[type-dRew]

Originally Posted by iqraceworks

What app are you guys using to log with?

Dragy, the app just collects the data, the logger is a separate piece. BMS carries it, available on amazon too.

Originally Posted by Tevihn44

What are you running for mods?

Mods in signature.

Intercooler, fuel pump and e50 custom tune

[Silent9n54]

Originally Posted by blown07

Sorry but you don't pickup 1/2 second 0 to 60 (3.59 to 3.1/3.2) by letting the car rev out a bit more in 2nd. If your 0 to 60 was 3.1/3.2 then your car would be running high 10's

my goal wasnt a 0-60 time so i shifted way early around 5200 - 5300 so that 0-60 time includes a 0.4 - 0.5 shift time from 2-3

i guarantee you i can get it down to 3.2 if i stayed in 2nd and not shifted

You need trap speed to run high 10s not just a good launch. i lose the chance to run 10s when i rev it out in 4th since the turbos taper down and dont hold the power up top.

[Silent9n54]

Originally Posted by Tevihn44

What are you running for mods?

mods in sig

[stewbets]

Originally Posted by Silent11N54

i lose the chance to run 10s when i rev it out in 4th since the turbos taper down and dont hold the power up top.

I want to preface this by saying I have no track experience. I'm only thinking through this theoretically and could be totally wrong. Have you tried revving it out more with your current setup and found it to be slower, or are you assuming it would be slower since torque is considerably lower in the higher RPM's? I'm wondering because whenever you upshift you are sacrificing the mechanical advantage you had in the lower gear. 4th gear has a 1.14 ratio while 5th is .87, so my math tells me you've got a 31% mechanical advantage in 4th. So, even it you're making less power at 6000 RPM, are you making 31% less? My car isn't. The advantage is even more drastic between 2nd and 3rd gear at 54%. On my car, it would make complete sense (theoretically) to ride 2nd all the way to redline, because my torque doesn't dip enough to negate the 54% advantage I have in that gear.

Again, I don't really have a clue. This just has me curious. You're obviously doing a lot of things right to get those times, so I wanted to pick your brain a little.

[Antetokounmpo]

Originally Posted by stewbets

I want to preface this by saying I have no track experience. I'm only thinking through this theoretically and could be totally wrong. Have you tried revving it out more with your current setup and found it to be slower, or are you assuming it would be slower since torque is considerably lower in the higher RPM's? I'm wondering because whenever you upshift you are sacrificing the mechanical advantage you had in the lower gear. 4th gear has a 1.14 ratio while 5th is .87, so my math tells me you've got a 31% mechanical advantage in 4th. So, even it you're making less power at 6000 RPM, are you making 31% less? My car isn't. The advantage is even more drastic between 2nd and 3rd gear at 54%. On my car, it would make complete sense (theoretically) to ride 2nd all the way to redline, because my torque doesn't dip enough to negate the 54% advantage I have in that gear.

Again, I don't really have a clue. This just has me curious. You're obviously doing a lot of things right to get those times, so I wanted to pick your brain a little.

You're 100% correct. Better off staying in a lower gear since the torque available at the wheels will still be higher in the lower gear even though the engine is losing torque past 6k rpm.

[david in germany]

Messing around with my P3 gauge I did do 4.7 seconds to 60 last year but as mentioned before, traction is a challenge.

[Silent9n54]

Originally Posted by stewbets

I want to preface this by saying I have no track experience. I'm only thinking through this theoretically and could be totally wrong. Have you tried revving it out more with your current setup and found it to be slower, or are you assuming it would be slower since torque is considerably lower in the higher RPM's? I'm wondering because whenever you upshift you are sacrificing the mechanical advantage you had in the lower gear. 4th gear has a 1.14 ratio while 5th is .87, so my math tells me you've got a 31% mechanical advantage in 4th. So, even it you're making less power at 6000 RPM, are you making 31% less? My car isn't. The advantage is even more drastic between 2nd and 3rd gear at 54%. On my car, it would make complete sense (theoretically) to ride 2nd all the way to redline, because my torque doesn't dip enough to negate the 54% advantage I have in that gear.

Again, I don't really have a clue. This just has me curious. You're obviously doing a lot of things right to get those times, so I wanted to pick your brain a little.

i had close to 100 passes last 2 years at the track and revving the car past 5300 in 2-3 and 3-4 definitely yields a slower time, tried and tested many times with logs and slips and dragy data to prove it. I do stay in 4th and rev it out and dont go to fifth. Ive tried to going to fifth and i gain 1mph but i dont get a better time since it takes time to shift.

Even revving it out in 2nd doesnt help , ive had 1.7 60 foots where i rev it out to 6000 and a slower 1/8 mile then having a 1.85 60 foot and revving to 5300 . When you have a ton of slips and logs to see where you shifted each pass and compare it to your slips its easy to figure out what works best.

[iqraceworks]

Originally Posted by Silent11N54

i had close to 100 passes last 2 years at the track and revving the car past 5300 in 2-3 and 3-4 definitely yields a slower time, tried and tested many times with logs and slips and dragy data to prove it. I do stay in 4th and rev it out and dont go to fifth. Ive tried to going to fifth and i gain 1mph but i dont get a better time since it takes time to shift.

Even revving it out in 2nd doesnt help , ive had 1.7 60 foots where i rev it out to 6000 and a slower 1/8 mile then having a 1.85 60 foot and revving to 5300 . When you have a ton of slips and logs to see where you shifted each pass and compare it to your slips its easy to figure out what works best.

Great info!!!!👍

[stewbets]

Originally Posted by Silent11N54

i had close to 100 passes last 2 years at the track and revving the car past 5300 in 2-3 and 3-4 definitely yields a slower time, tried and tested many times with logs and slips and dragy data to prove it. I do stay in 4th and rev it out and dont go to fifth. Ive tried to going to fifth and i gain 1mph but i dont get a better time since it takes time to shift.

Even revving it out in 2nd doesnt help , ive had 1.7 60 foots where i rev it out to 6000 and a slower 1/8 mile then having a 1.85 60 foot and revving to 5300 . When you have a ton of slips and logs to see where you shifted each pass and compare it to your slips its easy to figure out what works best.

Well, there is theory and then there is reality. Very interesting.

[blown07]

Originally Posted by Silent11N54

my goal wasnt a 0-60 time so i shifted way early around 5200 - 5300 so that 0-60 time includes a 0.4 - 0.5 shift time from 2-3

i guarantee you i can get it down to 3.2 if i stayed in 2nd and not shifted

You need trap speed to run high 10s not just a good launch. i lose the chance to run 10s when i rev it out in 4th since the turbos taper down and dont hold the power up top.

If your tranny takes .4 to .5s to shift you need a new one. I'm looking for 11.20's this year with NT05R's and there is no way I will break 3.4s to 60 and my car holds 20psi at 7K no problem.

[Sgop335]

Originally Posted by Silent11N54

i guarantee you i can get it down to 3.2 if i stayed in 2nd and not shifted

You

Lol ok.
It's actually not too hard to figure the time based on your 30-40, 40-50 in 2nd gear. Did 30-40 in 0.51s, 40-50 in 0.6s. So a rosy estimate could be 50-60 in 0.7s. That would make it 3.4s ...dang good

Originally Posted by stewbets

I want to preface this by saying I have no track experience. I'm only thinking through this theoretically and could be totally wrong. Have you tried revving it out more with your current setup and found it to be slower, or are you assuming it would be slower since torque is considerably lower in the higher RPM's? I'm wondering because whenever you upshift you are sacrificing the mechanical advantage you had in the lower gear. 4th gear has a 1.14 ratio while 5th is .87, so my math tells me you've got a 31% mechanical advantage in 4th. So, even it you're making less power at 6000 RPM, are you making 31% less? My car isn't. The advantage is even more drastic between 2nd and 3rd gear at 54%. On my car, it would make complete sense (theoretically) to ride 2nd all the way to redline, because my torque doesn't dip enough to negate the 54% advantage I have in that gear.

Again, I don't really have a clue. This just has me curious. You're obviously doing a lot of things right to get those times, so I wanted to pick your brain a little.

Yea ride out in 2nd to 6500 or so. I only use 2nd btw, 1st is non existent

[Silent9n54]

Originally Posted by blown07

If your tranny takes .4 to .5s to shift you need a new one. I'm looking for 11.20's this year with NT05R's and there is no way I will break 3.4s to 60 and my car holds 20psi at 7K no problem.

i mean looking at your sig u went 11.8 @ 124 so u have a lot more issues to solve so not sure how your tranny shifts. i went 11.8 @ 117 for your reference

if i had any type of upgraded turbos id be in the 10s for sure, you need to rethink your strategy if you are struggling to get into low 11s with upgraded turbos with a automatic.

[rev210]

0-60 or even targeting 60ft time is very worthwhile.
The e90 platform is not special as a modern rwd ,its traction being better than some.
The path to better times follows the same formula.
However , like other platforms there is sometimes a lack of focus on priorities. The biggest one being tyres by a very very big margin.

I ran a 10sec 1/4 with a sub 1.7 60ft with a track style suspension setup on circuit/street hybrid yoko AD08Rs. My car goes around corners better than most.
The biggest factor bar none -tyres.

If you want all out traction then a set of slicks will net you sub 1.5 60ft and maximise the 0-60. Buy a second set of wheels bolt them on and go.
Next step down drag radials , 1.6 or better. As above stick them on second set of rims.
These give you 1st gear onwards traction.


After that it becomes r comp tyres.
Here it's about getting to have your cake and eat it too.
1.7 or better 60ft (50 wear rating)
These will be amazing on the track and even spirited daily driving in summer weather. You will be able to use 2nd gear onwards with traction
Second set of rims if you again if you check your milage over a year and you cant afford it. Buy whatever halfway house performance tyre gets the job done for daily
Federals, firestone etc. These will usually net you 2.0sec 60ft. Also if you have upgraded turbos gears 1,2 and possibly all of 3rd may struggle for grip.

[blown07]

Originally Posted by Silent11N54

i mean looking at your sig u went 11.8 @ 124 so u have a lot more issues to solve so not sure how your tranny shifts. i went 11.8 @ 117 for your reference

if i had any type of upgraded turbos id be in the 10s for sure, you need to rethink your strategy if you are struggling to get into low 11s with upgraded turbos with a automatic.

Your logic is flawed...again. But seriously why wouldn't you shift later to save 1/2 second in your 0 to 60 as it's still better acceleration....oh yeah because stockers die at 5700rpm...which is why you shift early.

[Silent9n54]

Originally Posted by blown07

Your logic is flawed...again. But seriously why wouldn't you shift later to save 1/2 second in your 0 to 60 as it's still better acceleration....oh yeah because stockers die at 5700rpm...which is why you shift early.

i guess my logic is flawed and you are running 11.8 @ 124 with meth, lsd and upgraded turbos

keep it up !

all you are missing is a driver mod

[blown07]

finally had a chance today to try out a few tweaks to the tune and the new trans flash. Road was cold and spun some in first. Thought I had run the same 3.55 as the track but was happy to see the 3.35s, legged it out to around 1000ft - and coasted to an 11.38 @112. Ran a nice 7.30@97.5 1/8th. This was done with a full weight 335xi 94/meth on 17"snows. Log shows a 7200rpm 1-2 and 6925rpm 2-3.

[Quick335XI]

Originally Posted by Roma_335i

Because it's usless. I can't hook up even at 60mph with nitro nt05 in the 40° weater.

COMPLETELY disagree. I couldn't disagree more. 0-60 is one of the most important times for me, there's a reason why magazines all use that and 1/4 mile as a standard metric. I don't often drive around at 100+ mph, sorry. And 0-60, imho, is what's 'fun'

This all goes back to why I originally insisted on purchasing a car with AWD. I knew I'd be modifying it, and knew how important traction is when the power gets high, I'd seen it back in the 90's when little AWD eclipses were beating mustangs and camaros in the 1/4 mile.

I'm sorry you guys don't put any emphasis on 0-60 because you bought a 2wd car; but I abolustely love the "rush" of a blindingly fast 0-60 or maybe a 0-80 sprint - it's like riding a rollercoaster! TONS of fun.

To answer the original question... the 335XI does 0-60 according to magazine times in about 4.8 or 4.9 seconds - VERY quick for a car with only around 320 to 330 lb/ft of torque. The problem with 0-60 is it's very difficult to get a good, accurate time; it's not like the 1/4 mile where you're passing a position on a drag strip. It's much more difficult to measure time accurately and unambiguously without pro equipment, multiple people etc like the magazines have when they do it. And even for magazines, there are sometimes significant discrepancies among their times.

So don't listen to the haters 0-60 is a BLAST with a ton of power and traction.

[Antetokounmpo]

Originally Posted by Quick335XI

COMPLETELY disagree. I couldn't disagree more. 0-60 is one of the most important times for me, there's a reason why magazines all use that and 1/4 mile as a standard metric. I don't often drive around at 100+ mph, sorry. And 0-60, imho, is what's 'fun'

This all goes back to why I originally insisted on purchasing a car with AWD. I knew I'd be modifying it, and knew how important traction is when the power gets high, I'd seen it back in the 90's when little AWD eclipses were beating mustangs and camaros in the 1/4 mile.

I'm sorry you guys don't put any emphasis on 0-60 because you bought a 2wd car; but I abolustely love the "rush" of a blindingly fast 0-60 or maybe a 0-80 sprint - it's like riding a rollercoaster! TONS of fun.

To answer the original question... the 335XI does 0-60 according to magazine times in about 4.8 or 4.9 seconds - VERY quick for a car with only around 320 to 330 lb/ft of torque. The problem with 0-60 is it's very difficult to get a good, accurate time; it's not like the 1/4 mile where you're passing a position on a drag strip. It's much more difficult to measure time accurately and unambiguously without pro equipment, multiple people etc like the magazines have when they do it. And even for magazines, there are sometimes significant discrepancies among their times.

So don't listen to the haters 0-60 is a BLAST with a ton of power and traction.

0-60 was the go to performance metric in the 1920s and 30s as most cars couldn't even reach 60. The stat is outdated, cars are way too powerful and traction limited to have it be a meaningful number. Trap speed in the 1/4 is the way to really tell how fast a car is.

[Quick335XI]

Originally Posted by Antetokounmpo

0-60 was the go to performance metric in the 1920s and 30s as most cars couldn't even reach 60. The stat is outdated, cars are way too powerful and traction limited to have it be a meaningful number. Trap speed in the 1/4 is the way to really tell how fast a car is.

Completely false.

0-60 is EXTREMELY important, and a big selling metric for sports cars; it's one of the most important things to me, probably the most, actually. it's a blast and reminds me of riding a roller coaster... I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's false and shouldn't be passed on as fact imho.

With AWD and getting the power to the ground, it's quite a rush and most of the reason I own this car and recommend them to other people every chance i get... 1/4 mile is the second most important figure to me personally... it's the "gold standard" pretty much everyone uses and compares cars with. 60-130? To me, that is "worthless." I don't go around driving around at 100+ mph. smh

On a side note... really looking forward to running my car in the spring this year... can't wait to see what it'll run! Hopefully somewhere in the mid 10's.

[Antetokounmpo]

Originally Posted by Quick335XI

Completely false.

0-60 is EXTREMELY important, and a big selling metric for sports cars; it's one of the most important things to me, probably the most, actually. it's a blast and reminds me of riding a roller coaster... I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's false and shouldn't be passed on as fact imho.

With AWD and getting the power to the ground, it's quite a rush and most of the reason I own this car and recommend them to other people every chance i get... 1/4 mile is the second most important figure to me personally... it's the "gold standard" pretty much everyone uses and compares cars with. 60-130? To me, that is "worthless." I don't go around driving around at 100+ mph. smh

On a side note... really looking forward to running my car in the spring this year... can't wait to see what it'll run! Hopefully somewhere in the mid 10's.

Nothing about my statement is false. It's literally fact. AWD cars are the exception. 60-130 tells one how fast a car is with few other variables like launch and driver skill. The point isn't that you have to go do 60-130 every day, the point is to tell one at what rate a car accelerates at relative to others.

For example your car may do 0-60 in 3.3 seconds and 60-130 in 7.5 seconds. The new GT500 struggles to hit 60 in under 4 seconds yet does 60-130 in 6.3 seconds. Which one is faster? The GT500 accelerates at a much higher rate, that's the point of the tests.

[stewbets]

Originally Posted by Antetokounmpo

Nothing about my statement is false. It's literally fact. AWD cars are the exception. 60-130 tells one how fast a car is with few other variables like launch and driver skill. The point isn't that you have to go do 60-130 every day, the point is to tell one at what rate a car accelerates at relative to others.

For example your car may do 0-60 in 3.3 seconds and 60-130 in 7.5 seconds. The new GT500 struggles to hit 60 in under 4 seconds yet does 60-130 in 6.3 seconds. Which one is faster? The GT500 accelerates at a much higher rate, that's the point of the tests.

I feel like you need to qualify who you're talking to and about here. I have no idea who is tracking their cars and going to drag strips with them. All I know is that I'm not and don't ever plan to. 0-60 matters 100% more to me than any 60-130 or 1/4 mile times. I'm not saying it's the only metric that matters, but I drive my car to and from work and none of the roads I take approach posted speed limits of 130 mph. I think those other metrics are interesting, but they don't represent something I can really take advantage of day-to-day.

However, any given day I have a dozen or so opportunities to gun it from a standstill (and legally at that), and it's those plentify opportunities that make it abundantly clear that your 0-60 time is very relevant. If someone can't put that power down from a dig and churn out a decent 0-60 time in their daily, I think that's a little unfortunate. It's no big deal, but I think we'd agree that it's less than ideal to not be able to use all that power at that stop light (or all 10 of them that inconveniently harrass you on your trip).

To summarize, I understand the other metrics. I don't have a race car, though. I stop and go a lot, as do many others, and in real life that 0-60 time just may prove to be a little meaningful after all.

[Antetokounmpo]

Originally Posted by stewbets

I feel like you need to qualify who you're talking to and about here. I have no idea who is tracking their cars and going to drag strips with them. All I know is that I'm not and don't ever plan to. 0-60 matters 100% more to me than any 60-130 or 1/4 mile times. I'm not saying it's the only metric that matters, but I drive my car to and from work and none of the roads I take approach posted speed limits of 130 mph. I think those other metrics are interesting, but they don't represent something I can really take advantage of day-to-day.

However, any given day I have a dozen or so opportunities to gun it from a standstill (and legally at that), and it's those plentify opportunities that make it abundantly clear that your 0-60 time is very relevant. If someone can't put that power down from a dig and churn out a decent 0-60 time in their daily, I think that's a little unfortunate. It's no big deal, but I think we'd agree that it's less than ideal to not be able to use all that power at that stop light (or all 10 of them that inconveniently harrass you on your trip).

To summarize, I understand the other metrics. I don't have a race car, though. I stop and go a lot, as do many others, and in real life that 0-60 time just may prove to be a little meaningful after all.

Again, the point is not to always go 130. Them point is that metric shows one how fast a car really is. Very few controllable variables affect it, MUCH unlike 0-60.