Autozeitung comparison : S5 vs. 335i

[Leadfoot]

The M3 does 100+ in third yes? So with a 10.9 0-100 and a 16.8 0-125, you're asking me to buy a 5.9s 100-125mph with a gear change from a 343ps M3? Nein.

Most of the M3's times to 200km/h centres around the middle to high 18's, for one to throw a 16.8s just smells fishy. The problem is, after the launch which if you get it perfect can shave three possibly four tenths off an average start the rest of the runs will be all but identical, you see a bad start in the comparison test I used when comparing it with the 335i and S5, it's start to 60mph was an awful 5.3s and the best is 4.8s, if you take 0.5s away from the end resulting time in that test of 19.5s you end up with a 19s slow still but not that much worse than the average time for an M3. There 12.3s to 100mph (160km/h) isn't enough that wrong when compared to what Autocar got from it's full roadtest (12.0s). And even funnier is the 1000m speeds from both tests, the Greece test 136.2mph, Autocar's 140.8mph.

Like I have said, is it in the realms of possibility that the early sample used by both Autocar and Sport Auto one in the same press car, especially as the results are so different to the rest of them.:eye:

[Leadfoot]

335 is boring. Like driving an Audi. M3 is much more responsive, sounds better, more fun to drive, more rewarding.

Exactly as I expected, this is more than likely why I rate it so highly and the best 3 series in the range which includes the M3.

I find M3 owners are the same the world over, my brother-in-law included. What I think of them, well I will keep to myself.

[3x5PSI]

No I like the 335 (note I wouldn't say love). IT is indeed a great package & awesome value for money. It does everything so well. It has grunt from the bottom to 6500rpm. It has great brakes. IT handles actually very well with grip that you wouldn't actually believe.

But it really has no soul. I have also owned some Audi's & currently have a 2.0T as well. Also a package that cannot be beat overall. You could own these cars & have a great ownership experience & they will serve you well.

But if you are a driver & have been doing competitive events most of your life then you need a bit more from a car.

[3x5PSI]

The M3 does 100+ in third yes? So with a 10.9 0-100 and a 16.8 0-125, you're asking me to buy a 5.9s 100-125mph with a gear change from a 343ps M3? Nein.

Ok 3 points. 1stly, there's no shift. You go into 4th just before 100. You will see my shift just before 10 secs.

2ndly a shift takes 0.2 secs & you aren't standing still during the shift. (although on this run I had a very shoddy shift).

3rdly, here is my graph of my M3 when it was stock. Note I am at elevation so I'm sure it will be a second or so quicker at sea-level.

I did not get to 200 on this run, but I got to 194.4km/h in 16.63 secs with a bone stock M3 at altitude. I did 0-160km/h in 11.15 & then 194km/h in 16.63. Hence the 160 to 194km/h time was 5.48 secs.

BUT WAIT. Look at the elevation at 160. 1538metres. Look at 194, 1540 metres. Our drag strip actually goes UPHILL after the 1/4 mile. Its actually 2 metres uphill from 160 to 200. 2 metres might not sound like a lot, but it's significant.

I have plenty more graphs, so shout if you want, but the fact it don't say something's impossible from behind a keyboard when other people have done it out on the road. It takes a neart perfect set of conditions but it can happen.

[Leadfoot]

No I like the 335 (note I wouldn't say love). IT is indeed a great package & awesome value for money. It does everything so well. It has grunt from the bottom to 6500rpm. It has great brakes. IT handles actually very well with grip that you wouldn't actually believe.

But it really has no soul. I have also owned some Audi's & currently have a 2.0T as well. Also a package that cannot be beat overall. You could own these cars & have a great ownership experience & they will serve you well.

But if you are a driver & have been doing competitive events most of your life then you need a bit more from a car.

I would class myself as a driver and though no longer did rallying and karting so skill levels aren't to shabby either. I think the difference is I believe the two roles should be separate, racing and the road, when on the track like I have said before I prefer rwd because it gives you a bit more options and on the track there's the safety net of run off areas should you over step the mark. But on the road, safety is the most important thing, not only yourself and your family but also the other road users around you, this is where I feel awd gives the added security in all conditions to push without over-stepping the mark.

I class most M3 owners and the like as showoffs, only interested in two things, how fast is it and can they powerslide and the really sad thing is most of the owners can't drive them that well and end up making a dick of themselves and wiping out some innocent person in the process.

Cue Videos.

Dick1
Dick2
Dick3
MEGA_DICK4

Need I say more, give these people to tools and sure as anything they will kill themselves or someone else as well.

And finally the only sensible one
M3_powersliding_on_a_track

P.S.

This is not only the reserve of BWM drivers.

Audi_drifting

We have our fair share of them too.

[Leadfoot]

I was curious about your M3, is it your day to day drive or do you only use it at the dragstrip now?

Seems such a waste if it is, but then again such punishment isn't good for a daily drive either.

[Z07]

You've got a good 100-160 time there. However, your 160-180 time is ~3.0s. Your 180-190 time is ~1.7s. Therefore, even if you get from 190-200 in the same time as you got from 180 to 190, your overall 0-200 time is 17.6s. Unfortunately given the nature of drag being proportional to v^2 and the profile of the 160-190 times, your 190-200 time will be slower, so 18s sounds about right.

A 2m rise over a distance of approximately 250-300m is nothing. You have a further 5kgf or 50N acting against you. The drag force is ~1000N at 112.5mph. You're overall tractive force is ~4,500N at 112.5mph. So for a 1600kg vehicle, the difference in acceleration is 2.1875ms^-2 vs 2.1563ms^-2 or 1-1.5%. I.e. giving you a tenth is over-generous.

As for the high altitude. As well as reducing the mass of O2 entering the cylinder, the drag, given by 0.5*density*A*Cd*v^2 is also reduced. The air is also cooler than ground level, which has benefits. Incidently, what was the temperature? If we're going to start applying psuedo SAE corrections, let's do it properly.

Theory is all very nice but having a car that does 100-125mph in ~5.0s, I know that an M3 can't achieve the same interval in 5.9s. 6.0s is approximate RS4 pace and they are far harder to dispose of and usually catch me eventually as my aerodynamics start killing me.

[3x5PSI]

I was curious about your M3, is it your day to day drive or do you only use it at the dragstrip now?

Huh? The M3 gets eaten by my 335. There would be no point in running it on drag events. That was just an event to see what time it does. But it's a waste of time to get an M3 to run faster in a straight line. But then again, that's not really the reason to own an M3 or RS4. IT's all about the complete package.

[3x5PSI]

Z07, I have logs from sea-level to altitude. I have dyno's as well. I am losing 17% power to the rear wheels. I dyno around 295rwhp at sea-level & around 245hp up here. There is less wind resistance up here, burt there's also less power. After 120mph it more or less evens out, but the lack of power hurts you up to those speeds. I trap 4-6mph less up at this elevation. So 18 secs to 200 means that the sheer grunt at sea-level will make up at least a second. On the 1/4 mile I run 0.7 faster at sea-level. LEt me find a sea-level vs altitude run to show you what I mean. But it's a commonly acknowledged fact that normally aspirated cars lose a lot of power at altitude.

[Z07]

Z07, I have logs from sea-level to altitude. I have dyno's as well. I am losing 17% power to the rear wheels. I dyno around 295rwhp at sea-level & around 245hp up here. There is less wind resistance up here, burt there's also less power. After 120mph it more or less evens out, but the lack of power hurts you up to those speeds. I trap 4-6mph less up at this elevation. So 18 secs to 200 means that the sheer grunt at sea-level will make up at least a second. On the 1/4 mile I run 0.7 faster at sea-level. LEt me find a sea-level vs altitude run to show you what I mean. But it's a commonly acknowledged fact that normally aspirated cars lose a lot of power at altitude.

Do a 16.Xs 0-200kph run at see-level and I'll believe you. The issue here is that variables can affect times but 16.Xs isn't representative at all.

[3x5PSI]

Do a 16.Xs 0-200kph run at see-level and I'll believe you. The issue here is that variables can affect times but 16.Xs isn't representative at all.

You are absolutely correct. 16.xx is not representative. I never said it was. I said it was possible, alebit highly unlikely. And seeing as one of the most highly respected mags in Europe did do it, it obviously is possible.

I had not had a chance to have a recorded run to 200 at sea-level. But I'm pretty sure if that if I can do 18.0 at 5500ft elevation, I can get darn close under ideal conditions.

[Z07]

You are absolutely correct. 16.xx is not representative. I never said it was. I said it was possible, alebit highly unlikely. And seeing as one of the most highly respected mags in Europe did do it, it obviously is possible.

I had not had a chance to have a recorded run to 200 at sea-level. But I'm pretty sure if that if I can do 18.0 at 5500ft elevation, I can get darn close under ideal conditions.

Well hell, I'll agree it's possible. With the help of a super-cell my car could probably achieve 300km/h in 0.5s. Very unlikely though. This is why only side-by-side testing has any value, but even then driver error can mess things up.

[3x5PSI]

Well what do you know? I went through my Vbox logs & I actually did get a few runs to 200, funnily enough at an Audi Club event. You are correct. I could not do 16.8 to 200. I managed to do 17.37 on a really poor surface. Everyone at the event complained about the traction, as can be seen by my 0-100km/h being rather slow with loads of time being lost going into 2nd gear. The 160-200 was 6.06 seconds. I believe under better traction conditions low 17's is possible. Add a slight tailwind & extremely low temps & 16's is not beyond the realms of possibility as was proven by SPort Auto.

[Leadfoot]

I don't want to keep sounding like a sceptic, but I have a problem with both of these graphs. We have been going over this argument for the best part of 3~4 days you saying that 16.8s is possible from a standard car and I disbelieving it and all of a sudden you now have one graph showing your car doing the same speed in an estimated mid 18s at altitude which by your own reckoning is losing roughly 20% of it's power and now another graph showing the 200km/h being done in 17.37s and just prior to this not 1 hr before you said and I quote

I had not had a chance to have a recorded run to 200 at sea-level.

and not only do you now have a graph to prove it's possible but better still the surface was slippy.

I'm personally renaming you 'Harry H', after somebody very famous.

[3x5PSI]

I have hundreds of graphs of many cars. I did not recall that I had enough room to get to 200 when I was down, but obviously I had. The only way I would have known is by checking all the graphs.

[Leadfoot]

You want the rest of us to believe an M3 can post a time of 16.8s as possible and has been done, but are unwilling to accept the possibility that press cars are tampered with or in other words producing more than their quoted output to improve their results.

You know something, this argument is getting us nowhere. You have your opinions and some of the rest of us have ours.

Lets call this to an end.

[3x5PSI]

No. You don't have an opinion. If it were an Audi that could do it, the your opinion will change. The fact that it's a BMW is what made up your mind.

Do you know what the power difference on the wheels between an E46 M3 & an RS4 on the same dyno is? I'm talking a normal wheel dyno. I have the graphs on the same dyno as we had a dyno day recently. I also have the weights of the cars as weighed on a weighbridge at the track. But I want to hear it from you.

[3x5PSI]

but are unwilling to accept the possibility that press cars are tampered with or in other words producing more than their quoted output to improve their results.

Yeah OK, all Audi cars ever tested wer also tampered with. WTF? What's wrong with you?

You can't really gain much power anyway. CSL has so many expensive hardware mods for like 13kw. And when EVo ran them the stock M3 was faster than the CSL up to around 100mph.