E85 vs E89 acceleration figures

M

mason storm

Active member
Can anyone explain why the official acceleration figures for the new Z4 are faster than the original Z4?

What i mean is for similar engine variants, so A 3 litre E89 is quoted as faster than a 3.0 E85, even though the E89 is alot heavier? I think they have roughly the same power. Is it engine differences, gearing or are the figures unrealistic?
 
OK after checking official stats the new car is not faster but only marginally slower which doesn't seem right.

s Drive 23i is 6.6 o-60 at 201 bhp and a weight of 1480kgs
2.5si sport is something like 6.5 0-60 at 218bhp with a weight of at least 100kgs less

s drive 3.0i is 5.8 o-60 at 254bhp and a weight of about 1,500 kgs
3.0si is 5.7 0-60 at 261 bhp and a weight of 1385.
 
The engine in the sDrive 23i is tuned down, I think probably due to emissions. My E92 325i coupe had exactly the same engine but it developed 218 bhp.

Maybe its just the E89 is a far superior car... :fuelfire: I'll get my coat. :P
 
No one will buy new model if no improvements have been made.

My old E85 2.5i Sport did 0-62 mph in 7.1 sec. Now my E89 2.5i M Sport does it in 6.6 sec (from 174 hp to 204 hp).

If BMW makes E89 Z4M, it will get 4.5 to 4.6 sec (35is in 4.8 sec).
 
Many things affect 0-62 times... Including the fact that some people quote 0-60 and some to 62 (100km/h).

Also manufacturers can heavily sway these figures. I know VW/Audi diesels and mid-range turbo petrols are usually under-quoted to make their insurance figures better and GTi/S/R models more appealing. Who'd buy an R32 if they realised the GTi pushed out only 10bhp less (when its 40bhp on paper).

Theres also things like will the car make 60/62mph in 2nd gear?

I know Lotus launched the Elise at ~7500rpm in 2nd gear to get their time... No one would ever do that!

In summary... Dont worry about it. Look for some 0-100, 30-70, 30-100 or 1/4 mile times instead :thumbsup:
 
Z4 Beemer said:
The engine in the sDrive 23i is tuned down, I think probably due to emissions. My E92 325i coupe had exactly the same engine but it developed 218 bhp.

Maybe its just the E89 is a far superior car... :fuelfire: I'll get my coat. :P
Click to expand...

But of course! :P
 
ksher said:
MalcZ4 said:
ksher said:
No one will buy new model if no improvements have been made.
Click to expand...

Would you like to put money on that? :wink:
Click to expand...

Give me an example that the new model is slower/less powerful than the old one.
Click to expand...

Pretty confident in saying both Golf GTIs and Civic Type Rs have done this - got a bit fatter/heavier/more comfortable but people still buy. :?
 
neilrjones said:
Pretty confident in saying both Golf GTIs and Civic Type Rs have done this - got a bit fatter/heavier/more comfortable but people still buy. :?
Click to expand...

2005-2008 VW Golf 2.0 GTI has 197 bhp and 0-62 mph in 7.0 sec. Current Golf GTI produce 207 bhp and 0-62 mph in 6.7 sec.

New cars may be heavier, but no manufacturers will produce new car that goes slower.
 
ksher said:
MalcZ4 said:
ksher said:
No one will buy new model if no improvements have been made.
Click to expand...

Would you like to put money on that? :wink:
Click to expand...

Give me an example that the new model is slower/less powerful than the old one.
Click to expand...

You missed my point completely. :(

My point was - it's a new model, so it will sell by the bucket-loads whatever the performance. :roll:
 
ksher said:
neilrjones said:
Pretty confident in saying both Golf GTIs and Civic Type Rs have done this - got a bit fatter/heavier/more comfortable but people still buy. :?
Click to expand...

2005-2008 VW Golf 2.0 GTI has 197 bhp and 0-62 mph in 7.0 sec. Current Golf GTI produce 207 bhp and 0-62 mph in 6.7 sec.

New cars may be heavier, but no manufacturers will produce new car that goes slower.
Click to expand...


No, not as a rule of development of course but as an example of where they have:

Mk3 (92-98) 2.0GTI 150 bhp and 0-62 in 8.0 seconds
Mk4 (98-04) 2.0GTI 115 bhp and 0-62 in 10.2 seconds
 
neilrjones said:
No, not as a rule of development of course but as an example of where they have:

Mk3 (92-98) 2.0GTI 150 bhp and 0-62 in 8.0 seconds
Mk4 (98-04) 2.0GTI 115 bhp and 0-62 in 10.2 seconds
Click to expand...

It was a mistake by VW (put the wrong badge on a car with wrong engine).
 
ksher said:
neilrjones said:
No, not as a rule of development of course but as an example of where they have:

Mk3 (92-98) 2.0GTI 150 bhp and 0-62 in 8.0 seconds
Mk4 (98-04) 2.0GTI 115 bhp and 0-62 in 10.2 seconds
Click to expand...

It was a mistake by VW (put the wrong badge on a car with wrong engine).
Click to expand...

Agreed - no GTI in my book. But it does prove MalcZ4's point about people buying regardless.
 
I've had 0-60mph in 5.77s in my 04 3.0i...

Alot of the 0-60mph is down to the launch. DCT cars might have launch control?!

Also, sometimes acceleration figures include rollout while others don't, thus making figures look better or worse by a few tenths of a second. My 0-60mph time doesn't include rollout. With it it'd be around 5.5s or so.

Dave
 
Mr Whippy said:
I've had 0-60mph in 5.77s in my 04 3.0i...

Alot of the 0-60mph is down to the launch. DCT cars might have launch control?!

Also, sometimes acceleration figures include rollout while others don't, thus making figures look better or worse by a few tenths of a second. My 0-60mph time doesn't include rollout. With it it'd be around 5.5s or so.

Dave
Click to expand...

X2 :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom