Bimmerfest BMW banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Chalk up another win for the E90. :thumbup:

It's getting faster everytime they test it. This model hit 60 in 5.8 secs, and ran 14.5 in the quarter. Behind the IS and C350 manual obviously, but still competitive for 'only' 255 hp.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
How fast were the others? :dunno:
 

·
TTSam
Joined
·
745 Posts
LoveTAH said:
Chalk up another win for the E90. :thumbup:

It's getting faster everytime they test it. This model hit 60 in 5.8 secs, and ran 14.5 in the quarter. Behind the IS and C350 manual obviously, but still competitive for 'only' 255 hp.

Even faster when turns, corners and twisty bits are involved..............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
LoveTAH said:
5.2 for the IS and 5.4 for the C350 manual.

Sorry I am a bit lost ...
C350 can't do 0-100km/h in 5.4s , not possible.
I would not even think C350 Manual is any faster than with the 7G-Tronic transmission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
307 Posts
I have recently seen a few IS's and have confused them every time with the Hyundai Sonata, anyone else have this problem?

<--->


<--->
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
cntlaw said:
Sorry I am a bit lost ...
C350 can't do 0-100km/h in 5.4s , not possible.
I would not even think C350 Manual is any faster than with the 7G-Tronic transmission.
Have to disagree.
Car & Driver got 5.5 sec to 60 for the C350, and that was with the 7g-tronic.
What's odd is that MB quotes performance times as being better with
the 7G Auto as opposed to the 6 Speed manual. :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
YellowBeard said:
I have recently seen a few IS's and have confused them every time with the Hyundai Sonata, anyone else have this problem?

<--->


<--->

every time i see a hyundai I think it's a lexus

can't be long till I see a lex and think it's a hyundai
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
I don't put too much faith in the numbers posted by

MT and C&D because they do their tests using "aggressive" launch techniques and "adjust" their actual test numbers for "temperature" and "sea level", etc. Who knows what kind of fudge factor is involved. I think R&T numbers are better real world indicators for a car because they claim they don't do "abusive" launches and don't adjust their numbers. I'm not sure if the "ideal" conditions that they adjust for are achievable in real world driving. It's akin to saying "if we were in orbit with zero gravity and 0 drag". :D

It just makes these cars seem faster than they really are in real world driving. :tsk:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
whiskey.org said:
every time i see a hyundai I think it's a lexus

can't be long till I see a lex and think it's a hyundai
This is shocking! i did not know lexus copied on a hyundai. need to go tell wife, quick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
cntlaw said:
Sorry I am a bit lost ...
C350 can't do 0-100km/h in 5.4s , not possible.
I would not even think C350 Manual is any faster than with the 7G-Tronic transmission.
The g35 was 5.5 with 260 hp and 6 speed, why couldnt the C with 8 more hp run similar if not better times?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
YellowBeard said:
I have recently seen a few IS's and have confused them every time with the Hyundai Sonata, anyone else have this problem?
That's just one of the many cars it resembles. I see Grand Prix too.




I dont like the IS. It's a definite improvement over that thing it replaces, but its hard to get excited over the new one either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
mys_iii said:
MT and C&D because they do their tests using "aggressive" launch techniques and "adjust" their actual test numbers for "temperature" and "sea level", etc. Who knows what kind of fudge factor is involved. I think R&T numbers are better real world indicators for a car because they claim they don't do "abusive" launches and don't adjust their numbers. I'm not sure if the "ideal" conditions that they adjust for are achievable in real world driving. It's akin to saying "if we were in orbit with zero gravity and 0 drag". :D

It just makes these cars seem faster than they really are in real world driving. :tsk:
Completely disagree. Car and Driver uses correction factors to correct all cars to the same standard. Given how long they've been in the business, I do trust that their math is backed up by the results they've seen over the years (maybe you don't?), and they correct to 60 degrees and 14.7 psi, both achievable on this planet. To address your "aggressive" launch concerns, use their 5-60mph street start figures. They specifically include that for folks like you.

I don't like how R&T tests cars all over the world and then makes references to the figures in future issues without ever mentioning how the environmental conditions vary. They even give you a "Road Test Summary" at the back of every issue so you can compare cars, but they don't list the environmental conditions of each test there either. That's misleading in my opinion.

Car and Driver did a pretty extensive write-up on their procedures recently, with nary a mention of earth orbits....

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=2509&page_number=1

As for M&T, I'm not a subscriber so I can't comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
RichReg said:
Have to disagree.
Car & Driver got 5.5 sec to 60 for the C350, and that was with the 7g-tronic.
What's odd is that MB quotes performance times as being better with
the 7G Auto as opposed to the 6 Speed manual. :dunno:
He said 5.4s and you said 5.5s. Who is right ? I dont 100% trust magazines sht , my memory is not that bad though, C320 is 7.6s , and no way C350 can be any closer to a C55 's 5.2s.
Copied:-
2006 Mercedes-Benz C350
Base price $38,500-$40,300 (MT est)
Vehicle layout Front engine, RWD/AWD, 5-pass, 4-door sedan
Engine 3.5L/268-hp/258-lb-ft, DOHC 24-valve V-6
Transmissions 6-speed manual; 5-speed automatic (AWD); 7-speed automatic (RWD)
Curb weight 3450-3600 lb
Wheelbase 106.9 in
Length x width x height 178.2 x 68.0 x 56.3 in
0-60 mph 6.3 (MT est, RWD)
EPA city/hwy econ 18-19 / 25 (MT est)
On sale in U.S. July 2005

Details:-
Mototrend c350 test

And , that is what I was saying, of course , not a doubt, 7G is faster than Manual Tran.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
LoveTAH said:
The g35 was 5.5 with 260 hp and 6 speed, why couldnt the C with 8 more hp run similar if not better times?
What the hell are you talking about ?
 

·
Bimmer Dreamer
Joined
·
514 Posts
whiskey.org said:
every time i see a hyundai I think it's a lexus

can't be long till I see a lex and think it's a hyundai
Not sure who's copying who here! :dunno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
216 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
cntlaw said:
What the hell are you talking about ?
I was making a comparison, that was clearly lost on you.

Let me say it short, incomplete sentences, maybe you'll get it:
2003 G35 manual sedan-260 hp. 2006 C350 manual sedan-268 hp. G35 0-60=5.5 seconds. C350 0-60=5.4.

Similar power output and weight, so obviously 5.4 isnt 'impossible'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
LoveTAH said:
I was making a comparison, that was clearly lost on you.

Let me say it short, incomplete sentences, maybe you'll get it:
2003 G35 manual sedan-260 hp. 2006 C350 manual sedan-268 hp. G35 0-60=5.5 seconds. C350 0-60=5.4.

Similar power output and weight, so obviously 5.4 isnt 'impossible'.
Please read my update above.
I had paid 3 times more for a fastest C-class for 5.2s. Not a normal C350.
Sorry to be a bit nasty on my last casual response. :)

p.s. Your brave comparision was not wrong. It was the guy who provided incorrect info from C&D which had fooled people here. May be he made mistake of reading C350 0-60km/h is 5.5s :rofl:
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top