BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

WTF is wrong with Car & Driver?

2749 Views 62 Replies 17 Participants Last post by  Rufus330Ci
Oct. 2001 330xi 0-60 5.7 sec.
Feb 2002 330i 0-60 6.4 sec.

both sedans/5-speed

Am I missing something?:confused:
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
AWD = lots of off the line grip
Yeah and edmunds somehow got a 5.9 for the 330ci... maybe they were testing down a hill? :dunno: :p
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.
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.
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.
BTW, C&D got a 6.1 0-60 and a 14.8 1/4 the first time they did a full test on the 330i, sometime last year.
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.
I believe it's 250lbs...
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.
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.
Mystikal said:
Hence, the xi is much quicker to 60 if you abuse it thoroughly.
It might be, but I am sitting here staring at the 2002 3 series brochure like the loser that I am all day and:

Unladen weight 330i: 3285
330xi: 3483
in_d_haus said:


I believe it's 250lbs...
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.
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 :().
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.
Right, and that drag is substantial.
webguy330i said:
The AWD system loses power because of parasitic drag in the drivetrain.
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.
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.
in_d_haus said:


Right, and that drag is substantial.
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!
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. ;)
Nick325xiT 5spd said:
Only if they use a decent drivetrain. An M3 with ADB-X would get smacked down by just about anything.
I agree with Mr325iT...
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.
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