All of these "doesn't handle well enough" comments need some perspective

Don't know if any of you subscribe to Car & Driver, but last month's issue (December) had an instrumented test of EPS vs. Traditional in a BMW-series. The 535xi still has hydraulic, while the 528xi (N20) has EPS, so they did some testing (about the only difference is that the 535xi has 143 lbs more weight on the front).

"After griping about EPS for years, the shocking revelation is that C/D's editorial staff preferred BMW's electric system over its hydraulic assistance. Total votes in 7 of 10 (subjective) categories favored EPS by 2 to 8 points each. Hydraulic shined in only the 3 feedback categories where it won the on-center by 4 points and tied with EPS in our middle-of-maneuver and at-cornering-extremes performance ratings."

Later, they note that Hydraulic effort rises quicker when going off-center. Also, the article notes that almost 60% cars come with EPS now, up from 25% in 2005.

Unfortunately, C/D seems to have changed their website and you can no longer search old issues, or link to articles. (Perhaps it's just a bit soon; the January issue just came out.)

Another penalty most overlook with the run flats on top of cost are their weight. Easily add +5lbs per tire, for unsprung weight, that is a huge adder.

Originally Posted by floydarogers

Don't know if any of you subscribe to Car & Driver, but last month's issue (December) had an instrumented test of EPS vs. Traditional in a BMW-series. The 535xi still has hydraulic, while the 528xi (N20) has EPS, so they did some testing (about the only difference is that the 535xi has 143 lbs more weight on the front).

"After griping about EPS for years, the shocking revelation is that C/D's editorial staff preferred BMW's electric system over its hydraulic assistance. Total votes in 7 of 10 (subjective) categories favored EPS by 2 to 8 points each. Hydraulic shined in only the 3 feedback categories where it won the on-center by 4 points and tied with EPS in our middle-of-maneuver and at-cornering-extremes performance ratings."

Later, they note that Hydraulic effort rises quicker when going off-center. Also, the article notes that almost 60% cars come with EPS now, up from 25% in 2005.

Unfortunately, C/D seems to have changed their website and you can no longer search old issues, or link to articles. (Perhaps it's just a bit soon; the January issue just came out.)

I read that, great article. Especially the last part where they mention the Lotus Elise/Exige as the last manufacturer to offer a car with no power steering (hydraulic or electronic) but still has the best steering response and road feel; nothing beats the OG setup. Btw, the only reason they still have a 5 series with the HPS is due to the fact the EPS unit was so big, it couldn't fit in the car so they opted for the HPS.

Originally Posted by av98

Another penalty most overlook with the run flats on top of cost are their weight. Easily add +5lbs per tire, for unsprung weight, that is a huge adder.

I am looking forward to the swap.

My 19's are 4lbs per corner lighter, the tires should be another 2-3lbs easy. Should be 15-20% lighter per corner overall.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Lets be realistic. The V6 Mustang they tested is a hell of a car for about $30K. Especially when a 335 Sport with a few options approaches $50K. That's the beauty of the Mustang.

It os hell of a car. Much better than before. My point was that ppl are comparing a sports sedan to a coupe. The mustang should be more than 2 seconds quicker. For the price its a bargain but not all that.

Originally Posted by LegendsNeverDie

Considering the Mustang uses NA V6 that is not even DI and costs significantly less, yes it does say much for the Mustang. Don't make excuses, BMW CHOSE to put the runflats on the 3 series.

We are not limited to running funflats on our own cars are we??!!

Originally Posted by LegendsNeverDie

The weight difference between the coupe and the sedan is MINIMAL and arguably according to many the sedan is a better track weapon. Better handling than E90 piggy? Please elaborate and prove it because your statement is contrary to most F30 reviews.

Take both out on a track. Oops i forgot to say piggy understeer. My apologies.
I love magazine racers!!!

Originally Posted by pkim1079

Take both out on a track. Oops i forgot to say piggy understeer. My apologies.
I love magazine racers!!!

How often are you racing your 328i at the track?

Originally Posted by tturedraider

+1 - who over the age of 22 wants a Mustang as a daily driver?

I would if I were single, but with 1-2 kids, no way.

Originally Posted by floydarogers

Don't know if any of you subscribe to Car & Driver, but last month's issue (December) had an instrumented test of EPS vs. Traditional in a BMW-series. The 535xi still has hydraulic, while the 528xi (N20) has EPS, so they did some testing (about the only difference is that the 535xi has 143 lbs more weight on the front).

"After griping about EPS for years, the shocking revelation is that C/D's editorial staff preferred BMW's electric system over its hydraulic assistance. Total votes in 7 of 10 (subjective) categories favored EPS by 2 to 8 points each. Hydraulic shined in only the 3 feedback categories where it won the on-center by 4 points and tied with EPS in our middle-of-maneuver and at-cornering-extremes performance ratings."

Later, they note that Hydraulic effort rises quicker when going off-center. Also, the article notes that almost 60% cars come with EPS now, up from 25%.

I read that, and it is an excellent article. Despite finding some positive things to say about EPS, they noted the superior feedback and on center feel of traditional hydraulic systems. As you mention, the superior on center feel in HPS comes from higher resistance just off center. Ford seems to have figured this out, because the EPS in the Focus ST is tuned for very high effort just off center, which provides a secure, "locked in" sensation missing from many cars I have tried with EPS. (Including my Acura, btw.) The ST's steering does not offer much feedback, but is fairly satisfying overall IMO.

Originally Posted by pkim1079

We are not limited to running funflats on our own cars are we??!!

Not if you aren't adverse to spending a grand on regular tires. And then another grand if you want winter tires and wheels.

Originally Posted by pkim1079

Take both out on a track. Oops i forgot to say piggy understeer. My apologies.
I love magazine racers!!!

Magazine racers? It is what it is, whether you like it or not. Most reviews stated that the F30 does not handle as well as the E90.

Originally Posted by tturedraider

- who over the age of 22 wants a Mustang as a daily driver?

Seems perfectly reasonable to me; you are going to be driving anyway, why not make it a fun, toy car? My Z06 is my daily driver; the F30, winter beater.

Originally Posted by Michael Schott

Not if you aren't adverse to spending a grand on regular tires. And then another grand if you want winter tires and wheels.

I find all seasons, not a jack of all trades, but of mediocrity.

I am so much more confident on my winter setup(purchased for a song). It also allowed me to sell my stockers and buy lighter wheels in their place. RFT's command a premium. The Summer tires I purchase will not cost more, maybe a bit less.

So the car will have more performance 3 seasons out of the year and be much more confident on a dedicated set for the 4th.

Out of pocket for both winter and the upgrade after selling my OE set is under $1600. Totally worth it. Also think of how the wear is now spread out between two sets of wheels and tires. Another benefit.

Originally Posted by pkim1079

My point was that ppl are comparing a sports sedan to a coupe. The mustang should be more than 2 seconds quicker. For the price its a bargain but not all that.

The BMW bills itself as the ultimate driving machine, a serious sports sedan. It should have no trouble dispatching a V-6, live rear axle, four-seater, 3,500 pound, domestically produced Mustang - the Mustang is not a sports car (two v. four doors is irrelevant).

The fact the BMW cannot even begin to keep up in the twisties speaks volumes.

Perhaps the sun was in the 335 driver's eyes. Other excuses?

My 335 sport is a great car. A performance monster, a "beast," it is not.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

I am looking forward to the swap.

My 19's are 4lbs per corner lighter, the tires should be another 2-3lbs easy. Should be 15-20% lighter per corner overall.

Excellent upgrade with easy to enjoy and appreciate benefits.

Originally Posted by otonimus

It's also way better than my 99 A4 2.8 was, with the Sport Package.

You are comparing it to an A4 from THREE generations ago?

Originally Posted by Elk

The BMW bills itself as the ultimate driving machine, a serious sports sedan. It should have no trouble dispatching a V-6, live rear axle, four-seater, 3,500 pound, domestically produced Mustang - the Mustang is not a sports car (two v. four doors is irrelevant).

The fact the BMW cannot even begin to keep up in the twisties speaks volumes.

Perhaps the sun was in the 335 driver's eyes. Other excuses?

My 335 sport is a great car. A performance monster, a "beast," it is not.

I agree to an extent.

One of the bigger factor, besides the tires, besides the driver, LBs/HP. I read the article and the F30 335 had among the worst ratios of any car there(the Fiat Abarth was the worst off). Granted, the N55 may make 315-320hp and not 300, but it would not skew the figure much.

So cars like the Genesis had a much better hp to weight ratio.

Its a figure that is hard to get away from and hard to over come even with things like gearing. Even the V-6 Mustang, solid axle or not, 305hp(I know less tq) and at least 100lbs lighter than the F30 335 and then better equipped with tires and brakes...it's not surprising...it's physics-power/weight.

I bet the majority of people who claim "my car X can out-handle my car Y" don't have the driving skills to push them anywhere close to their limits to make that statement.

Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi

I bet the majority of people who claim "my car X can out-handle my car Y" don't have the driving skills to push them anywhere close to their limits to make that statement.

I agree.

Anyone else with experience may agree, when I did my first driving school in the Roadster I found the car was far more capable with much higher limits than ME.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

One of the bigger factor, besides the tires, besides the driver, LBs/HP. I read the article and the F30 335 had among the worst ratios of any car there(the Fiat Abarth was the worst off). Granted, the N55 may make 315-320hp and not 300, but it would not skew the figure much.

. . .

Even the V-6 Mustang, solid axle or not, 305hp(I know less tq) and at least 100lbs lighter than the F30 335 and then better equipped with tires and brakes...it's not surprising...it's physics-power/weight.

Power/weight makes a difference on acceleration, but of course has no impact on cornering or braking. In any event, for an extra $15,000 - $20,000 would not one expect an ultimate driving machine to be superior in both weight and power?

Based on power/weight, the V-6 Mustang and F30 are closely matched:
Mustang, 305HP and 3523 pounds.
F30 300HP and 3591 pounds.

However, assuming the commonly accepted 320 HP for the F30, the F30 enjoys a 11.22 lb/HP advantage over the Mustang's 11.55. The BMW also has a torque advantage, as you point out.

By this measure, the BMW should win - but instead gets clobbered.

Motor Trend has the V6 Mustang at 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds, quarter mile in 13.9 seconds at 100.1 mph. (The best I have seen is 5.1 0-60)

The F30 is significantly faster in a straight line, it hits 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.4 seconds at 103.7 mph. (the best I have seen is 4.6 0-60, but lots more in the 5.0 range)

This is embarrassing. The F30 is quicker in a straight line, but is being beaten in the corners by the Ford.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

Anyone else with experience may agree, when I did my first driving school in the Roadster I found the car was far more capable with much higher limits than ME.

Absolutely. Sobering, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Elk

The BMW bills itself as the ultimate driving machine, a serious sports sedan. It should have no trouble dispatching a V-6, live rear axle, four-seater, 3,500 pound, domestically produced Mustang - the Mustang is not a sports car (two v. four doors is irrelevant).

The fact the BMW cannot even begin to keep up in the twisties speaks volumes.

My 335 sport is a great car. A performance monster, a "beast," it is not.

"The Ultimate Driving Machine" is a marketing tagline.

No different than Coke being "The Real Thing", "Have It Your Way" at Burger King, Apple "Think Different", and "Bo Knows" in your Nike's. Please tell me you aren't that gullible.

BREAKING NEWS: The 3 Series is no longer an enthusiasts car. Tell your friends.

BJ

Originally Posted by Elk

Power/weight makes a difference on acceleration, but of course has no impact on cornering or braking. In any event, for an extra $15,000 - $20,000 would not one expect an ultimate driving machine to be superior in both weight and power?

Based on power/weight, the V-6 Mustang and F30 are closely matched:
Mustang, 305HP and 3523 pounds.
F30 300HP and 3591 pounds.

However, assuming the commonly accepted 320 HP for the F30, the F30 enjoys a 11.22 lb/HP advantage over the Mustang's 11.55. The BMW also has a torque advantage, as you point out.

By this measure, the BMW should win - but instead gets clobbered.

Motor Trend has the V6 Mustang at 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds, quarter mile in 13.9 seconds at 100.1 mph. (The best I have seen is 5.1 0-60)

The F30 is significantly faster in a straight line, it hits 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and the quarter mile in 13.4 seconds at 103.7 mph. (the best I have seen is 4.6 0-60, but lots more in the 5.0 range)

This is embarrassing. The F30 is quicker in a straight line, but is being beaten in the corners by the Ford.

Correct, in general power/weight is more for talks in straight line.

But this figure was posted in this test.

It's relevant because, tires, brakes and suspensions in this test were a given. Each model was selected as the highest performing variant offered. So the Gene was an R-Spec, the Camaro was an ZL1 and 1LE, the Fiat an Abarth etc etc. All of these trim options bring with it tires, brakes, etc. So when you all come to the match with the right shoes, the muscle becomes a factor. If you look at the V-6 Mustang, I am sure they gave it something like 3.73 gears, the GT's wheels and Pirelli P-Zeros, the Brembo brakes, GT suspension-I think it's called the Track pack.

Meanwhile, I am fairly confident BMW as usual has been equipping F30's with sub-par tires in terms of performance.

Originally Posted by Elk

Absolutely. Sobering, isn't it?

Yes.

The reason I have not hurt myself in this 500hp Miata(not even traction control) is I respect it. Sure, I go WOT and do a bit of tailwagging, but I never take it's power for granted.

I even had my reminder that I am never too old to be dumb and had some court time after a C6 and I were nabbed for "racing" back in March.