Close

Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
  • spool twice's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:50 PM
    this is the first article on BB that I dont understand? The M3 is rated at 425hp, he stated it was rated at 425hp. The Caddy was the quicker car because it was around the track, maybe I'm missing something? Regardless, interesting article nonetheless.
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • BlackJetE90OC's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:25 PM
    You are blowing this way out of proportion. Although I see you having an argument with a Motor Trend journalist might get you some more web traffic. Smart actually. I still don't get what you are really irritated about. You are mad because he said the ATS-V was quicker, while stating the M3 has 425hp. What exactly did you want him to say? The ATS-V was quicker that he M3, despite the M3 being an underrated 425hp.
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:55 PM
    I'd be willing to take that challenge.
    26 replies | 195074 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:47 PM
    Bullshit. You don't need BMW's engine dyno numbers to say if the car is underrated or overrated. If the F80 M3 is making 425 horsepower what is the E90 M3 making? Come on, seriously? No, I'm quite correct. You're incorrect as is he. A car making 425 horsepower at the crank does not dyno 427 wheel horsepower or trap 119 miles per hour with a curb weight around 3600 pounds. Physics yo!
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • The Convert's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:45 PM
    unless you have BMW's engine dyno figures you can never say that the car is under or overrated...it is simply rated at that. The fact that it is dyno'd from the OEM means the OEM dyno and calibration are the GOLD standard since every dyno reads differently. It's a moot point that really isn't worth arguing over, especially when neither of you are technically correct.
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:44 PM
    In this day and age people are far more informed. People know of things like dynos and turbochargers. Several of the big names dyno cars specifically to illustrate what the figures really are. Why are we excusing this? Who exactly can't state manufacturer figures? Anyone can do that. Isn't someone being paid to report and test supposed to delve a little bit further into these cars than the superficial? Aren't they supposed to provide some extensive details one can't get just looking at the manufacturer specs? What he should have done is explain that crank ratings are not necessarily representative of actual power output as things like transmissions, driveline losses, and even conservative manufacturer ratings can cause output to vary greatly. That is what someone doing more than a basic job would do.
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:36 PM
    Welcome to a real enthusiast forum Eddieel.
    0 replies | 6 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:18 PM
    Welcome kakazalo, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 2 view(s)
  • sudo4re's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:05 PM
    What are the chances of some of these tats will end up on "Tattoo Nightmares"? How would you like the challenge of transforming some of these tats into something else?
    26 replies | 195074 view(s)
  • C///M's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:55 PM
    I don't know, I get your point, but I never read comparisons based on over/underrated figures from the big mags. They always use manufacturer numbers, I kind of feel like they have to. Their audience goes beyond the more hardcore enthusiasts. He should have just said "on paper, the caddy is more powerful" so he could stick with the stated numbers, but appease any other concerns.
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • berns's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:54 PM
    I think we both agree with each other, I hear you on all of that. It did go in a juvenile direction when it didn't need to. Cheers, dude.
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:50 PM
    As stated I have nothing against the guy. I don't know the guy. All I know is he works professionally with cars and so do I. The problem I have is him telling me to check my facts when he does not get his own facts correct. I can understand him not writing for a more informed audience, catering to a more casual fan, etc. That does not excuse mistakes and it certainly does not excuse his response. He could have easily stated, 'You know what, you're right, I should maybe do some more detailed research next time.' Instead he got defensive and dismissive. Nobody is perfect, you're right, but in this instance he is blatantly wrong based on the facts. That is what bothers me when he says to check the facts. His response was immature. Not my calling his published work into question when it is so blatantly off to a point it makes one wonder what if any research actually takes place.
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • AdminTeam's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:50 PM
    Welcome cfelectro1, take a look around, I think you will like what you see.
    0 replies | 5 view(s)
  • berns's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:41 PM
    I know Jonny personally. He's a good dude, and a normal dude, like you, or me, or anyone into cars. We all fuck up from time to time. Sure, as a journalist there is a responsibility to be honest, educated and factual, but that doesn't always transcend to scouring tuner forums, and more so, it doesn't mean he will start claiming the M3 at 488.75hp after factoring in a 15% drivetrain loss from the 425whp dyno you showed him online, just because it's underrated. I do think a back to back dyno would have been beneficial to the cause, but the point of the story was not to point out which car is underrated and which isn't, it was to choose a winner based on performance data, road prowess and driving pleasure. I've been an editor and photographer for auto mags for the last six years, and let me tell you, the amount you may know about AMG motor variances and BMW compression ratios is just a teaspoon of what you need when your bread and butter is literally, everything with wheels. In fact, even on staff as an editor, at least when there were still budgets and print was beautiful, one young guys job was always the Fact Checker. When I first started out I had to run through articles with a highlighter to double and triple check every single fact. To that, though, Lieberman was spot on with his 425hp, because that's what the car is rated at. Think you enjoyed being "right" a bit too much, here, and you could have probably gone about making your claim in a more mature way. Carry on :music-rockout:
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:15 PM
    Jonny Lieberman works for MotorTrend and you probably have seen him in the Head 2 Head episodes. BimmerBoost has nothing against him although we wonder how someone gets a job with MotorTrend when they make basic mistakes. Liberman's job is to know about the cars he is talking about. Which is why BimmerBoost made it a point to explain that in the latest Head 2 Head where he states the ATS-V is more powerful than the F80 M3 because the M3 has 'only' 425 horsepower Liberman and MotorTrend are wrong. Very wrong. Absurdly wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. The F80 M3 and the F82 M4 are severely underrated. The car makes much more than its 425 horsepower crank rating. Frankly, it is closer to a wheel horsepower rating than a crank horsepower rating. One should assume this simply by juxtaposing the acceleration figures of the F80 M3 and E90 M3. The difference is not 11 horses. MotorTrend's own test figures prove that. The F80 M3 is insanely underrated. Now we have dyno results showing 427 horsepower to the wheels for the F80 M3. We have stock 1/4 mile times showing 11.9 @ 119. Liberman claims to be aware of the M3 being underrated but when asked for proof provided nothing to support this. Additionally, he does not mention the M3 is underrated in the Head 2 Head video. He states the ATS-V is more powerful. He also on Twitter states his support for this as the ATS-V being quicker despite being heavier. While the ATS-V does indeed get a 12.1 second elapsed time as tested by MotorTrend the F80 M3 gets a 12.3 @ 118.1 miles per hour. The ATS-V hits 12.1 at a slower 116.2. The only thing Liberman gets right here is that the ATS-V is quicker but it is not faster. Trap speed is primarily a product of power. MotorTrend's own numbers and Liberman's own statement support BimmerBoost. Point easily proven without even having to show the dyno numbers. Not to mention, the guy should probably know that a RWD car with a ton of torque that traps higher will improve its elapsed time with better traction off the line. That means the M3 with drag radials can be a hell of a lot quicker. Perhaps MotorTrend just doesn't know how to launch as well. Liberman goes on to state I need to check my facts. The same man who called the new S65 AMG V12 an M275 model despite it being the updated M279 V12 variant from AMG. He conveniently ignores this point. One who does not get their own facts correct should not be telling others to check theirs. Liberman and MotorTrend need to check their own facts. Rather than lobbing insults for getting called on their mistakes, they should correct them. There is no shame in being wrong. There is a bit of shame in a 'kid' knowing the facts better than the professional though, right? Liberman, if you ever want to engage in a debate with me feel free. Based on what I have seen so far it will be one-sided. Whenever you want to, I'm right here. MotorTrend, when you are ready to hire someone who checks their facts, let me know.
    9 replies | 257 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:10 PM
    Jonny Lieberman works for MotorTrend and you probably have seen him in the Head 2 Head episodes. BimmerBoost has nothing against him although we wonder how someone gets a job with MotorTrend when they make basic mistakes. Liberman's job is to know about the cars he is talking about. Which is why BimmerBoost made it a point to explain that in the latest Head 2 Head where he states the ATS-V is more powerful than the F80 M3 because the M3 has 'only' 425 horsepower Liberman and MotorTrend are wrong. Very wrong. Absurdly wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. The F80 M3 and the F82 M4 are severely underrated. The car makes much more than its 425 horsepower crank rating. Frankly, it is closer to a wheel horsepower rating than a crank horsepower rating. One should assume this simply by juxtaposing the acceleration figures of the F80 M3 and E90 M3. The difference is not 11 horses. MotorTrend's own test figures prove that. The F80 M3 is insanely underrated. Now we have dyno results showing 427 horsepower to the wheels for the F80 M3. We have stock 1/4 mile times showing 11.9 @ 119. Liberman claims to be aware of the M3 being underrated but when asked for proof provided nothing to support this. Additionally, he does not mention the M3 is underrated in the Head 2 Head video. He states the ATS-V is more powerful. He also on Twitter states his support for this as the ATS-V being quicker despite being heavier. While the ATS-V does indeed get a 12.1 second elapsed time as tested by MotorTrend the F80 M3 gets a 12.3 @ 118.1 miles per hour. The ATS-V hits 12.1 at a slower 116.2. The only thing Liberman gets right here is that the ATS-V is quicker but it is not faster. Trap speed is primarily a product of power. MotorTrend's own numbers and Liberman's own statement support BimmerBoost. Point easily proven without even having to show the dyno numbers. Not to mention, the guy should probably know that a RWD car with a ton of torque that traps higher will improve its elapsed time with better traction off the line. That means the M3 with drag radials can be a hell of a lot quicker. Perhaps MotorTrend just doesn't know how to launch as well. Liberman goes on to state I need to check my facts. The same man who called the new S65 AMG V12 an M275 model despite it being the updated M279 V12 variant from AMG. He conveniently ignores this point. One who does not get their own facts correct should not be telling others to check theirs. Liberman and MotorTrend need to check their own facts. Rather than lobbing insults for getting called on their mistakes, they should correct them. There is no shame in being wrong. There is a bit of shame in a 'kid' knowing the facts better than the professional though, right? Liberman, if you ever want to engage in a debate with me feel free. Based on what I have seen so far it will be one-sided. Whenever you want to, I'm right here. MotorTrend, when you are ready to hire someone who checks their facts, let me know.
    9 replies | 42 view(s)
More Activity