch control s/w.

You could be right and I'd pressume that the SMG2 would do better.

Also, I did not read anywhree in that article how they launched the car.

I'll re-read it when I get the chance ... it's been about a year so I don't remember if/where it mentions anything.

As you know David, with the S2000 for example, to get a great 1/4 you need to dump it from 7000rpm (correct me if I am wrong here).

It's always condition/track dependant ... just like for any other car, but the S2000 needed anywhere between 6,500 and 7,500rpm. For me 7,000rpm always got a decent launch.

I think with the M3, you'd want to dump it at 4-5000 rpm?

I'm not sure as I've never been in the e46 M3 ... I suppose it depends on how much traction and torque the car has as for instance the 350Z will sit on a spot of tyre-smoke of you give it anymore than 3000rpm. I would think that the M3 has better power-down traction and therefore it should handle higher revs at the launch.

Dunno... it's still a weird result!

All SMG vs manual comparisions seem to have that result. The local mags seem to get better numbers out of the manual as well. Though, I'm not sure why they prefer the manual at the track as I would have thought that at the track is whre the SMG would shine.