BMW 335i Sedan Discussion (merged threads)
09-22-06, 12:42 AM
#76
You and others say that 335i cannot come too close with M3. You also say that you seem confident the 335i is very underrated, with some of you saying that it actually makes 340 crank HP. If that was in fact the case, it would be matching E46 M3 performance numbers, but it's not.
Fact is, if 335i was actually making 340 crank HP, it would be faster than it currently is. Gearing alone would not account for such low performance if crank HP was 340. Only thing I can think of that could account for this would be significant traction problems, which nobody has heard about, so likely, it is not the case.
Fact is, if 335i was actually making 340 crank HP, it would be faster than it currently is. Gearing alone would not account for such low performance if crank HP was 340. Only thing I can think of that could account for this would be significant traction problems, which nobody has heard about, so likely, it is not the case.
Car and driver did intial test on the 335i was at 0-60 at 4.9, and quarter at 13.6 at 105 mph. Car and driver did not state if it is 6 speed manual or 6 speed automatic that was tested. Which was almost identical to M3 # that C&D had tested back in 2003.
In addition, 335i does have traction issues. That's why the lack of LSD was exposed because (i forgot which magazine that was) the test showed that one of the rear wheel was spinning loose.
The Dyno number already showed that 335i pulled 299HP on the rear wheel. Whether you like it or not. That's close to 340 at crank. If you don't believe it, tough. Dyno doesn't lie.
09-22-06, 12:59 AM
#77
% wise, a mere 2% weight difference. I guess that is a huge margin.
Let's put everything into perspective.
M3 weights 3415 lb.
335i weighs 3593 (m) 3605 (a)
In other words 335i weighs 5% more than M3.
According C&D.
M3 0-60 4.8, quarter 13.6
335i 0-60 4.9. quarter 13.6
For a car that weighs 5% more, and no LSD. I think it already shows that 335is underrated.
09-22-06, 04:53 AM
#78
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, here's a question back for you. Given your beloved IS350 is almost 100 pounds lighter, with similar hp and "better torque curve" at the upper RPM range, why is it still slower than the 335i?
09-22-06, 06:09 AM
#80
thats only one dyno, need several sheets of different dyno types to accurately zero in on its real power, some dynos can rate higher than others, people jumped to conclusions far too early on that first dyno that claimed 350 hp 360 torque at the crank, but it still loses the 0-60 and 1/4 to the M3 barely despite a HUGE torque advantage. That doesnt add up. I know its underrated but not underated by 50 hp and 60 torque, too much wishful thinking 330/330 is more like it
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 09-22-06 at 06:16 AM.
09-22-06, 08:17 AM
#81
Speaks French in Russian
Automobile retested that dyno run and came to a conclusion on why they got 300rwhp on the first dyno. They got an average of 285rwhp this time around. Both engines are still great in their own way. I like what I see...
http://www.automobilemag.com/feature..._dyno_revised/
We strapped the 335i down, started it up, and did three runs back to back to back. The results were very consistent, showing peaks of 285 hp, then 282 hp, and, finally, 287 hp. This 335i was even stronger at the top end than the last one, but not as strong in the midrange. Peak torque was stable through all three runs at about 285 lb-ft.
After the final run, we decided to grab audio of the 335i running from first gear through fourth. We expected to have the hairs on the back of our neck stand up at the sound of the 3.0-liter engine at full throat, but what we didn’t expect, of course, was a peak hp number nudging the 300-hp mark. That’s right--shortly after the shift into fourth, this second 335i peaked briefly at 299.93 hp.
Looking closely at the chart, there’s a likely explanation for that outrageous number. No, it wasn’t additional torque from a rough shift--the peak occurred too long after the gear change. Like most turbocharged cars, the computer allows a momentary spike of boost before stabilizing it at a prescribed level. We lucked out, as that spike happened right at the engine’s inherent power peak, so we got a little nudge in the final number. Whether the dyno numbers ultimately translate into 300 hp, 350 hp, or 327.543-to-the-fifth-power-hp, the results speak for themselves: this is one very powerful engine.
After the final run, we decided to grab audio of the 335i running from first gear through fourth. We expected to have the hairs on the back of our neck stand up at the sound of the 3.0-liter engine at full throat, but what we didn’t expect, of course, was a peak hp number nudging the 300-hp mark. That’s right--shortly after the shift into fourth, this second 335i peaked briefly at 299.93 hp.
Looking closely at the chart, there’s a likely explanation for that outrageous number. No, it wasn’t additional torque from a rough shift--the peak occurred too long after the gear change. Like most turbocharged cars, the computer allows a momentary spike of boost before stabilizing it at a prescribed level. We lucked out, as that spike happened right at the engine’s inherent power peak, so we got a little nudge in the final number. Whether the dyno numbers ultimately translate into 300 hp, 350 hp, or 327.543-to-the-fifth-power-hp, the results speak for themselves: this is one very powerful engine.
09-22-06, 08:52 AM
#83
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RDX mileage isnt that bad, makes similar mpg to a RX350, but has 20 less hp and 17 less torque. Its a great vehicle you can get very loaded for the same price as a base RX. Lower mileage is to be expected from turbo vehicles, I bet this BMW is going to make 17-18 typical city. Id rather have N/A personally
09-22-06, 09:14 AM
#84
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check the fact.
Car and driver did intial test on the 335i was at 0-60 at 4.9, and quarter at 13.6 at 105 mph. Car and driver did not state if it is 6 speed manual or 6 speed automatic that was tested. Which was almost identical to M3 # that C&D had tested back in 2003.
In addition, 335i does have traction issues. That's why the lack of LSD was exposed because (i forgot which magazine that was) the test showed that one of the rear wheel was spinning loose.
The Dyno number already showed that 335i pulled 299HP on the rear wheel. Whether you like it or not. That's close to 340 at crank. If you don't believe it, tough. Dyno doesn't lie.
Car and driver did intial test on the 335i was at 0-60 at 4.9, and quarter at 13.6 at 105 mph. Car and driver did not state if it is 6 speed manual or 6 speed automatic that was tested. Which was almost identical to M3 # that C&D had tested back in 2003.
In addition, 335i does have traction issues. That's why the lack of LSD was exposed because (i forgot which magazine that was) the test showed that one of the rear wheel was spinning loose.
The Dyno number already showed that 335i pulled 299HP on the rear wheel. Whether you like it or not. That's close to 340 at crank. If you don't believe it, tough. Dyno doesn't lie.
IS350 also does not have LSD, and owners have reported traction issues if you turn off TRAC/VDIM.
You're using a dyno number that was a one-time occurence. No other dyno got such a number, and plus GFerg has already posted a link which says the dyno number was not accurate, and simply was a spike in boost pressure, which was exactly what I was thinking.
Regardless, I'm not denying that 335i is underrated, I just do not belief it so underrated to such a large extent as some of you claim. Yes, it's a more powerful engine than the 2GR-FSE in the IS350, and it better be, because it's a twin turbo direction injection engine being compared to a naturally aspirated DI system. Even with displacement difference, I would expect the BMW engine to be more powerful. As for actual performance, it's bound to be less fuel efficient than the IS350, and probably more emissions.
Plus, it may very well have bigger traction issues than IS350, which would narrow performance gap between them.
09-22-06, 09:17 AM
#85
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True 335i is heavier by 78 lb. 3527 vs 3605.
% wise, a mere 2% weight difference. I guess that is a huge margin.
Let's put everything into perspective.
M3 weights 3415 lb.
335i weighs 3593 (m) 3605 (a)
In other words 335i weighs 5% more than M3.
According C&D.
M3 0-60 4.8, quarter 13.6
335i 0-60 4.9. quarter 13.6
For a car that weighs 5% more, and no LSD. I think it already shows that 335is underrated.
% wise, a mere 2% weight difference. I guess that is a huge margin.
Let's put everything into perspective.
M3 weights 3415 lb.
335i weighs 3593 (m) 3605 (a)
In other words 335i weighs 5% more than M3.
According C&D.
M3 0-60 4.8, quarter 13.6
335i 0-60 4.9. quarter 13.6
For a car that weighs 5% more, and no LSD. I think it already shows that 335is underrated.
Like I said, 335i probably is underrated, just like IS350, but not to extent you claim, which is 340 crank HP.
09-22-06, 09:20 AM
#86
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a "BMW enthusiast", just a simple motor head. I don't know why it's tough to swallow for the BMW enthusiasts though. The last time I check, at least on paper, the 335i is faster than the IS350, and no one car enthusiast is going to deny that the 3 series will provide better driving dynamic and handling than the IS.
So, here's a question back for you. Given your beloved IS350 is almost 100 pounds lighter, with similar hp and "better torque curve" at the upper RPM range, why is it still slower than the 335i?
So, here's a question back for you. Given your beloved IS350 is almost 100 pounds lighter, with similar hp and "better torque curve" at the upper RPM range, why is it still slower than the 335i?
I never said IS350 was faster, or just as fast as 335i sedan. I don't think anyone said that. What I am arguing is that if 335i's engine is so underrated by such large degree which some of you claim (340 crank HP), then it should be faster than it is. 335i Coupe should then be faster than what has been achieved in test results.
09-22-06, 09:24 AM
#87
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: A better place
Posts: 7,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RDX mileage isnt that bad, makes similar mpg to a RX350, but has 20 less hp and 17 less torque. Its a great vehicle you can get very loaded for the same price as a base RX. Lower mileage is to be expected from turbo vehicles, I bet this BMW is going to make 17-18 typical city. Id rather have N/A personally
thats only one dyno, need several sheets of different dyno types to accurately zero in on its real power, some dynos can rate higher than others, people jumped to conclusions far too early on that first dyno that claimed 350 hp 360 torque at the crank, but it still loses the 0-60 and 1/4 to the M3 barely despite a HUGE torque advantage. That doesnt add up. I know its underrated but not underated by 50 hp and 60 torque, too much wishful thinking 330/330 is more like it
thats only one dyno, need several sheets of different dyno types to accurately zero in on its real power, some dynos can rate higher than others, people jumped to conclusions far too early on that first dyno that claimed 350 hp 360 torque at the crank, but it still loses the 0-60 and 1/4 to the M3 barely despite a HUGE torque advantage. That doesnt add up. I know its underrated but not underated by 50 hp and 60 torque, too much wishful thinking 330/330 is more like it
09-22-06, 11:33 AM
#89
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the RX350 getting better mpg than the RDX? Yes, no "massive" difference, but when you factor in that the RX is a 6 cylinder while the RDX is just a 4 cylinder, plus the RX is bigger and heavier. Now do you get it?
09-22-06, 06:56 PM
#90
Lexus Fanatic
iTrader: (20)
Let's drop the RX350 / RDX discussion, it's off topic.
