Login






BMW Garage  BMW Meets  Register  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read 

BMW 3Series (E90 E92) Forum
>
Autocar Review  435i M Sport


09232013, 03:21 PM  #23  

188
Rep 2,285
Posts 
Quote:
Roll on M235i, as there wont be a 235i. Looks like the 428i could be the more sensible [petrol] choice if you're not a 6 cylinder snob. BUT...! Why isn't the 435d a 440d  same engine as all other x40d monikered cars? Weird. 

Appreciate
0

09232013, 03:36 PM  #24 
New Member
0
Rep 25
Posts
Drives: E90 320i M Sport 2009
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brighton

Hi all, anyone thinking of test driving the 4 series? Be interested in how it drives compared to the 3 series.

Appreciate
0

09232013, 06:17 PM  #25  
Lieutenant General
2522
Rep 10,037
Posts 
Quote:
There will also be a F31 touring 335d. http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/bmw/4s...dtrimupdates Quote:
Last edited by dopper99; 09232013 at 06:24 PM. 

Appreciate
0

09232013, 06:50 PM  #26 

188
Rep 2,285
Posts 

Appreciate
0

09242013, 01:42 AM  #27  
The Tarmac Terrorist
498
Rep 29,325
Posts
Drives: 997.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ''Fandango Towers''

Quote:
I always find VBOx times do not stack up. He has 4.6 to 60 and 11.7 to 100, great times by all means and would then go onto to do an approximate 13.513.7@103104mph. He is slowing down and still does a 13.2@96....hmm that does not stack up to what it would actually do. His 13.2@96 is suggesting it could have done a 12.6 @106107 + which the 060 and 0100 times don't tie in with. So how credible are they really.
__________________
997.2 GT3


Appreciate
0

09242013, 03:55 AM  #29 
The Tarmac Terrorist
498
Rep 29,325
Posts
Drives: 997.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ''Fandango Towers''

Yes but at the same place starting at the same point. Don't they usualy go to brunters.
Forgetting autocar for a minute, this guys 1/4 (after lifting off) does not in any way tie up to the other times. A drag strip has calibrated FIA timing gear and isn't influenced by a downhill run. Whenever I've used a GPS based equipment, I've always ran quicker so I generally dismiss it and other ones. To compare times you need conistency.
__________________
997.2 GT3

Appreciate
0

09242013, 04:43 AM  #30  
Colonel
125
Rep 2,337
Posts 
Quote:
The fast 060's are enabled by a brilliant 8 speed auto and 4 wheels putting the tower down, but as you can see it is business as usual is resumed once the engine has to generate all the gains at the wheels by itself. This car won't have a normal 1/4 mile curve, because it will excel at the first part and pull away from a lot of cars, but is going to perform the same as any other ~300hp car once it gets up to speed. It is plausible that the 1/4 trap speed will be on the low end. If 100mph is 11.7s, then how do you figure that it will take 1.82.0s to gain 34 mph (by your estimates) and hit the quarter? 

Appreciate
0

09242013, 04:46 AM  #31  
Colonel
125
Rep 2,337
Posts 
Quote:


Appreciate
0

09242013, 07:08 AM  #32  

188
Rep 2,285
Posts 
Quote:
I suspect it won't be much smaller than the outgoing E92; it is also likely to be a more focussed and sharper machine reminiscent of former "driving machines". Something BMW seem to have forgotten recently but a welcome return with the M135i... The pictures scattered over the internet of the new 2 seem to support it's not particularly "pokey" at all! Looks to have a smaller boot opening. The current 1 series coupé is 27cm shorter than the 4  the new 2 will no doubt close that gap further. And 320HP in a smaller, gokart package is not a bad thing! Last edited by F82Dude; 09242013 at 07:21 AM. 

Appreciate
0

09242013, 07:20 AM  #33  
The Tarmac Terrorist
498
Rep 29,325
Posts
Drives: 997.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ''Fandango Towers''

Quote:
It's impossible to then do a 13.2 which is quicker he when is slowing down. It would be like 14.214.4 quarter mile if he Slowed down after the 100mph mark.
__________________
997.2 GT3


Appreciate
0

09242013, 07:23 AM  #34 
The Tarmac Terrorist
498
Rep 29,325
Posts
Drives: 997.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ''Fandango Towers''

A E46 M3 does similar 060 and 0100 and therefore will quarter similar..
The recording is wrong because it can't physically do a 13.2 slowing down after a 11 and & half 0100mph. If he had kept the throttle planted it would have pulled 13.413.5@104 ish. He lifted which would dramatically slow the time, to well over 14 seconds.
__________________
997.2 GT3

Appreciate
0

09242013, 09:50 AM  #35  
Brigadier General
82
Rep 4,019
Posts 
Quote:
It will be interesting to see what figures the 335d is doing when tested by a recognised source. I'll agree that many of the vbox figures that people post are hopeful to see the least. Seen quite a few recorded as proof and they are miles off what the quarter mile timing system says. 

Appreciate
0

09242013, 10:53 AM  #36  
Colonel
125
Rep 2,337
Posts 
Quote:
Now you love the E46 M3 but it is not comparable with this new 335d in the way you are trying to do it. It has two important differences from the M3. 4WD (xDrive), and 8 speed automatic transmission with some really short ratios. From that we know it will have incredible traction from low speed and also be able to stay in the power band thanks to short ratios and lots of them. There is also a third element, Diesel, which gives a good instant power for acceleration, but is not so useful once you are stuck up in the narrower RPM's. These elements combined means its' 060 is ridiculously quick and the 0100 is still strong but it is going to be slower once the initial acceleration phase is over as it will not have the gain from the gearing effect keeping the car in the power band and also it will start suffering from the 4WD system taking some power while not delivering any traction benefits. It's a shame he hasn't posted the 1/8th mile up which I suspect will be around 8.5/8.6, which is damn fast for 313hp diesel. Some quick back of the envelope calculations suggest that with these times the car has done 335 meters by the time it hits 100 mph and is travelling at 44m/s at that point, so a 13.2 1/4 @ 96mph (42.91m/s) is very plausible. Quote:


Appreciate
0

09242013, 10:54 AM  #37  
Colonel
125
Rep 2,337
Posts 
Quote:


Appreciate
0

09242013, 11:07 AM  #38 
Dieseasal
89
Rep 6,876
Posts 
the x35i engine is seemingly quite dated now. The x35d engine far superior and the quickest in the range, until the M comes along.
Dare I say it: But given the M is also coming along and will be a decent shout beneath the M5 .., are they 'throttling' the x35i to ensure that there is a fair performance boost (more so than on the e9x where they are post remap already quite comparable) over the 35?
__________________
Previously: 2003 Peugeot 206 1.6 8v  2006 E90 320d MSport, 19" BBS CH, Full Icecold JL audio install, August 2010 Total BMW 6 page feature car.  2003 Nissan 350Z GT Coupe 286BHP
Now:2010 E92 LCI 335d MSport 
Appreciate
0

09242013, 11:47 AM  #39  
Brigadier General
82
Rep 4,019
Posts 
Quote:
That is irrelevant to the distance the car is travelling. 

Appreciate
0

09242013, 12:59 PM  #40  
The Tarmac Terrorist
498
Rep 29,325
Posts
Drives: 997.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ''Fandango Towers''

Quote:
Maybe even slower actually because the 345HP chipped 335d traps at 105106. Also it's two tenths quicker than an E46 M3 to 60, then falls behind two tenths to 100.. It will most definitely 1/4 slower than an E46 M3, the M3 has pulled back early half a second. Also I wasn't comparing to an M3 DJ Andy, I was approximating its 1/4mile from all my experience from its 060 & 0100 times.
__________________
997.2 GT3


Appreciate
0

09252013, 12:16 AM  #41  
Brigadier General
82
Rep 4,019
Posts 
Quote:
Just read the other thread claiming 13.2@96 because he was slowing down. I get where others were coming from now. If he kept the foot in and trapped in excess of the 103.4mph that the 435i managed, you'd be looking at a car in the mid 12s. I just can't see it being that quick though. The M135i is trapping at 108mph to get 13.2secs. It has a faster 060 time and faster 0100mph time at 10.9secs. There is no chance lifting off and trapping 12mph down (which is a huge amount) it could record the same time. 4wd will assist the launch, but I can't see it helping to that level. 

Appreciate
0

09252013, 01:29 AM  #42 
The Tarmac Terrorist
498
Rep 29,325
Posts
Drives: 997.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ''Fandango Towers''

Exactly what I was saying, it's nigh on impossible. Hence why I believe the other figure recoded to be incorrect.
__________________
997.2 GT3

Appreciate
0

09252013, 06:57 AM  #43  
Colonel
125
Rep 2,337
Posts 
Quote:
Quote:
Your times and guesses don't add up. If we convert your estimates into meters per second you'll see the gaping hole in your 'lifting off' theory. 1mph = 0.44704 m/s 96mph = 42.91584 m/s 100mph = 44.704 m/s 104mph = 46.49216 m/s You are estimating if he kept his foot planted it would be a 13.56@104, but lifting off would be 14.2@96. Neither of those speeds are average, but to be really kind and conservative in your favour we will assume that from the point the car hit 100mph the faster time immediately accelerated to 104mph, and the slower time immediately decelerated to 96mph and both cars held at those speeds until the 1/4 mile. Given that the difference in distance moved per second between 96mph and 104mph is only 3.57632 meters per second your and using your estimates, we can calculate the distance the slower car was behind the faster car and here is where your numbers fall apart. Your estimate suggests that by travelling at 96 mph, you will be 0.6 seconds slower to the 1/4 mark than the car doing 104mph. Given that at 96mph the car travels 25.749504 meters in .6 seconds, you are saying that somehow between the 11.7 mark where both cars were equal on the track and the 13.5 second mark, 1.8 seconds later, a car travelling 3.57632 m/s faster than another car has pulled a 25 meter lead. We can reverse this equation too by using the trap times. 1/4 mile = 402.336m 14.2  11.77 = 2.43 x 42.91584 m/s= 104.2854912 meters traveled 13.5  11.77 = 1.73 x 46.49216 n/s = 80.4314368 meters traveled I have been generous in your favour here putting the average speeds to the advantage of your argument, but you're still miles off. You are putting too much emphasis on the trap time. Think about a car on the motorway doing 95 and another doing 100. Does the one doing 100 disappear in 2 seconds? It's inching past. The numbers suggest that this car will do a 13.2 and we can plug in his recorded 1/4 mile to what we have done above to see roughly what the time would have been had he not lifted. We'll be more realistic and assume that he averaged 98mph after lifting off from 100, and 102 if he kept his foot down. 98mph = 43.80992 m/s 102mph = 45.59808 m/s 13.23  11.77 = 1.46s @ 43.80992 m/s = 63.9624832m 63.9624832m / 45.59808 m/s = 1.40s So he'd gain 0.06 seconds and hit a 13.17 by keeping his foot down. The 1/4 mile is about launch and acceleration. This car has both of those things. In the early phase it will be 10/15 meters ahead of non xDrive cars but in the last stage the RWD's will be catching this thing, but not at a rate fast enough to close the initial gap. Over 1/2 mile it will be left for dead by anything with more power. And your homework. 2 cars, one travelling at 96mph, another at 104mph. How long does it take each car to travel 1/4 mile and what is the time delta? 

Appreciate
0

09252013, 07:16 AM  #44  
Colonel
125
Rep 2,337
Posts 
Quote:
12 mph over 2 seconds is 10 meters, which is nothing. A car that launches well can take 10 meters immediately, and a car with short gearing can eat another 10 meters pretty quick too. You guys are putting so much emphasis on the last 80100 meters of the 1/4, and completely ignoring the first 300320 meters where 80% of the time is spent! The M135 figures are odd though, who got these? 

Appreciate
0

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 

