View Poll Results: Which one?
2004 GT3
38
63.33%
2005 E60 M5
5
8.33%
2005 Hummer H2 SUT
17
28.33%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll
Which car: GT3 or E60 M5?
11-14-2004, 09:02 PM
#47
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by MatroxMGA
why would anyone choose a Hummer over a new M5?????
My guess would be half general comic appeal and half specifically making fun of the question itself.
To answer to the original post's question, to me it seems that the choice between a GT3 and an M5 is an easy one. If you are going to track the car, get a GT3. If you plan on holding more than 2 people, get the M5. If this is just a fun car that will not be tracked and you never will want to hold more than 2 people, I still say get the GT3 because it will be more fun. The M5 is a great car, but I only see it being the right choice if you want only one car for practical matters and sport or if you are buying it after you already have your sports car.
11-14-2004, 11:01 PM
#48
Racer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yargk,
terrific points! that's what i get for trusting a correlation i remembered from a dragster episode on junkyard wars.
i did a quick search and it looks like that dependence information was based on rotational acceleration! (there's an r^2 in there) don't ask me why they did that. rather alarming that the "expert" they called in would do such a thing.
now, you're dead on about the aerodynamic drag, but for the purposes of 0-60, it's minimal. but because i was still interested in determining the best way to compare cars on paper, i found this bit of information:
For each gear, you take the torque graph, scale it based upon the various gear ratios and the tire size, to finally arrive at a measurement of pounds of thrust at the rear wheel vs. road speed. You then overlay the graphs for each gear, and come up with an overall "thrust graph". If you compare the graphs for two vehicles, you'll get a decent idea of how they stack up.
and this makes sense as hp is not force, rather torque would be more appropriate when applying F=ma.
the author of this says that motorcycle magazines often go to all the trouble of using the torque graphs, gear ratios, and tire sizes to compare acceleration. but he's never seen a single car magazine do this math.
for the GT3 to M5 comparison, it gets worse for the porsche as the GT3 engine is relatively low on torque, though we'd need to look at both torque graphs.
and to answer your question, i'm senior (5th year) biomedical engineering at fsu (switched from pre-med during my 2nd year). i'm also taking two graduate classes this semester to get a head start on my master's. one of them is an advanced transport phenomena course that is sucking my will to live. the other day in class, another student asked him why we can't just solve differential equations in our TI-89's to save time. he said, "what if you're on a deserted island with no calculators?" i responded with, "well then, we'd probably have more important things to worry about than differential equations."
physics/math double must be rough, too. we have a kid in the grad program with a physics bachelor's, but he's a total douche bag. i know he decided to get the engineering master's because he couldn't find a well-paying job with his physics degree. if you could please share your post-graduation plans with me, maybe they're brilliant enough for me to convince him to do the same and we won't have to listen to him in class any more.
thanks in advance.
terrific points! that's what i get for trusting a correlation i remembered from a dragster episode on junkyard wars.
i did a quick search and it looks like that dependence information was based on rotational acceleration! (there's an r^2 in there) don't ask me why they did that. rather alarming that the "expert" they called in would do such a thing.
now, you're dead on about the aerodynamic drag, but for the purposes of 0-60, it's minimal. but because i was still interested in determining the best way to compare cars on paper, i found this bit of information:
For each gear, you take the torque graph, scale it based upon the various gear ratios and the tire size, to finally arrive at a measurement of pounds of thrust at the rear wheel vs. road speed. You then overlay the graphs for each gear, and come up with an overall "thrust graph". If you compare the graphs for two vehicles, you'll get a decent idea of how they stack up.
and this makes sense as hp is not force, rather torque would be more appropriate when applying F=ma.
the author of this says that motorcycle magazines often go to all the trouble of using the torque graphs, gear ratios, and tire sizes to compare acceleration. but he's never seen a single car magazine do this math.
for the GT3 to M5 comparison, it gets worse for the porsche as the GT3 engine is relatively low on torque, though we'd need to look at both torque graphs.
and to answer your question, i'm senior (5th year) biomedical engineering at fsu (switched from pre-med during my 2nd year). i'm also taking two graduate classes this semester to get a head start on my master's. one of them is an advanced transport phenomena course that is sucking my will to live. the other day in class, another student asked him why we can't just solve differential equations in our TI-89's to save time. he said, "what if you're on a deserted island with no calculators?" i responded with, "well then, we'd probably have more important things to worry about than differential equations."
physics/math double must be rough, too. we have a kid in the grad program with a physics bachelor's, but he's a total douche bag. i know he decided to get the engineering master's because he couldn't find a well-paying job with his physics degree. if you could please share your post-graduation plans with me, maybe they're brilliant enough for me to convince him to do the same and we won't have to listen to him in class any more.
thanks in advance.
11-15-2004, 11:54 PM
#49
Advanced
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK - London
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I enjoyed reading this thread very much. Presently I have a CSL and looking to change it for an E60 M5. Indeed recently just cancelled a new GT3 RS for practicality as a one car family.
The new M5 next May will be great car with great noise but nowhere near as focused as the CSL. Plan is to run it for a year then take my place on the queue for the forthcoming 997 GT3 in 2005 when practicality will be less of an issue.
High performance saloon cars are great cars - I owned a E39 M5 before and still believe on average it is the better car than the CSL. But once those clear open roads appear the CSL [and I sure the GT3] will be the King !
Glad we have choice only limited by money !
The new M5 next May will be great car with great noise but nowhere near as focused as the CSL. Plan is to run it for a year then take my place on the queue for the forthcoming 997 GT3 in 2005 when practicality will be less of an issue.
High performance saloon cars are great cars - I owned a E39 M5 before and still believe on average it is the better car than the CSL. But once those clear open roads appear the CSL [and I sure the GT3] will be the King !
Glad we have choice only limited by money !
11-16-2004, 05:35 AM
#50
Rennlist Member
924SE,
Ok, so the best way to get how much thrust a car makes at any given road speed is to look at the torque at the rpm in the lowest gear possible for that road speed. That torque number can be used with the gear ratio and your tire diameter to find the force on the ground.
However, notice that we used other data like rpm and gear ratio, not just the torque, in finding that force. The idea is that if you make your torque at a higher rpm, then you can use a lower gear and more force will be put to the ground than a car with equal torque made at a lower rpm because that guy would have to upshift and use a higher gear at that same road speed. It turns out that since hp is torque*a constant*rpm, it takes into account this possible gearing advantage. So if you are going to use one number to estimate force on the ground it would be hp, NOT torque. Torque can be used to make an accurate calculation, but only when you include other quantities like rpm and gearing. (edit: I agreed with everything you said up to the point on the GT3 being low on torque so I just wanted to say that if you had one number it should be hp, not torque, then I read your post again and saw the part about having to look the whole torque graph, not just the peak, so my above comments are probably not needed since you qualified your statement on GT3 torque and you know what you're talking about, sorry about that)
I see 3 paths for physics majors. You can become an engineer if you are practical enough and many companies hire physics students for engineering jobs, especially in the semiconductor industry. The second choice would be any analytical job since many employers understand the value of problem solving skills no matter what discipline they were obtained in. I recently heard about physicists working on stock market programs because some equation that had to be solved numerically was equivalent to the Schrödinger equation. Then as a third choice you can stay in academia. So there are surprisingly many jobs for physics students if you look. I'll be going to grad school. I'm not sure what I want to do after that, I just feel that I don't know enough yet to be satisfied with my education.
Ok, so the best way to get how much thrust a car makes at any given road speed is to look at the torque at the rpm in the lowest gear possible for that road speed. That torque number can be used with the gear ratio and your tire diameter to find the force on the ground.
However, notice that we used other data like rpm and gear ratio, not just the torque, in finding that force. The idea is that if you make your torque at a higher rpm, then you can use a lower gear and more force will be put to the ground than a car with equal torque made at a lower rpm because that guy would have to upshift and use a higher gear at that same road speed. It turns out that since hp is torque*a constant*rpm, it takes into account this possible gearing advantage. So if you are going to use one number to estimate force on the ground it would be hp, NOT torque. Torque can be used to make an accurate calculation, but only when you include other quantities like rpm and gearing. (edit: I agreed with everything you said up to the point on the GT3 being low on torque so I just wanted to say that if you had one number it should be hp, not torque, then I read your post again and saw the part about having to look the whole torque graph, not just the peak, so my above comments are probably not needed since you qualified your statement on GT3 torque and you know what you're talking about, sorry about that)
I see 3 paths for physics majors. You can become an engineer if you are practical enough and many companies hire physics students for engineering jobs, especially in the semiconductor industry. The second choice would be any analytical job since many employers understand the value of problem solving skills no matter what discipline they were obtained in. I recently heard about physicists working on stock market programs because some equation that had to be solved numerically was equivalent to the Schrödinger equation. Then as a third choice you can stay in academia. So there are surprisingly many jobs for physics students if you look. I'll be going to grad school. I'm not sure what I want to do after that, I just feel that I don't know enough yet to be satisfied with my education.
11-16-2004, 11:27 AM
#51
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M-Phibian-
I don' mean to distract you and add more choices, but why not buy a pre-owned Porsche 996 Turbo with the X-50 upgrade to 450 bhp / 440 lb-ft torque. It weighs about 3500 lbs compared to the new M5's weight of 4026 lbs, with more torque but slightly less horsepower. I bought a pristine example, with 3k miles and a 6 year / 100,000 mile Porsche certifed warranty for about ~$100KUSD. Fastest lap time with this car at the Nurburgring that I know was 7:49. 0-62 mph in 3.9 seconds.
The GT3 seems like a different kind of car altogether. Not a great street car IMO, but a wonderful track car. Only 2 seats, unless you can add them in some aftermarket fashion. Luxury is not a priority in the GT3.
BTW- The new EVO magazine raves about the M5. Also has paddle shifting, other performance enhancements. Much more luxurious of a car.
-----------------
02 996TTX50
92 RSA
93 911 Turbo S2
80 SC
I don' mean to distract you and add more choices, but why not buy a pre-owned Porsche 996 Turbo with the X-50 upgrade to 450 bhp / 440 lb-ft torque. It weighs about 3500 lbs compared to the new M5's weight of 4026 lbs, with more torque but slightly less horsepower. I bought a pristine example, with 3k miles and a 6 year / 100,000 mile Porsche certifed warranty for about ~$100KUSD. Fastest lap time with this car at the Nurburgring that I know was 7:49. 0-62 mph in 3.9 seconds.
The GT3 seems like a different kind of car altogether. Not a great street car IMO, but a wonderful track car. Only 2 seats, unless you can add them in some aftermarket fashion. Luxury is not a priority in the GT3.
BTW- The new EVO magazine raves about the M5. Also has paddle shifting, other performance enhancements. Much more luxurious of a car.
-----------------
02 996TTX50
92 RSA
93 911 Turbo S2
80 SC
