Disappointing M400 Performance
Discussion
Hi guys,
I finally ran in my M400, so I decided to test her quarter mile performance to determine whether she has the claimed 400bhp/tonne. I'm more particular about terminal speed rather than timing because terminal speed indicates horsepower whereas timing is affected by driver's respond, traction etc. BTW I test every car I have owned. Here are some references:
E46 M3 SMG : 13.9s/106mph
C32AMG: 13.8s/106mph
M Coupe: 13.7s/107mph
My best result from M400 was on the first run at 13.0s/112mph and worst at 13.8s/105mph. I did a total of four runs, with each run getting slower and slower. Using horsepower calculator, the best result equates to a mere 289bhp at the wheels.
Ambient temperature was 28*C and I use 98 octane fuel. On full throttle, the boost rises rapidly to 0.9bar momentarily and falls to 0.7bar. The power tapers off sharply at 6800rpm. Is this normal?
I understand the power drop on subsequent runs was probably due to heat soak. But with only four quarter mile runs, the trapped speed falls from 112mph to 105mph and hence I really lost confidence in bringing her to track. Any good methods to improve the heat soak problem such as aquamist? Here we have year round ambient temperature of 30-35*C. Track temperature can easily goes above 40*C
Any opinons from you guys on heat soak problem and its poor performance? How about other Noble owners in hot climate such as South Africa?
Disappointed new M400 owner
>> Edited by NTY on Monday 28th November 18:02
>> Edited by NTY on Monday 28th November 18:04
I finally ran in my M400, so I decided to test her quarter mile performance to determine whether she has the claimed 400bhp/tonne. I'm more particular about terminal speed rather than timing because terminal speed indicates horsepower whereas timing is affected by driver's respond, traction etc. BTW I test every car I have owned. Here are some references:
E46 M3 SMG : 13.9s/106mph
C32AMG: 13.8s/106mph
M Coupe: 13.7s/107mph
My best result from M400 was on the first run at 13.0s/112mph and worst at 13.8s/105mph. I did a total of four runs, with each run getting slower and slower. Using horsepower calculator, the best result equates to a mere 289bhp at the wheels.
Ambient temperature was 28*C and I use 98 octane fuel. On full throttle, the boost rises rapidly to 0.9bar momentarily and falls to 0.7bar. The power tapers off sharply at 6800rpm. Is this normal?
I understand the power drop on subsequent runs was probably due to heat soak. But with only four quarter mile runs, the trapped speed falls from 112mph to 105mph and hence I really lost confidence in bringing her to track. Any good methods to improve the heat soak problem such as aquamist? Here we have year round ambient temperature of 30-35*C. Track temperature can easily goes above 40*C
Any opinons from you guys on heat soak problem and its poor performance? How about other Noble owners in hot climate such as South Africa?
Disappointed new M400 owner
>> Edited by NTY on Monday 28th November 18:02
>> Edited by NTY on Monday 28th November 18:04
Yep,
Those figures are pretty close to what I have seen on track using my DL1 data logger. Half a dozen laps and your losing best part of 50-70 HP even on a very cool day! Approx. 260-280 Rear wheel HP is best I've seen and an awful lot less if its v. hot!! Of course these are only estimates but I reckon they aint far out!
A one off blast up the motorway and I've seen c. 310 HP but thats about it. Heat soak is definately an issue with these cars.
Those figures are pretty close to what I have seen on track using my DL1 data logger. Half a dozen laps and your losing best part of 50-70 HP even on a very cool day! Approx. 260-280 Rear wheel HP is best I've seen and an awful lot less if its v. hot!! Of course these are only estimates but I reckon they aint far out!
A one off blast up the motorway and I've seen c. 310 HP but thats about it. Heat soak is definately an issue with these cars.
I did consider an intercooler upgrade. But I notice the I/C heat soak problem could be it is too close to the rear turbo. So does the FP I/C upgrade helps in this case? Or is there a way to improve the I/C insulation against heat radiation from the rear turbo?
Sorry for asking so many question. If the car loses so much power on heat, I reckon M3s would be running circles around my M400 after half a dozen laps
Sorry for asking so many question. If the car loses so much power on heat, I reckon M3s would be running circles around my M400 after half a dozen laps
NTY said:
Sorry for asking so many question. If the car loses so much power on heat, I reckon M3s would be running circles around my M400 after half a dozen laps
Very unlikely although a CSL won't be massively slower as its on trick tyres too. Still get left behind by a decent margin though.
I guess quarter miles emphasise heat soak too, as you do it, then drive back slowly and then queue up for another go. At least on track theres constant airflow.
NTY said:
I understand the power drop on subsequent runs was probably due to heat soak. But with only four quarter mile runs, the trapped speed falls from 112mph to 105mph and hence I really lost confidence in bringing her to track.
As others have said inter-cooler upgrade (FP is highly and widely recommended) will pretty well keep you all day at the first figure you quoted. Regardless, you shouldn't be fearful of taking the car on track. It will kick ass even without the IC upgrade. You see it's rather good at going round the bendy bits as well
[quote]Yep,
Those figures are pretty close to what I have seen on track using my DL1 data logger. Half a dozen laps and your losing best part of 50-70 HP even on a very cool day! Approx. 260-280 Rear wheel HP is best I've seen and an awful lot less if its v. hot!! Of course these are only estimates but I reckon they aint far out!
A one off blast up the motorway and I've seen c. 310 HP but thats about it. Heat soak is definately an issue with these cars.[/quote]
Kinetic,
That's very disappointing. If cars in cool climate like europe are not able to deliver at least 360bhp at the wheels, how can factory claims to have 425bhp at flywheel/engine? In -50*C antarctic circle? I simply find this unacceptable.
I understand and willing to accept some loses due to the hot climate here and I have/had other performance cars including supercharged AMG and turbo cars but all deliver close to their specifications. None failed to meet their specification like that. I really feel short-changed
Yes I know she would still handles well on track and I'm still able to track her with lower power, but that's not the point. Where is the claimed 425bhp?? I bought this car with the intention to kick GT3's asses on track. But with only 250-280bhp at wheels now, think I'll be the one to get kicked.
Those figures are pretty close to what I have seen on track using my DL1 data logger. Half a dozen laps and your losing best part of 50-70 HP even on a very cool day! Approx. 260-280 Rear wheel HP is best I've seen and an awful lot less if its v. hot!! Of course these are only estimates but I reckon they aint far out!
A one off blast up the motorway and I've seen c. 310 HP but thats about it. Heat soak is definately an issue with these cars.[/quote]
Kinetic,
That's very disappointing. If cars in cool climate like europe are not able to deliver at least 360bhp at the wheels, how can factory claims to have 425bhp at flywheel/engine? In -50*C antarctic circle? I simply find this unacceptable.
I understand and willing to accept some loses due to the hot climate here and I have/had other performance cars including supercharged AMG and turbo cars but all deliver close to their specifications. None failed to meet their specification like that. I really feel short-changed
Yes I know she would still handles well on track and I'm still able to track her with lower power, but that's not the point. Where is the claimed 425bhp?? I bought this car with the intention to kick GT3's asses on track. But with only 250-280bhp at wheels now, think I'll be the one to get kicked.
In my personal experience all performance meters along those lines (DL90/DL1/AP22) seem to under figure in terms of power and 0-60, I wouldnt look into it much. Also, 1/4 mile is very much so technique and traction dependant - in most road conditions I would expect 0.8 of a second to be lopped off compared to a dry day at santa pod etc etc...
Must stress its all IMHO, but we've had some not so great 0-60s in our Cerb that we know to be very pessimistic, and I believe paul cundy has had the same from his racer using such data loggers. Paul, out of interest, what was the figure you gave for your best 0-60??
Must stress its all IMHO, but we've had some not so great 0-60s in our Cerb that we know to be very pessimistic, and I believe paul cundy has had the same from his racer using such data loggers. Paul, out of interest, what was the figure you gave for your best 0-60??
[quote]In my personal experience all performance meters along those lines (DL90/DL1/AP22) seem to under figure in terms of power and 0-60, I wouldnt look into it much. Also, 1/4 mile is very much so technique and traction dependant - in most road conditions I would expect 0.8 of a second to be lopped off compared to a dry day at santa pod etc etc...
Must stress its all IMHO, but we've had some not so great 0-60s in our Cerb that we know to be very pessimistic, and I believe paul cundy has had the same from his racer using such data loggers. Paul, out of interest, what was the figure you gave for your best 0-60??
[/quote]
Yes, quarter mile timing is dependant and sensitive to traction especially on 2WD cars but not trapped speed. Like I said in my earlier post, I look at trapped speed rather than 0-60 or 400m timing.
I've used AP22 before and I must say they are not consistent nor accurate. I'm currently using Gtech Pro to do all my time trials.
Since I use it to time all my other cars, I look for their relative difference.
C32 AMG 354bhp 1635kg (216bhp/tonne): 106mph
M3 343bhp 1570kg (218bhp/tonne): 106mph
M Coupe 321bhp 1465kg (219bhp/tonne): 107mph
M400 425bhp 1080kg (393bhp/tonne): 112mph** (See their difference?)
** Good for one run only
These tests can roughly determine how much power the engine is pushing out. With M400 power to weight ratio, it should be trapping around 120mph
Must stress its all IMHO, but we've had some not so great 0-60s in our Cerb that we know to be very pessimistic, and I believe paul cundy has had the same from his racer using such data loggers. Paul, out of interest, what was the figure you gave for your best 0-60??
[/quote]
Yes, quarter mile timing is dependant and sensitive to traction especially on 2WD cars but not trapped speed. Like I said in my earlier post, I look at trapped speed rather than 0-60 or 400m timing.
I've used AP22 before and I must say they are not consistent nor accurate. I'm currently using Gtech Pro to do all my time trials.
Since I use it to time all my other cars, I look for their relative difference.
C32 AMG 354bhp 1635kg (216bhp/tonne): 106mph
M3 343bhp 1570kg (218bhp/tonne): 106mph
M Coupe 321bhp 1465kg (219bhp/tonne): 107mph
M400 425bhp 1080kg (393bhp/tonne): 112mph** (See their difference?)
** Good for one run only
These tests can roughly determine how much power the engine is pushing out. With M400 power to weight ratio, it should be trapping around 120mph
[quote=NTY][quote]Yep,
That's very disappointing. If cars in cool climate like europe are not able to deliver at least 360bhp at the wheels, how can factory claims to have 425bhp at flywheel/engine?
NTY,
Yes I know and must say I'm a little disappointed myself. I have used this DL1 on half a dozen performance cars including Ferrari 360, Gallardo, EVO 6, Lotus Exige etc and the Noble doesn't reflect anything like the claimed power figures in relative comparison to any of the others.
However,its still a very fast car and absolutely phenomenal on track so I wouldn't worry about it. You would need a very experienced GT3 driver to trouble an M400 on track - they are very easy to drive very quickly!
That's very disappointing. If cars in cool climate like europe are not able to deliver at least 360bhp at the wheels, how can factory claims to have 425bhp at flywheel/engine?
NTY,
Yes I know and must say I'm a little disappointed myself. I have used this DL1 on half a dozen performance cars including Ferrari 360, Gallardo, EVO 6, Lotus Exige etc and the Noble doesn't reflect anything like the claimed power figures in relative comparison to any of the others.
However,its still a very fast car and absolutely phenomenal on track so I wouldn't worry about it. You would need a very experienced GT3 driver to trouble an M400 on track - they are very easy to drive very quickly!
To be frank, I doubt aero will be an issue at speeds under 120mph. Heat will be your greatest enemy in this test. I did a feature with the UK Sunday Times earlier this year in 20-21 degrees ambient and achieved a standing quarter in 11.2 sec/117mph (with a 0-60mph in 3.6 along the way). The car I used, with around 10k on the clock at the time, should be identical to the one you're using. But if I'd run the car on a hotter day, I would have expected a deterioration in acceleration/terminal speeds.
I notice that none of the cars you use in your comparison are turbocharged, so their performance will not be affected by high ambient temperatures.
Simon Hucknall
Press Officer
Noble Automotive Ltd.
I notice that none of the cars you use in your comparison are turbocharged, so their performance will not be affected by high ambient temperatures.
Simon Hucknall
Press Officer
Noble Automotive Ltd.
Editted again to add that my CSL is neck and neck with a normal GT3 from 30-150 so you can see you'll have no problem pulling away from the porkers.
To add - the M400 would make the csl look even sillier.
Micknall - the C32 AMG is supercharged so should see similar problems? What was the terminal speed on your 11.2 run for comparison (btw 11.2! that is mental).
>> Edited by m12_nathan on Tuesday 29th November 12:24
To add - the M400 would make the csl look even sillier.
Micknall - the C32 AMG is supercharged so should see similar problems? What was the terminal speed on your 11.2 run for comparison (btw 11.2! that is mental).
>> Edited by m12_nathan on Tuesday 29th November 12:24
m12_nathan said:
The Noble is stupid quick at normal speeds, above say 120 they aren't so great due to aero.
Have a look at the below:
CSL 260bhp/tonne
Noble 350bhp/tonne
and it shows!
www.justgofaster.com/gallery/gallery/nathan/csl/CSLNoble.wmv
Can you edit that to be a bit shorter so its not so apparent quite how little speed I carried into that corner?
Gassing Station | Noble | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff