Trying not to do spoilers but it's a good'un. Some upsets too. Actually, a huge upset for Z06 haters.
(http://vgrhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/shrugging.jpg)
This thread will come in handy when we have something to talk about.
Definitely some unexpected results, and a solid showing by GM across the board (Z06, ATS-Vs, CTS-V). GM's performance group definitely has the recipe figured out.
Mustang Ecoboost further demonstrates its inferiority to the V6 it is supposed to be a step up from.
ND Miata shows you don't need more power to be way faster than the car you replace.
GTI demonstrates that real limited slip > brake-based simulated limited slip.
Uff da. Let's work on that title - should be "Lightening Lap 2015!!!!"
I think LL is one of the best running auto mag features. C&D is loathsome when it comes to delivering my issue on time but I found a scan: Car and Driver 2015 Lightening Lap (http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2446679).
Meh, to hell with spoilers ;). The Z06 pastes the AMG GT, Huracan, 911 GT3, McLaren 650, and every other car ever tested save for the $900k Porsche 918 from last year. People who hated the Z06 are and have always been jelly yo. Also note they said track temp was 100F.
Another standout is the CTS-V - lol right there with the ZL1, LFA and R8 V10.
GM is absolutely crushing it with its performance cars. The Camaro is gonna be monster.
Also, GM apparently uses VIR extensively for their performance vehicle development, so it shouldn't be too surprising that their cars did exceptionally well at that track.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 07, 2015, 02:38:31 PM
Uff da. Let's work on that title - should be "Lightening Lap 2015!!!!"
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
One thing I found surprising/depressing.... MB has not only a bonafide hairy chest sports car in place of BMW's future frisbee; but its more pedestrian entrants (CLA45, C63, E63) range from comfortably beating to handily trouncing BMW's respective offerings. In the mainstream realm IMO MB's cars are more desirable as well, aside from the M235i and 335i. And of course MB has no manuals in sight. But still.... all that aside, it's kind of weird how AMG >>>> ///M right now....
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 07, 2015, 03:55:14 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
One thing I found surprising/depressing.... MB has not only a bonafide hairy chest sports car in place of BMW's future frisbee; but its more pedestrian entrants (CLA45, C63, E63) range from comfortably beating to handily trouncing BMW's respective offerings. In the mainstream realm IMO MB's cars are more desirable as well, aside from the M235i and 335i. And of course MB has no manuals in sight. But still.... all that aside, it's kind of weird how AMG >>>> ///M right now....
I think that speaks more to AMG's recent progress, particularly in building cars that are more well-rounded rather than expensive, luxo-muscle cars, than BMW necessarily falling from grace. The M4 they tested last year was hugely faster than any E9x M3 they had run in previous years. Though the M235i was a bit off the pace from the 1M they previously ran a few years back.
Quote from: MX793 on September 07, 2015, 04:02:35 PM
I think that speaks more to AMG's recent progress, particularly in building cars that are more well-rounded rather than expensive, luxo-muscle cars, than BMW necessarily falling from grace. The M4 they tested last year was hugely faster than any E9x M3 they had run in previous years. Though the M235i was a bit off the pace from the 1M they previously ran a few years back.
Their cars are more well rounded, but also faster... at least around VIR. I'd prefer the M3 to the C63 and definitely the M235i + LSD to the CLA43, but I wouldn't want to line up with either at a stoplight or try and chase one around a track. I guess in that way BMW kind of makes more well rounded cars for enthusiasts. But it wasn't long ago that the concept of a Benz giving a Bimmer the business anywhere but on a drag strip was "inconthievable" :lol:
Not quite so fast. Not only have the AMG cars been besting the M cars in performance numbers if pretty much all mag comparos are to be believed many are also better drivers' cars. The M/T comparo of the AMG GTS vs. GTR vs. 911 Turbo (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1507_mercedes_amg_gt_s_porsche_911_turbo_s_nissan_gt_r_comparison/viewall.html) put the AMG GT first even though the 911 Turbo had better performance specs (of HUGE note the AMG GTS bested the GTR on the track, albeit it was a "base" GTR).
Not only a base GT-R, but fitted with run-flat tires that are inferior to what the other two cars were running, which was probably the #1 reason it put in the slowest lap times. There's only so much the GT-R physics-defying AWD system can do.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 07, 2015, 03:55:14 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
One thing I found surprising/depressing.... MB has not only a bonafide hairy chest sports car in place of BMW's future frisbee; but its more pedestrian entrants (CLA45, C63, E63) range from comfortably beating to handily trouncing BMW's respective offerings. In the mainstream realm IMO MB's cars are more desirable as well, aside from the M235i and 335i. And of course MB has no manuals in sight. But still.... all that aside, it's kind of weird how AMG >>>> ///M right now....
Considering that a C63S is about 15K more than an M3 and that the M3 is coming out in months with an upgraded comp package which will include some more power, the slight < 2 sec advantage of the C63 S isn´t that impressive.
The ATS-V performs similarly while having an econocar dash so I don´t think BMW is in that much trouble.
The gap is wider in the M5 vs. CTS-V category. But it´s similar as to when the previous CTS-V outperformed the E60 M5, so nothing very new there. BMW won´t have an answer until the next gen M5 which is 2-3 years away.
Quote from: MX793 on September 07, 2015, 05:54:41 PM
Not only a base GT-R, but fitted with run-flat tires that are inferior to what the other two cars were running, which was probably the #1 reason it put in the slowest lap times. There's only so much the GT-R physics-defying AWD system can do.
Well, the 2:51.00 of the AMG GT S this year beats ALL Lightening Lap GTR times listed (I saw at least three, and the fastest was 2:53.2).
Quote from: GoCougs on September 07, 2015, 08:13:39 PM
Well, the 2:51.00 of the AMG GT S this year beats ALL Lightening Lap GTR times listed (I saw at least three, and the fastest was 2:53.2).
GT-R Nismo ran a 2:49.4 in last year's LL. Fairly small margin; the GT-S is certainly right in the same neighborhood. Right there with track-focused monsters like the 911 GT3 and Z/28, as well.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on September 07, 2015, 06:25:28 PM
Considering that a C63S is about 15K more than an M3 and that the M3 is coming out in months with an upgraded comp package which will include some more power, the slight < 2 sec advantage of the C63 S isn´t that impressive.
The ATS-V performs similarly while having an econocar dash so I don´t think BMW is in that much trouble.
The gap is wider in the M5 vs. CTS-V category. But it´s similar as to when the previous CTS-V outperformed the E60 M5, so nothing very new there. BMW won´t have an answer until the next gen M5 which is 2-3 years away.
That additional cost though is in luxuriousness. Save for a bit better power/weight ratio, the C63 S actually on paper has lower cost/performance tech - the C63 S has a torque converter AT (the M3 has dual clutch tranny), the C63 S only has carbon ceramic brakes on the front (the M3 has 'em at all four corners), the C63 S has smaller tires front and rear (245/265 vs. 255/275), and the C63 S weighs ~450 lbs more.
Quote from: GoCougs on September 07, 2015, 08:56:22 PM
That additional cost though is in luxuriousness. Save for a bit better power/weight ratio, the C63 S actually on paper has lower cost/performance tech - the C63 S has a torque converter AT (the M3 has dual clutch tranny), the C63 S only has carbon ceramic brakes on the front (the M3 has 'em at all four corners), the C63 S has smaller tires front and rear (245/265 vs. 255/275), and the C63 S weighs ~450 lbs more.
Fair points. Just remember the V8 vs the M3s inline 6 with almost 20% more power.
Quote from: MX793 on September 07, 2015, 08:16:12 PM
GT-R Nismo ran a 2:49.4 in last year's LL. Fairly small margin; the GT-S is certainly right in the same neighborhood. Right there with track-focused monsters like the 911 GT3 and Z/28, as well.
I see, missed that. Well, the GTR NISMO is a special edition with ~$50k of add ons.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on September 07, 2015, 08:59:54 PM
Fair points. Just remember the V8 vs the M3s inline 6 with almost 20% more power.
True, but then again the C63 S weighs almost 4,000 lbs (3950/503 vs. 3,500/425).
Quote from: GoCougs on September 07, 2015, 09:02:43 PM
True, but then again the C63 S weighs almost 4,000 lbs (3950/503 vs. 3,500/425).
Yes. Which is why in some same day, same driver, back to back tests the M3 has been faster (EVO did one very recently).
In any case, for any real world scenario it's a driver's race between the 3 cars (ATS-V, C63S and M3)
I am much more impressed by the CTS-V. That performance is outrageous for a car in that segment. For perspective, that's a full 10 seconds faster than an M5 and 5 seconds faster than an E63S. And without the low rent interior of the ATS.
And the Z06 is out of this world. And for this test (at 100 degrees ambient temp) no mention of overheating.
I just finished reading the issue on my plane ride from Miami.
I liked that they put the FIT on the test track and it did respectably well considering what it is; more real world cars would be fun to see.
The Ecoboost Mustang continues to disappoint and I'm surprised Car and Driver didn't even bother to mention the 3 second faster, last gen V6PP car in their write up. Maybe Ford kindly suggested against it?
The AMG GTS looks amazing and performs about as well as it looks. I want one, bad.
GM is kicking ass and taking names in everything performance lately.
The Golf R continues to not be worth the price increase from the GTI, especially now that the LSD makes the difference like 2 seconds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on September 07, 2015, 09:11:46 PM
And the Z06 is out of this world. And for this test (at 100 degrees ambient temp) no mention of overheating.
To be fair, the Z06 track time was limited by its tires. They said they were basically good for 1 lap, suggesting a couple of things. 1, they might have had multiple tires on site for the Z06 (wonder how many other cars had the same???). Two, its 2:44 time is conservative.
I do have to give it to GM though. They pretty much cleaned up across the board. Their chassis tuning and traction control systems are first rate. They just need to work on the cars and engines connected to said chassis and TC systems :lol:
Quote from: Xer0 on September 07, 2015, 10:20:34 PM
I just finished reading the issue on my plane ride from Miami.
I liked that they put the FIT on the test track and it did respectably well considering what it is; more real world cars would be fun to see.
The Ecoboost Mustang continues to disappoint and I'm surprised Car and Driver didn't even bother to mention the 3 second faster, last gen V6PP car in their write up. Maybe Ford kindly suggested against it?
The AMG GTS looks amazing and performs about as well as it looks. I want one, bad.
GM is kicking ass and taking names in everything performance lately.
The Golf R continues to not be worth the price increase from the GTI, especially now that the LSD makes the difference like 2 seconds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I also agree that it was cool to see what the Fit could do. I'd love for them to take out some Camry V6s and stuff (if for no other reason than to put Cougs' fanboyism to sleep).
FWIW the Golf R only has the XDS+ "E-LSD" at the axles. I bet it's the same story with the S3. Mechanical LSDs are critical for putting power to the front wheels.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 08, 2015, 05:50:26 AM
To be fair, the Z06 track time was limited by its tires. They said they were basically good for 1 lap, suggesting a couple of things. 1, they might have had multiple tires on site for the Z06 (wonder how many other cars had the same???). Two, its 2:44 time is conservative.
I do have to give it to GM though. They pretty much cleaned up across the board. Their chassis tuning and traction control systems are first rate. They just need to work on the cars and engines connected to said chassis and TC systems :lol:
The Lambo and McLaren had spare sets on hand, per the article. I expect a number of others did as well.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 08, 2015, 05:53:36 AM
I also agree that it was cool to see what the Fit could do. I'd love for them to take out some Camry V6s and stuff (if for no other reason than to put Cougs' fanboyism to sleep).
FWIW the Golf R only has the XDS+ "E-LSD" at the axles. I bet it's the same story with the S3. Mechanical LSDs are critical for putting power to the front wheels.
E-lsd is a real limited slip with electronically controlled clutch packs. It's not a brake-based faux lsd.
Quote from: MX793 on September 08, 2015, 06:02:39 AM
E-lsd is a real limited slip with electronically controlled clutch packs. It's not a brake-based faux lsd.
My mistake then. Point was Golf R distributes traction at the axles through braking.
So let me guess, cars with R compounds do better than cars without?
Quote from: Char on September 08, 2015, 08:19:30 AM
So let me guess, cars with R compounds do better than cars without?
IIRC the Cadillacs and the Merc C63 are on Pilot Super Sports (same as the relevant bimmers).
I don't know about the AMG GTS, the Z06 and the exotics.
They did mention that the Z06 tires began losing grip after a single lap though.
But you make a good point. I believe on such a long track R compounds can be worth as much as 5 or 6 seconds. Maybe even more.
Quote from: Char on September 08, 2015, 08:19:30 AM
So let me guess, cars with R compounds do better than cars without?
Yes, along with the cars with more HP, less weight, better aerodynamics, better brakes etc.
Golf R is still slower than a 350z, Mustang V6 and an Infiniti G. Why does this car exist...why do people buy it?
Quote from: Char on September 08, 2015, 11:23:02 AM
Golf R is still slower than a 350z, Mustang V6 and an Infiniti G. Why does this car exist...why do people buy it?
:confused:
S3: 3:11.3
Golf R : 3:12.3350Z Track: 3:12.5
Mustang V-6: 3:12.5
Infiniti G37: 3:17.5
Not to mention it's cheaper equally equipped and/or more practical than any of the other 3 cars you listed. At least make some kind of effort
I went through the article again, before I had just skimmed it. So the C63S time was done with a factory driver.
They don't mention it, but I'd assume same goes for the AMG GTS.
That explains quite a bit.
About the Golf R, in a recent Evo track battle with the Audi RS3, the Golf was faster. Here it is slower than little brother S3.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on September 08, 2015, 12:58:54 PM
I went through the article again, before I had just skimmed it. So the C63S time was done with a factory driver.
They don't mention it, but I'd assume same goes for the AMG GTS.
I don't think he drove the car and instead was there to give them pointers. That was my take away at least.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Several companies sent personnel. While they may have run some laps to ensure the vehicles were running correctly, I'm pretty sure all of the official times were set by C&D's drivers.
Yea thats the impression I had as well
Good job GM..... :rockon:
Just re-read. The person M-B sent did not drive either of the Benzes during official lapping (likewise Jim Mero, who was sent by Chevy to keep tabs on the Vette). He was sent to merely keep an eye on the car, make sure it was running properly, and he apparently egged the drivers on to make sure they got every last bit out of the car that they could.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 08, 2015, 12:47:42 PM
:confused:
S3: 3:11.3
Golf R : 3:12.3
350Z Track: 3:12.5
Mustang V-6: 3:12.5
Infiniti G37: 3:17.5
Not to mention it's cheaper equally equipped and/or more practical than any of the other 3 cars you listed. At least make some kind of effort
Link is gone, so I couldn't double check - but I swore it said 3.13 my mistake. Anyhow - No, the 350Z's base price was under 30, and the V6 Mustang starts at 23K. The Golf R starts at
35K and it's still a fucking VW GOLF.
Oh and neither car is a POS VW shitstorm, that's always a plus.
Quote from: Char on September 08, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
Link is gone, so I couldn't double check - but I swore it said 3.13 my mistake. Anyhow - No, the 350Z's base price was under 30, and the V6 Mustang starts at 23K. The Golf R starts at 35K and it's still a fucking VW GOLF.
Oh and neither car is a POS VW shitstorm, that's always a plus.
Yea, its a VW Golf that can beat thoroughbred sports cars around a race track, and also be an awesome, practical, comfortable, economical daily driver too.
Show me where on the doll a VW touched you.
Mustang V6/350Z.... thoroughbred sports cars.
ok
Quote from: 68_427 on September 08, 2015, 09:34:44 PM
Mustang V6/350Z.... thoroughbred sports cars.
ok
I LOL's too, but the 350Z is a sports car and the Mustang tested was the Previous generation version. Fucking pathetic showing from VW as always.
Quote from: Char on September 08, 2015, 09:53:06 PM
I LOL's too, but the 350Z is a sports car and the Mustang tested was the Previous generation version. Fucking pathetic showing from VW as always.
Pathetic showing by beating ground up performance cars around a race track? What would constitute a good showing?
The longer you wait to open up about what a VWAG did to you the more time you will waste being a miserable prick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPEy-Vj_oKM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPEy-Vj_oKM)
I see the Mustang GT got kinda hot and lost power........ :stirspot:
350Z?
didn't they stop selling those like 6 years ago?
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on September 09, 2015, 07:15:09 AM
350Z?
didn't they stop selling those like 6 years ago?
They brought it back. Decreased displacement with added ecoboost turbos running at 0.8 psi brings similar performance, but increases highway fuel economy by 1.1 mpg.
Quote from: Char on September 08, 2015, 06:28:19 PM
Link is gone, so I couldn't double check - but I swore it said 3.13 my mistake. Anyhow - No, the 350Z's base price was under 30, and the V6 Mustang starts at 23K. The Golf R starts at 35K and it's still a fucking VW GOLF.
Oh and neither car is a POS VW shitstorm, that's always a plus.
And how much extra hp did the stang need to beat the Golf? how much does the G37 cost? How much does the 350z cost accounting for inflation?
That Golf could spank anything you drive around some twisties.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on September 09, 2015, 06:46:05 AM
I see the Mustang GT got kinda hot and lost power........ :stirspot:
I saw that too ;).
I think the Golf R is definitely not impressive when compared to the GTI. Not worth the premium.
Same goes for the S3 but that's nothing new for VW based Audis. Always go for the VW.
Quote from: Gotta-Qik-G8 on September 09, 2015, 06:46:05 AM
I see the Mustang GT got kinda hot and lost power........ :stirspot:
Temperature gauges all read normal, though. Might have been heat, might have been something else.
Did they even bother to test a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution GSR?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 09, 2015, 07:19:17 AM
They brought it back. Decreased displacement with added ecoboost turbos running at 0.8 psi brings similar performance, but increases highway fuel economy by 1.1 mpg.
:lol:
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on September 09, 2015, 09:48:01 AM
Did they even bother to test a Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution GSR?
Last Evo they tested was an SE back in '11. Before that a Lancer X MR and a Lancer IX MR.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 09, 2015, 04:45:15 AM
Pathetic showing by beating ground up performance cars around a race track? What would constitute a good showing?
The longer you wait to open up about what a VWAG did to you the more time you will waste being a miserable prick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPEy-Vj_oKM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPEy-Vj_oKM)
What VW did is deliver half-baked FWD based, shit cars for real car money, and people on this forum (and elsewhere) Eat. That. Shit. Up.
Unless your name is Sara, Tara, or Anna you really can't come up with a compelling reason to actually consider this car. It's
40,000 for a hopped up Mugen Honda Civic like atrocity, it that doesn't doesn't even bother to give a reach around to the poor saps who take it with no lube.
This car is such shit, it can barely outrun a 350Z from 2006, barely outrun a Mustang V6 with a speed limiter and of course it's slower and less luxurious than other cars in the same price range like the 335i and 2 series.
Fuck that car, and you too for trying to justify such a steaming pile being sold as a legitimate option for real enthusiast.
Sara, Tara, and Anna, huh?
So all your exes drove VWs, did they? I think we've had a bit of a breakthrough in your therapy today.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on September 09, 2015, 05:28:53 PM
Sara, Tara, and Anna, huh?
So all your exes drove VWs, did they? I think we've had a bit of a breakthrough in your therapy today.
:rolleyes: :lol:
Quote from: Char on September 09, 2015, 05:18:20 PM
What VW did is deliver half-baked FWD based, shit cars for real car money, and people on this forum (and elsewhere) Eat. That. Shit. Up.
Unless your name is Sara, Tara, or Anna you really can't come up with a compelling reason to actually consider this car. It's 40,000 for a hopped up Mugen Honda Civic like atrocity, it that doesn't doesn't even bother to give a reach around to the poor saps who take it with no lube.
This car is such shit, it can barely outrun a 350Z from 2006, barely outrun a Mustang V6 with a speed limiter and of course it's slower and less luxurious than other cars in the same price range like the 335i and 2 series.
Fuck that car, and you too for trying to justify such a steaming pile being sold as a legitimate option for real enthusiast.
If it's half baked, what are all the ground up performance and sports cars it beat :confused:
What Mugen Civic had 300HP & AWD :confused:
And if u don't like fast Golfs, I would NOT.... I repeat.... NOT look up the LL time of the TT RS, as it just MIGHT have trounced every BMW ever made before it around VIR :mask:
I guess from henceforth track times don't matter, Mr 323i Track Build?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 09, 2015, 06:05:19 PM
If it's half baked, what are all the ground up performance and sports cars it beat :confused:
What Mugen Civic had 300HP & AWD :confused:
And if u don't like fast Golfs, I would NOT.... I repeat.... NOT look up the LL time of the TT RS, as it just MIGHT have trounced every BMW ever made before it around VIR :mask:
I guess from henceforth track times don't matter, Mr 323i Track Build?
Don't hate the player, Hate VW.
With glee, and with what can only be described as a willful ignorance premise, I destroy said by noting that the Golf R bested the 135i, 335is and 335i Sport Line over the history of the LL. I also note of course the Golf R is as quick or quicker in a straight line, too. BMW literally loses sleep over not being able to build a car as good as the GTI/Golf R.
How many reputation hits can a troll take? Guess we're gonna find out.
Quote from: Char on September 09, 2015, 06:21:14 PM
Don't hate the player, Hate VW.
Why? Because a GTI will handily see your track built 325e around a road course?
Oh, Jesus, a 2015 GTI would absolutely lunch a 325i...
Quote from: GoCougs on September 09, 2015, 06:48:03 PM
With glee, and with what can only be described as a willful ignorance premise, I destroy said by noting that the Golf R bested the 135i, 335is and 335i Sport Line over the history of the LL. I also note of course the Golf R is as quick or quicker in a straight line, too. BMW literally loses sleep over not being able to build a car as good as the GTI/Golf R.
How many reputation hits can a troll take? Guess we're gonna find out.
I see a 3.10 for a 335i and a 3.07 for 235i - and it's slower than both of them. BMW screws up at time, but it ain't no VW.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 09, 2015, 07:15:50 PM
Why? Because a GTI will handily see your track built 325e around a road course?
Pff, probably. And I'll drive away in a car that isn't a VW..we'll be lucky if the VW makes it back to the street without a CEL.
Quote from: Char on September 09, 2015, 07:55:13 PM
Pff, probably. And I'll drive away in a car that isn't a VW..we'll be lucky if the VW makes it back to the street without a CEL.
And we'll be lucky if the BMW makes it off the track without lunching its Fisher Price My First Water Pump. U can at least clear the code.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 09, 2015, 08:19:01 PM
And we'll be lucky if the BMW makes it off the track without lunching its Fisher Price My First Water Pump. U can at least clear the code.
the CEL is a constant fixture on any VW - you can't fix it unless you junk the car and buy something else.
Honestly, the VW has zero redeeming qualities. Say what you want about my car, it's not a shit box like a VW.
Quote from: Char on September 09, 2015, 08:34:14 PM
the CEL is a constant fixture on any VW - you can't fix it unless you junk the car and buy something else.
Honestly, the VW has zero redeeming qualities. Say what you want about my car, it's not a shit box like a VW.
Well you do track days. Golfs >>>>>>> BMWs, at least against the clock, with similar horsepower. That's gotta hurt.
LOL plus what are the MPGeez on all the cars that beat the VW??
A seasoned turd sandwhich is still a turd sandwich.
Fyi, I can get Over 30 highway and around mid to low 20s city. It'll probably get better with the tune.
I love my new VW, I don't see how I could have got something any better for the money.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on September 10, 2015, 11:18:58 AM
I love my new VW, I don't see how I could have got something any better for the money.
Turd. Sandwich.
Quote from: Char on September 10, 2015, 01:03:39 PM
Turd. Sandwich.
What are you doing here, aren't you late for your weekly dyno tune session on your stock BMW.
Quote from: Char on September 10, 2015, 11:03:51 AM
It'll probably get better with the tune.
LOL doubt it
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on September 10, 2015, 01:17:20 PM
What are you doing here, aren't you late for your weekly dyno tune session on your stock BMW.
:lol: :high5:
Quote from: Char on September 10, 2015, 11:03:51 AM
A seasoned turd sandwhich is still a turd sandwich.
That will give an "ultimate driving machine" a tough time in any competition of speed :partyon:
Quote from: Char on September 10, 2015, 11:03:51 AM
Fyi, I can get Over 30 highway and around mid to low 20s city. It'll probably get better with the tune.
Link to your Fuelly logs?
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on September 10, 2015, 01:17:20 PM
What are you doing here, aren't you late for your weekly dyno tune session on your stock BMW.
Funny enough, I have a dyno Saturday. Maybe.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 10, 2015, 02:42:16 PM
That will give an "ultimate driving machine" a tough time in any competition of speed :partyon:
Link to your Fuelly logs?
I linked the pic if myy OBC showing it in the build thread. I'll take another tonight.
Quote from: Char on September 10, 2015, 06:19:20 PM
Funny enough, I have a dyno Saturday. Maybe.
Of course, you must have gotten a new pine tree air freshner. With a tune that will probably add 4-5 hp.
Quote from: Char on September 10, 2015, 06:20:59 PM
I linked the pic if myy OBC showing it in the build thread. I'll take another tonight.
Im still gonna go w/Fuelly logs. Not surprising that you are the guy on the internet who is beating EPA estimates by like 30-50%.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on September 10, 2015, 08:25:10 PM
Im still gonna go w/Fuelly logs. Not surprising that you are the guy on the internet who is beating EPA estimates by like 30-50%.
Thanks for reminding me. I always meant timo sign up for fuelly. Just did it. 0.0 mpg so far. :rockon:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/j0k7s1.jpg)
Pos
Pos indeed. All hot squishy and smelly in your underoos everytime you see a VW on the street
So frazzled u can't even hold a camera straight
Golf must have stolen his lunch money a few moons ago....
Quote from: Char on September 13, 2015, 09:53:21 AM
(http://i62.tinypic.com/j0k7s1.jpg)
Pos
I feel like that picture is something my dad would do when trying to take a picture with his phone (which he has trouble even answering calls on). :lol:
If I held it verticle, you would be calling me savage. Or does that only count when recording video.
Aren't BMW drivers supposed to be college educated, tech savvy young professionals?
Wait, maybe it's VW I'm thinking off.
C
A
R
R
Y
O
N
.
Quote from: FlatBlackCaddy on September 14, 2015, 01:44:27 PM
Aren't BMW drivers supposed to be college educated, tech savvy young professionals?
supposed to be. :huh: always got to be exceptions though!