Sorry, but what in the hell is going on with the front end of the 335i sedan? After seeing the gorgeous coupe, this car is absolutely grotesque. Just way too busy in the front, while not being consistent with the subtle rear (unless this is a test mule)...

 

Yes, it's just a test mule. I still think the 3-series looks better than the IS though. Just personal preference.

 

theres a dyno sheet floating around which its accuracy is in great question, people assume its accurate and from typical drivetrain losses the dyno numbers indicate the crank hp/trq is 350/360 which is a load of BS, because 0-60 in ~4.9-5.1 is ungodly slow for a car with 350 hp 360 torque.

 

and here's some more fuel to throw on...vishnu got a 335 for his shop to test and hopefully tune...dyno'd their 335 car...

Original post: http://e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29708

 

I've never been too into dyno's. I track cars, and the track doesn't give a crap what your car dynos.

 

Any info on the gearing and the final drive ratio for both the 335i and the IS350?

I agree with Picus though. Sounds like IS350 owners are more into the hp and the 0-60 time bragging right than the 3-series owners. Maybe that's the only performance-related race they once have a shot on with the 330i, but not anymore.

 

0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds is slow?

 

its slow for the "claimed" numbers of 350 hp and 360 trq which idiots believe is true, common sense and 0-60 time should dictate that it doesnt really have 350/360 at the crank. If the engine truly had 350/360 it would easily be mid 4s, destroy the M3, but the M3 still beats it in the 1/4 and 0-60 barely, proving again it doesnt have 350/360

 

Maybe the M3 is lighter than the 335i? The LSD on the M3 may make it easier to do quick launch than the LSD-less 335i?

 

Er, I doubt the car is 350hp at the crank. Regardless of dynos it seems 4.9s and mid 13s in the 1/4 are easily doable. To me that's good. And regardless of track times the torque at low rpms (for real people driving) is nice, so ya.

 

the M3 has 262 torque btw, id laugh if a car thats similar in weight to the M3 still loses to it despite a 100 torque advantage, more evidence it doesnt have 360 torque

 

Let's see, the 550 is rated at 360/360 and does 0-60 in 5.2 and weighs about 230lbs more.

Therefore, I don't think your mid 4s theory holds water.

 

Swfit cars!!!

 

Here's the information on the first three gears, the final drive ratio, weight and the gas mileage of E46 M3 and E92 335i

M3: 4.23/2.53/1.67 3.64 3415lb 16/24
335i: 4.06/2.40/1.58 3.08 3571lb 19/28


With these numbers, plus a higher redline and the lighter weight for the M3, I am not surprised at all the M3 sprinted from 0-60 quicker than the 335i, while the 335i turned out to have that much better gas mileage the M3 even with so much more torque. If BMW put in the final drive ratio from the M3 to the 335i, I won't be surprised that it will be as quick as the M3. Remember they are still selling the E46 M3 so they have to play it carefully not to drive the last batch of the potential E46 M3 buyers away

I guess 4tehNguyen is right (as always). There's "NO WAY" that the 335i's 3.0 litre twin turbo can have 350 hp/360 lb/ft at the crank. Maybe just 300/300 as advertised. But somehow the BMW engineer can make the drivetrain more efficient than the 306 hp IS350 engine, so the bimmer has over 90% of efficiency onto the wheel, and is quicker than the IS.

 

As opposed to 3-series owners previously only caring about handling characteristics, and less-so of the minimal power offered by said vehicle? I see it as typical hype of a cars strengths, and downplay of its weakness. Lexus = luxury/quality, and that will be my sticking point.

As for contest of performance, thats what the other car is for.