03-04 m45 really is a beast!

[viperatc1]

decided to give the m another shot at the gtech pro today.this car suprises me more and more each day!for some reason i could not disable the traction control my first few passes and they were horrible!14.8@97 and 14.7@98 iwas pissed!gonna take it to the dealer to check that out.so i turned the beast off and back on and turned off vdc and was back to business!last pass 13.91 @104.9! i could'nt help but fly home and crack open some beers for celebration!!! by the way,my launching was with a half throtle jump andthan punch it with about five feet of rubber on the ground!

[sr79labrat]

That is SIC! What were your 60ft times?KTW

[viperatc1]

i wish i knew! i have the older gtech that only shows 0-60 and qaurtermile times.my the last test i ran 14.06 @103.7.like i said before,the mph is probrably off by 3-4 mph but who cares!it's still a 13 second car no doubt about it!sleeper is definately the word for the m!!!!!

[szh]

Good stuff!

Z

[viperatc1]

went out today with the gtrech and hit o-60 in 5.41 sec! nice!!!!

[Bag302]

went out today with the gtrech and hit o-60 in 5.41 sec! nice!!!!

I've had my 2003 M45 for a couple of weeks now and I have been reading the all of the threads. But this one stuck in my head. Honestly, I was a little skeptical on these performance claims, especially when all of the official reviews quoted this car in the 6 sec range.

So, I decided to try to get my own numbers. My first question was "Are these timers accurate?" I came across a Car & Driver article comparing several of these things and as it turns out, they are generally accurate to 1mph and 1/10 of a sec. That's good enough for me.

I went out and bought an Escort GT2 http://www.escortradar.com/gtimer.htm. It came today. I set it up and ran a quick 0-60 with VDC on. I got a 0-60 time of 6.24 feathering the gas off the line. I then went to a 1/4 mile stretch near my house and achieved the following time with VDC off and mashing the gas:

0-60: 5.301/4 mi: 13.72 @103.660': 2.13

Temp: 73'Humidity: 88%Elevation: 10'Car has 37,000 miles with brand new tires. I weigh 220 and had my golf clubs in the trunk.

I'm thoroughly impressed!!

[auditech10]

I guess I will have to see one at a track to believe those numbers. I know our Ms are quick and fast but that doesnt even seem feasable to me. Maybe since the suspension is so soft. Maybe this summer Ill take her to the track and post those numbers. I also have a 2004 Volvo S60R that Ive seen 1/4 mile times at 14.0 and I will put money that that is quicker than my M45 which Ive seen times at 14.4-14.8 in major car magazines.Cheers

[troubleowens]

Don't always take the magazines as gospel. You got the car, get in and smash the gas. They don't always get to long term them, but you do. And don't let me catch you in that Volvo. Ill make you sell it and believe in the M. Now go find a Charger R/T and hurt his feelings.

[auditech10]

I would put money against my M with me driving the S60R. But thats all based off of seat of the pants feel as I have not personally seen any time sheets from a race track and not a Gtech. If anybody has some to show what they've done with their Ms or Qs please post them for the rest to see

[viperatc1]

i'll be going to the track this month and i will post my timeslips. that is a very respectable 60' time!i have been comparing this car to the 300c and the power to weight is better for the m and the 300c is capable of 13.8@102 in the quartermile! even the final drive ratios are higher on the m which is better for the launch.i know the torque figures are higher for the 300c but hp is the same and the m weighs about 300 pounds less! just something to think about.

Modified by viperatc1 at 5:27 PM 3/3/2007
Modified by viperatc1 at 5:53 PM 3/5/2007

[Bag302]

I guess I will have to see one at a track to believe those numbers. I know our Ms are quick and fast but that doesnt even seem feasable to me. Maybe since the suspension is so soft. Maybe this summer Ill take her to the track and post those numbers. I also have a 2004 Volvo S60R that Ive seen 1/4 mile times at 14.0 and I will put money that that is quicker than my M45 which Ive seen times at 14.4-14.8 in major car magazines.Cheers

For what it's worth, here is Car and Driver's article on these performance meters http://www.caranddriver.com/fe....html. I believe data from these units will get you in the ballpark.

[viperatc1]

magazines can be very inacurate sometimes.one mag has the m @14.7@95and another has it @[email protected] nephew has a 2003 honda s2000 and the mags have it from 14.9@97 to 13.8@100. i went with him to atco raceway and he ran a best of [email protected] car is stock.there are many factors in these test results to look into.like temp, altitude, driver and so on.don't underestimate your beast!

[auditech10]

No, I definitely understand that they also use much newer cars than any of our 4 year old broken in cars as well. But as I stated before I have only had a "seat of the pants" comparison to go by. Please post your times when you go. Ill post mine whenever I make it down and we can compare. That seems like the best way to figure this out.Cheers

[viperatc1]

although your volvo may be faster,with a 101mph trap speed it should run 13 second quartermile times.

[viperatc1]

my wife owns a 03 g35 coupe auto so i took that out for a test with the gtech pro to compare and results were...14.46@100. i know that the gtech is about 2-3 mph high in most tests but i think that the quartermile results are pretty acurate.at least i hope i'm right about that.i called the local; track and they are closed tomorrow due to snow on the ground,this blows!!!!!!so i have to wait a couple more weeks.bye the way i tested my m at the same spot where i tested the g.

[vzuptnguyen]

hey viper, i saw your video of you running quarter mile times with your nephews s2k. 14.4 i believe. nice.