What real world difference is there between engines?
- Thread starter Breaker
- Start date
marriedblonde
Member
I drive a coupe and my mate drives a 2.5 convertable. My coupe is, as you would expect, considerably faster.
J.
J.
GP20 said:
The gearboxes are identical. You're right that the final drives are different, though. IIRC, even my M Coupe has the same gearbox ratios, with a 3.62 diff (though I'm changing mine to 3.91). The E46 M3 had a different gearbox, but it wouldn't fit the ZMs.
BMW used the same manual gearboxes with the M54 in everything - 3-series, 5-series and Z-series; they just swapped the diffs around a bit to suit the model's character and/or price. The V8 5s had different boxes due to the torque. I think the I6 cars got ZFs while the 8 got Getrags.
lots of debating here, but if you go back to the title of your thread, not much diff between the cars for REAL WORLD driving ... assuming REAL WORLD driving = driving on city streets
in REAL WORLD driving, does it matter if you passed the car in 4.5 sec or 3.1 secs or even 2.5 secs?? as long as you passed the other car in a safe manner, isn`t that all that really matters in REAL WORLD driving??
cornering at 0.8g or 0.85g in REAL WORLD driving, what`s the diff??
so all this talk about hp and amount of time to accelerate and stuff like that for the purpose of this thread is pretty much pointless. it`s a YES or NO answer and i`m sure anyone who has driven the different models can agree that in REAL WORLD driving, there are pretty much no differences
in REAL WORLD driving, does it matter if you passed the car in 4.5 sec or 3.1 secs or even 2.5 secs?? as long as you passed the other car in a safe manner, isn`t that all that really matters in REAL WORLD driving??
cornering at 0.8g or 0.85g in REAL WORLD driving, what`s the diff??
so all this talk about hp and amount of time to accelerate and stuff like that for the purpose of this thread is pretty much pointless. it`s a YES or NO answer and i`m sure anyone who has driven the different models can agree that in REAL WORLD driving, there are pretty much no differences
Correct, especially here in the UK where unless you go out at 06:00 on a Sunday the roads are always busy.E85 said:
I can accelerate from 0-45mph in 30secs stuck behind some fuel conserving tosser equally as fast in a 2.5 or a 3.0
E85 said:
I disagree. If the M didn't feel quicker than the 3.0 and the 3.0 didn't feel quicker than the 2.5 (and so on and so on) why are we not all just driving 2.0 litre Z4s? Ot MX-5s? There is a massive difference; if you pass a car in 2.7 seconds it feels way, way faster than if you pass it in 4.2- despite the fact in car lengths and 'elapsed time' terms its virtually nothing. I've driven the 2.5, 3.0 and M and the differences are massive.
90% of drivers don't do track days. So if you couldn't 'feel' the difference on the road there would be no market for high performance versions - just buy the cheap one and be done with it! I used to convince myself when I had a 330 that the M3 was only slightly better and that 'in the real world' a 330 was 75% as good as the M3. I had even chased M3s and thought there is not much in it....but then I drove one. I laughed out loud for several miles - the difference is insanely massive, and I had to buy one.
If in the 'real world' you can't tell the difference, that doesn't make much sense?
I'm with Mike - you may pass one car in 4.5 seconds, but if in a larger engined model you can pass that car in 2.5 seconds - you have many more options.
I've done 5/6 cars overtakes in the Z whereas in my 1.6 Focus runabout I would've just made 1 car.
It is even more important on our congested road, the more cars you can overtake - the better
E85 - "REAL WORLD driving = driving on city streets" - no, not for me. If I wanted to drive on city streets, I would've bought something else. 'Real world' driving is what you make it.
I've done 5/6 cars overtakes in the Z whereas in my 1.6 Focus runabout I would've just made 1 car.
It is even more important on our congested road, the more cars you can overtake - the better
E85 - "REAL WORLD driving = driving on city streets" - no, not for me. If I wanted to drive on city streets, I would've bought something else. 'Real world' driving is what you make it.
I can feel the difference between the 2.0 and the 3.0. I do agree that in general "real world" driving it makes no odds really, but on the rare occasion I do get to floor it it puts a smile on my face. This means that instead of "ragging the arse" off it every day it is more "once in a blue moon", thus turning the extra power into much more of a luxury item and you can question "is it worth the extra cost?".
My argument is I didn't really pay much extra for the 3.0 as it was second hand, and as it is 3.0 fully spec'd (apart from nav) it should be an easier car to sell in 2025 when I can afford to change!
If I do floor the 3.0 and I wished it was a bit faster I can deal with that... I couldn't afford the M anyway... I would however have been kicking myself if I had the same experience in the 2.5 and wished I'd forked the little bit extra for the 3.0. Trust me, been there with the 180bhp Audi TT!
My argument is I didn't really pay much extra for the 3.0 as it was second hand, and as it is 3.0 fully spec'd (apart from nav) it should be an easier car to sell in 2025 when I can afford to change!
If I do floor the 3.0 and I wished it was a bit faster I can deal with that... I couldn't afford the M anyway... I would however have been kicking myself if I had the same experience in the 2.5 and wished I'd forked the little bit extra for the 3.0. Trust me, been there with the 180bhp Audi TT!
I've driven both. I didn't find the M to be that much different on the road. A track, maybe, higher up the speed/rev range probably, but it certainly didn't float my boat enough to not buy the 3.0si complete with lower running costs and more boot (trunk) space!mikedav said:
And, to me, the 3.0 sounded better? 
I did like the feel of the steering better on the M though.
Having driven a 2.5 and 3.0, the 2.5 felt decently fast and the 3.0 felt a good bit faster than that. Especially in the 50MPH and higher range. To me with the 2.5 sitting at 60MPH and then flooring the engine (yes at the correct rpm for accelleration) it doesn't seem to have as quick a pickup as the 3.0 does at the same speed. But that's butt dyno at any rate.
To be honest, the M felt the same compared to the 3.0, but it wasn't anywhere near what I was either expecting or enough to make me go "Wow" to think about the extra costs involved (ticket price, insurance, road tax, servicing!).
The only reason I guess that may of sparked an interest was the M badge! :wink:
The difference between running a 2.5 and a 3.0 are probably almost the same!
The only reason I guess that may of sparked an interest was the M badge! :wink:
The difference between running a 2.5 and a 3.0 are probably almost the same!
marriedblonde
Member
Mattt said:
Real world driving to me made up of 40% b road blast, 10% motorway and 50% A-road (I'm using my commute as thats where the mojority of my driving is done obv.) Soto me my 3.0Si coupe is considerably faster than a 2.5.
J.
That surprises me, I though his did 0-60 in 4.5secsovrkll said:Ask FlyboyAJ about the real world difference between the //M and the 3.0. We had a chance to play once, and the //M is noticeably able to catch, and pass, quite easily. 8)
For the extra running and buying costs in the UK I would want more than the difference actually is on my test drives. Trunk space was a problem also with the battery being in there. :wink:Rama said:
This could make a good debate actually!
What do you class as "huge"?
Figures:
Z4 Coupe:
Emissions: 207 g/km
0-62: 5.7 sec
50-75 (4th gear):5.2 sec
Weight: 1,395
Fuel Consumption (combined): 32.5 MPG
Drag: 0.34
BHP: 265@6600 RPM
Torque (Nm): 315/2750 RPM
Z4M Coupe:
Emissions: 292 g/km
0-62: 5.0 sec
50-75 (4th gear):5.0 sec
Weight: 1,495
Fuel Consumption (combined): 23.3 MPG
Drag: 0.35
BHP: 343@7900 RPM
Torque (Nm): 365/4900 RPM
Bigger horsepower, not a lot of difference in torque. BHP and torque are higher up the rev range on the M also. This is what I mean about on the road "real world" driving. On the track the M engine would make more sense considering you have to work it harder to hit it's peaks, but on the road the 3.0 is a fraction less in torque but it is a more efficient engine that is more road friendly than the M.
As was stated earlier: "..the real world difference between the //M and the 3.0. We had a chance to play once, and the //M is noticeably able to catch, and pass, quite easily."
Looking at the differences, the M must be in Ferrari territory to catch and pass "easily" a 3.0! given the drivers were putting in the same effort! (hence my "driver error" comment!
My seat of the pants feel almost mimics the figures to be honest! This weekend I may go down to the dealers and try the M out again (as they still haven't sold their ex-demo!) to see if I think differently after owning my 3.0 for a while now. I am obviously missing something here! :wink:
In my experience its bloody hard to compare two cars on the road, I have a good mate who is a much better driver than me and in the real world we swap cars and he can beat me in either... Now his car is almost 40 percent quicker and I can feel it when I drive .. I'm either just not aware of how to make use of it or not skilled enough..
I'm guessing the same with the M u need to be used to it before the feeling of extra speed changes to a large real world advantage...
Maybe
I'm guessing the same with the M u need to be used to it before the feeling of extra speed changes to a large real world advantage...
Maybe
