07-09-2019, 04:07 PM | #1 |
Lieutenant Colonel
521
Rep 1,288
Posts
Drives: 2015 335i xdrive Msport Mbrake
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Middle of the Road
|
Why is the new Supra quicker in the 1/4 mile than the M340i?
So I've been seeing the test vids and the new Supra is doing the 1/4mile in 12.0 flat..... M340i 12.5.... both cars are close enough in weight that it shouldn't be a factor.... Sooooo?????
|
07-09-2019, 04:20 PM | #2 |
Colonel
380
Rep 2,290
Posts |
RWD or AWD? I don't think the weight is that close, btw. Especially for the M340, depends on how it was spec'd. That extra tech is heavy.
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-09-2019, 04:33 PM | #3 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
521
Rep 1,288
Posts
Drives: 2015 335i xdrive Msport Mbrake
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Middle of the Road
|
Quote:
https://g29.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1631315 |
|
Appreciate
1
PandaMobile92.50 |
07-09-2019, 07:02 PM | #4 |
Major
1217
Rep 1,290
Posts |
The weight isn't that close. The m340i weighs around 3800 lbs and the Supra weighs around 3300. Are the two cars geared similarly? Tires might also be a factor.
The fact that the z4 isn't closer to the Supra is strange, but the z4 in the above video is a convertible, adding a lot of weight to the car. |
Appreciate
0
|
07-09-2019, 07:10 PM | #5 | |
Lieutenant Colonel
521
Rep 1,288
Posts
Drives: 2015 335i xdrive Msport Mbrake
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Middle of the Road
|
Quote:
but I did see 12.5 for the M340i... which isn't bad but I'd rather it be 12.0 you know what I mean... Last edited by FastF30; 07-09-2019 at 07:15 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-09-2019, 07:30 PM | #6 | ||
First Lieutenant
386
Rep 315
Posts |
Quote:
Also, I'm pretty sure that the 12.5sec being quoted for the M340 xdrive was from an old Car Wow video where it is running against an M2C. And they put the M340 on the damp side of the track. When you watch the video it launches slower than the M2C, so there is some time lost in that launch. |
||
Appreciate
1
Ilyam5899.00 |
07-09-2019, 07:38 PM | #7 | ||
Major
1217
Rep 1,290
Posts |
Quote:
Also c&d suspected that Toyota is underrating the hp on the Supra and ran it on a dyno. They found that the Supra was achieving 339 hp and 427 max torque at the rear wheels. That means, accounting for drivetrain loss, the Supra is putting out about 400 hp and 500 lb ft torque at the crank. Bmw might be underrating the m340i too, so to be fair, let's say that the b58 has similar output in both cars (though I think Toyota might have tuned the b58 to have higher output). To sum it up, it's the same engine with similar output in both cars, but the Supra weighs substantially less, and likely has a more favorable drag coefficient too, being a smaller car. As a side note, c&d got 12.3 with the Supra in the 1/4 mile. All said and done, I think the difference makes sense. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
07-09-2019, 10:33 PM | #8 |
Lieutenant
500
Rep 582
Posts |
The Z4 wasn't a US spec so it wasn't as powerful as the ones we have here but still, that Supra walked it.. I think we need a real world M340I vs the Supra to see how things pan out because if the supra is faster than all of BMW's M performance models, that's not a good look.
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-10-2019, 11:29 AM | #9 | |
Private First Class
127
Rep 170
Posts |
Quote:
5.71*.10=.571 hence 12.5 vs 12.0 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-10-2019, 01:13 PM | #11 |
Private First Class
127
Rep 170
Posts |
|
Appreciate
1
mcjohnsonsg386.00 |
07-10-2019, 01:46 PM | #12 |
First Lieutenant
386
Rep 315
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
07-10-2019, 05:49 PM | #14 | |
Lieutenant
465
Rep 534
Posts |
Quote:
If you had a drag coefficient of .23 on a mini, and .23 on a 7 series, the 7 would still have more drag due to the larger surface. There's also the 500lbs weight difference, different transmission programming, and I'm not sure what the final drive ratio is on the 3 and supra so they may be different too |
|
Appreciate
1
upsidedownfunnel2002.50 |
07-10-2019, 11:12 PM | #15 |
Major
1217
Rep 1,290
Posts |
As I mentioned earlier, Toyota has also underrated the output of the b58 in the Supra too. C&D put it on a dyno and it generated something like 339 hp and 427 lb ft tq at the rear wheels.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|