0-62
- Thread starter Burgy100
- Start date
Does it matter though?
If anyone is getting close to the limits on a 35is you’re going to get very familiar with picking tree branches out of your teeth....assuming you survive of course....
From the test Autoweek did the new car is a handling peach, so it should be fabulous in the twisties, surely more important than just straight line shove..?
If anyone is getting close to the limits on a 35is you’re going to get very familiar with picking tree branches out of your teeth....assuming you survive of course....
From the test Autoweek did the new car is a handling peach, so it should be fabulous in the twisties, surely more important than just straight line shove..?
I agree there's more to sports cars than 0-60 or 0-62, however I'm a sucker for the 'tale of the tape' so to speak. Sure the driving experience is everything, but I need to know acceleration times and bhp on any car before I buy - a leftover from childhood top trumps perhaps :wink: 
EdP said:Marlon said:The two beasts have the same BHP 340 I believe, so the 0.2 seconds must be down to the weight loss
In the German price list, the G29 40i is 10Kg heavier than the E89 35is :thumbsdown:
M40i. 1610Kg / 3549lbs.
I thought with a fabric roof it'd weigh less than the e89.
I guess it's going to be more of a quick gt/tourer hence no M car.
An ///M car is a normal fast BMW, like the the new Z4 M40i, that then gets lots of specific hard ware to make it into an even faster and very different kind of BMW. The days of fitting a different engine seem to have gone though, these days it"s clearly cheaper to just turn the wick up on the very fine standard engine.GuidoK said:
And what hardware would that be? What would you like to see on this car that is missing but desperately needs it?buzyg said:
(to me only 1 small thing comes to mind)
That day fell when the 1M was launched in 2010, so almost 8 years ago.The days of fitting a different engine seem to have gone though, these days it"s clearly cheaper to just turn the wick up on the very fine standard engine.
And that car is celebrated all around the car community, with having one of the lowest depreciating values of any BMW.
1st gen M2 also didnt have a new 'M' engine and that car was labeled as the e30 M3 spiritual successor.
So it seems that the more iconic M models of the last decade didnt come with that engine you talk about :wink:
I have no idea what the difference is between a fast 1series and a 1M.GuidoK said:And what hardware would that be?buzyg said:
That day fell when the 1M was launched in 2010, so almost 8 years ago.The days of fitting a different engine seem to have gone though, these days it"s clearly cheaper to just turn the wick up on the very fine standard engine.
And that car is celebrated all around the car community, with having one of the lowest depreciating values of any BMW.
1st gen M2 also didnt have a new 'M' engine and that car was labeled as the e30 M3 spiritual successor.
So it seems that the more iconic M models of the last decade didnt come with that engine you talk about :wink:
As the only BMW I have ever taken a proper liking to, I have a rough idea of the difference between a Z4 3.0i and a Z4M and they are considerable to the point that the two cars have very different characters. One is a very fine fast sports car and the other is a bit of a beast.
buzyg said:As the only BMW I have ever taken a proper liking to, I have a rough idea of the difference between a Z4 3.0i and a Z4M and they are considerable to the point that the two cars have very different characters. One is a very fine fast sports car and the other is a bit of a beast.
So you're now narrowing your opinion on M cars down to solely the difference between the z4 3.0i and z4m on the e85 platform.
Thats fine by me but both cars have very little to do with the new z4 m40i, as they probably share very very few parts.
Bored now. :wink:GuidoK said:buzyg said:As the only BMW I have ever taken a proper liking to, I have a rough idea of the difference between a Z4 3.0i and a Z4M and they are considerable to the point that the two cars have very different characters. One is a very fine fast sports car and the other is a bit of a beast.
So you're now narrowing your opinion on M cars down to solely the difference between the z4 3.0i and z4m on the e85 platform.
Thats fine by me but both cars have very little to do with the new z4 m40i, as they probably share very very few parts.
GuidoK said:
Some people don’t like change, but I agree with you, GuidoK... it’s really how you think about the BMW naming convention. When I think of an M3 or M4 I immediately think of massive initial cost over the rest of the range and massive depreciation. The “M Performance” models seem to be intended to sit at the top of the range between normal models and the “M” model, if one exists. Looking at the BMW website, there’s no M model for the 1 series, X2, X3 or X4 and it sounds like there won’t be an M model for the Z4...
M Performance Models: https://www.bmw.co.uk/bmw-cars/m-performance
M Models: https://www.bmw.co.uk/bmw-cars/bmw-m
Actually when I think of an /m, I think of a potent engine (the best bmw has to offer?), an LSD, good brakes (semi floating in the last 2 decades), and good handling.
Good handling and potent engine has been proven on the nordschleife (of course you can never have enough power, but the time set is a good time for a bmw as it surpasses the previous m2 time), it has an LSD (stock on the m40i, option on the lower models). It only lacks the semi floating brake discs that most (all?...not sure about x5m etc) M cars have since the e46. But it does have a set of decent brakes, like most m performance cars have the last few years with multipiston aluminium front calipers etc.
So those are the 3 'hardware features' I think an M should have. Especially having an LSD stock is of course a huge step in bmw history. That went away after the e36/z3 era. I dont even know if the current m240i has an LSD. I have seen optional LSD's in dealer packages, but that was not a BMW option (maybe aftermarket?)
Especially the m2/m240i difference was minimal, especially if an lsd is fitted. And I suspect they share a lot with the new z4 platform, so if a z4m would get available the difference might be even less. Depends maybe on the engine it would get; would it be the M2 cs engine or not. I think the M2 should have had that engine from the beginning. It was available, and it fits. Not fitting it was holding the m2 back, a bit like the loathed porsche tactics with the previous cayman s.
The M2 mainly differentiates on a firmer ride, more exhaust noise and a DCT versus automatic imho.
The reason why bmw has ample improvements in 0-62 times compared to previous models is that bmw didnt make the switch to 4wd on these cars (yet). Traction is the all important factor here, not engine power. It seems that that has to sink in yet with Joe Public.
Good handling and potent engine has been proven on the nordschleife (of course you can never have enough power, but the time set is a good time for a bmw as it surpasses the previous m2 time), it has an LSD (stock on the m40i, option on the lower models). It only lacks the semi floating brake discs that most (all?...not sure about x5m etc) M cars have since the e46. But it does have a set of decent brakes, like most m performance cars have the last few years with multipiston aluminium front calipers etc.
So those are the 3 'hardware features' I think an M should have. Especially having an LSD stock is of course a huge step in bmw history. That went away after the e36/z3 era. I dont even know if the current m240i has an LSD. I have seen optional LSD's in dealer packages, but that was not a BMW option (maybe aftermarket?)
Especially the m2/m240i difference was minimal, especially if an lsd is fitted. And I suspect they share a lot with the new z4 platform, so if a z4m would get available the difference might be even less. Depends maybe on the engine it would get; would it be the M2 cs engine or not. I think the M2 should have had that engine from the beginning. It was available, and it fits. Not fitting it was holding the m2 back, a bit like the loathed porsche tactics with the previous cayman s.
The M2 mainly differentiates on a firmer ride, more exhaust noise and a DCT versus automatic imho.
The reason why bmw has ample improvements in 0-62 times compared to previous models is that bmw didnt make the switch to 4wd on these cars (yet). Traction is the all important factor here, not engine power. It seems that that has to sink in yet with Joe Public.