Was he just being nice? (3.6 SC vs. M3)

[Moses]

Early Saturday morning I was getting on the freeway. One of those 2 lane onramps. I was just starting to pick up speed (40 or 50 MPH) when a new BMW M3 driven by a friend pulls up along side me. He smiled then shot forward. I punched it and I was amazed how quickly I caught up with him. As I passed he gave me a thumbs up. We ended our little sprint as quickly as it began.

Maybe he was being easy on his car because it is fairly new (about a year old). Or is it possible that my little SC is as quick as his M3?

[Joe Bob]

It's as quick.....Beemer drivers have egos too.....

[MAS]

Hmmm... well I'd think you're SC with a 3.6 should be a fair match for most cars.

-MAS

[tiorio]

SC w/ 3.6? Think power-to-weight ratio here. I think you may have taken him. The stories of you 70s and 80s stocker 911's eating 00 M3s and Ferrari Enzos and such I don't buy, but this one is at least in the realm of possibility...

You said the guy was a friend, why not ask? Or even better, re-match (in a safe and controlled environment so pie-in-the-face Nader and his local supporters don't flame me to DEATH on the subject of street racing )

[MAS]

OK... and how much HP would a modded 3.6 (like this one) have in a car that's considerably lighter than an M3?

Maybe, I'm not reading this right, but the SC in question has a modded 3.6 in it, right?

-MAS

[CarreraS2]

Sure, it is power to weight, and I'm not saying that the SC w/ 3.6 isn't faster than the fairly heavy M3. It probably is.

But the M3 nevertheless is quite powerful and consistently puts up pretty impressive acceleration numbers (4.8, low 13s). I think if the M3 driver was really trying, the 3.6 driver wouldn't have been surprised at how quickly the 911 caught up with and passed the M3. As I read the post, the 911 fairly well ate the M3 alive, so much that it surprised the 911 driver, and if that is the case, I don't think the M3 driver was really trying. I think they would be close enough such that neither driver would be really surprised by the other car in an acceleration contest.

[Joe Bob]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
Sure, it is power to weight, and I'm not saying that the SC w/ 3.6 isn't faster than the fairly heavy M3. It probably is.

But the M3 nevertheless is quite powerful and consistently puts up pretty impressive acceleration numbers (4.8, low 13s). I think if the M3 driver was really trying, the 3.6 driver wouldn't have been surprised at how quickly the 911 caught up with and passed the M3. As I read the post, the 911 fairly well ate the M3 alive, so much that it surprised the 911 driver, and if that is the case, I don't think the M3 driver was really trying. I think they would be close enough such that neither driver would be really surprised by the other car in an acceleration contest.

Plus....most M3 drivers are pansies....

[CarreraS2]

Well, that too!

[island911]

heh-heh, (3.6 SC vs. M3) Was he just being a pansy?

I'll just say, that I'm surprised by how many (911 drivers included) don't even down-shift when they want to GO.

M3=sedan=pansy (generally speak, of course)

[Embs]

I don't know Moses, I am running a 3.8 that has to be putting out at least 305 to 310 HP and a fresh G50. I have had M3's and WRX's smoke me without issue. Remeber fellas, past 100Mph and weight doesn't matter....

[rdane]

"I have had M3's and WRX's smoke me without issue."

Dude, you need a tune up if the WRXs are smoking you.

[Moses]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
... As I read the post, the 911 fairly well ate the M3 alive...

Maybe I've exaggerated a bit. (I've done that before!)

I was surprized that I would even stay with him. If the fun started at 50 MPH, I was passing him at 90 MPH. I wasn't blowng his doors off at all, just pulling past him.

My 3.6 is chipped. Should be close to 300 HP now. I yanked the A/C, bumpers and bumper shocks. I figure I'm around 2,500 pounds (could be wrong.)

His M3 convertable weighs 3,780 pounds and has 333 HP. So I'm a little ahead on the power/weight ratio, but the M3 should go 0-60 in 5.4 which I doubt I could do.

I'm guessing that my friend saw a 20 year old 911 pulling hard and decided not to push it. Why would he? There is no possible up-side to running with a 20 year old car. If you lose, you might rethink all that money you spent

[Jack Olsen]

Originally posted by Embs
I have had M3's and WRX's smoke me without issue.

Huh?

I don't straight-line race, but Thom Fitzpatrick (in his fairly heavy 77 cab) has a 964 3.6, and runs 0-60's in 4.3 seconds. How's an M3 or WRX supposed to keep up with that?

[k9handler]

I have taken a well prepped Mustang in a dash with my baby, and then punished him down the autobahn well past 130 mph...so a 3.6 can do quite a bit in an ol' 911

[ischmitz]

The biggest penalty we have in the 3.6 transplants is that we can't shift from first into second too fast with a 915 like a drag racer. Imagine the embarassement of grenading your tranny in one of those little head to head quarrels....

Other that that I am sure I can take an M3 at any time. My 3.6 comes in at 2465 pounds with something in the 270 to 280 HP range and some pretty short gearing with the 7/31.

At speeds above 140 my car gets awfully light and nervous in the front. I can see that an M3 or any heavier car designed for high top speeds handles better.

K9, I would try and embrarras the hell out of your opponent below 130 and then just ease off. That's even more humiliation for him and a hell of a lot safer for you. These old cars were never designed for anything above 130mph.

There are actually warnings in the factory WS manual about not exceeding certain speeds with a disfunctional retractable wing...

Ingo

[Moses]

Originally posted by ischmitz
The biggest penalty we have in the 3.6 transplants is that we can't shift from first into second too fast with a 915 like a drag racer... Ingo

Absolutely. I never jump on it hard till I'm in second at 3000 RPM. Hitting the gas in first is utterly senseless, since I engage the rev limiter just about the same time my foot hits the floor. (Maybe I need a taller first or bigger tires.)

[Embs]

Originally posted by JackOlsen
Huh?

I don't straight-line race, but Thom Fitzpatrick (in his fairly heavy 77 cab) has a 964 3.6, and runs 0-60's in 4.3 seconds. How's an M3 or WRX supposed to keep up with that?

1. Past 145 and my car feels really unstable. I have a fresh but stock suspension (other than SAW springplates / Smart racing bumpsteer kit) with new Bilsteins, sports/HD's

2. I am not sure if the cars that have blown past me were were stock or had some HP mods. There are WRX's at nearly 400 HP @18 PSI of boost

3. I can go 0-60 in the low 4's too, but I have to really abuse the car and despite popular opinions the G50 isn't that much smoother to shift than a 915 IMHO, I have both. I do think the G50 downshifts much better.

[cowtown]

Well my brother-in law's Imprezza WRX (not STI) is about even with my '88 Carrera up to 70, at which point the Carrera starts slowly pulling away. I know, those WRXs can do 0-60 in under 6 or something. But you have to be a magazine tester who doesn't care about the clutch if you want to get those times. The everyday driver is at about 7, as I am in my Carrera with an easy launch. Maybe the WRXs you raced were not stock?

[rdane]

"Maybe the WRXs you raced were not stock?"

I had a WRX pull up to me at 60mph on the freeway, driver gave me a big grin and got on it. I down shifted to third, caught him very quickly and blew his socks off through 4th. Continued to do so into fifth. Wish I could have seen his face in my mirror Had to make my exit but there was no way he'd have caught me inside my 140 top end. That is with a lowly 3.0 with a short gear box and SSIs. Have yet to see a WRX on the track, keep up. But I haven't seen a 400 HP WRX either

WRX is a nice car but just barely in the same ball game as a decent, 25 year old 911 IMO. Haven't seen any running with the M3s either, which I make a point to avoid!

[dd74]

rdane: sent you a PM...