BimmerFest BMW Forum banner
1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Realtor/Mortgage Broker
Joined
·
185 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Are you kidding me? The xi weighs almost 200lbs more. BMW rates the i as .5 sec. faster than the xi. Not that BMW numbers have much meaning.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Jason B said:
Are you kidding me? The xi weighs almost 200lbs more. BMW rates the i as .5 sec. faster than the xi. Not that BMW numbers have much meaning.
True, but if you ravage the Xi (like C&D did with the WRX) you can pull a substantial time like that. 5.7 is pretty damn low though, almost 1/2 a second faster than they pulled with the 330i.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
You could drop the clutch at redline in an xi and get those numbers.

Try that in an i model and you'll get plenty of cool smoke but not much else. This has more of a 3k release point.

Hence, the xi is much quicker to 60 if you abuse it thoroughly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
Not really a 'problem' - AFAIK, C&D testing is somewhat unique in that:

a) They conduct instrumented testing of most cars (not simply regurgutating manufacturer performance numbers a la Motor Trend)

b) They correct their numbers for atmospheric conditions (i.e. temp)

c) They report exactly what they find: If they get a brand new (i.e. slower, not broken in) car, they report whatever performance numbers are actually recorded, and make no excuses. Production variances from one car to another DO happen. So theoretically, a even through a 330i is lighter and suffers less power loss through the added drivetrain components of the xi, maybe they got a particularly good example of an xi, hence the lower 0-60 times.

d) Like that other post says - the additional traction of AWD could also be a factor.

This points up the key issues in terms of all testing though: a) There are a million variables, and b) Any car is only as fast as it's driver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,869 Posts
Mystikal said:
Hence, the xi is much quicker to 60 if you abuse it thoroughly.
That shouldn't be the case. The additional drag and resultant HP loss as the result of the 4 wheel drive units would pull the HP to the wheels down and the resultant times. Same reason an automatic is slower than a standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
in_d_haus said:


That shouldn't be the case. The additional drag and resultant HP loss as the result of the 4 wheel drive units would pull the HP to the wheels down and the resultant times. Same reason an automatic is slower than a standard.
Oh hell no. AWD cars are faster off the line and up to relatively (racing speaking) low speeds. When was the last time a FWD Mitsubishi Eclipse beat up on an AWD Tsi model on the drag strip? No possible way.

Traction is everything. If the 2 cars (xi and i) were launched at say 2k RPM, the i would definately win. But the fact that the xi can be thrashed around to a 7k drop makes it significantly faster than the RWD model.

With 50 more HP and a whole lot less weight, the 911 GT2 is barely faster to 60 than the standard 911 TT model. AWD means everything in straight line contests.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
in_d_haus said:


That shouldn't be the case. The additional drag and resultant HP loss as the result of the 4 wheel drive units would pull the HP to the wheels down and the resultant times. Same reason an automatic is slower than a standard.
Actually an automatic loses power because it has to USE power to shift. The AWD system loses power because of parasitic drag in the drivetrain. That plus the additional weight should slow it down, but in reality 250lbs isn't a whole hell of a lot when you've got that kind of power/torque (unlike on a car like, say, a Civic Si, where an extra person in your car can take your 15.7 quarter-mile to a 16.0 :().
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,077 Posts
You prove that ANY 2wd manual transmission car with more than 200hp is quicker than it's 4wd counterpart and I'll agree with you. Look up the A4, Eclipse, 911, whatever. The AWD model is always quicker.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
in_d_haus said:


Right, and that drag is substantial.
Not _that_ substantial, as BMW already squeezes 196rwp and 197 ft-lbs from an engine rated at 225hp and 214 ft-lbs at the crank. Obviously the numbers are slightly different for the AWD system, but really, it shouldn't be THAT much less power getting transfered. If AWD systems caused that much of a problem they wouldn't be used on the likes of Porsches, Audis, and even Subarus.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
in_d_haus, if there was an AWD M3 available, wouldn't you take it? Damn I mean you could absolutely put the smack down on just about anyone out there!
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
10,856 Posts
Only if they use a decent drivetrain. An M3 with ADB-X would get smacked down by just about anything.
 

·
Head-In-Sand Dumbass
Joined
·
2,192 Posts
Nick325xiT 5spd said:
Only if they use a decent drivetrain. An M3 with ADB-X would get smacked down by just about anything.
Well obviously they'd have to engineer in a new front-mount M differential. And they would have to make sure 2 clunks occur, not just one. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,487 Posts
MR325iT said:
This points up the key issues in terms of all testing though: a) There are a million variables, and b) Any car is only as fast as it's driver.
I agree with Mr325iT...
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top