Article Comments - 2007 BMW 335i Coupe Full Test

18 messages, Last post on Apr 21, 2007 at 8:39 PM

You are in the BMW 318ti Forum. Your Host is claires

What is this discussion about? BMW 3 Series, Coupe

Article comments for Full Test: 2007 BMW 335i Coupe - BMW has created the ultimate all-around sport coupe. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 2 of 2: 1; 2; Prev; Next; Last

#9 of 18 Re: BMW slipped Edmunds a ringer! [threxx] by circlew Nov 28, 2006 (1:23 pm)
Replying to: threxx (Nov 28, 2006 12:28 pm) It really doesn't matter if this is true or not. The bottom line is there was no major mechanical or electronic differences that were apparent. I like the fact that this test was done to show variations car to car. I assume we would ask the testing editors of C&D, R&T, Automobile, Etc. to continue the dyno results vs. other cars not in any given road test to see if apples = apples or if there is a marketing factor involved. Let's test the testers, so to speak. Regards, OW Replies to this message: threxx (Nov 28, 2006 2:32 pm) circlew (Nov 28, 2006 2:41 pm) threxx (Nov 28, 2006 7:29 pm) and 1 more...
#10 of 18 Re: BMW slipped Edmunds a ringer! [circlew] by threxx Nov 28, 2006 (2:32 pm)
Replying to: circlew (Nov 28, 2006 1:23 pm) Maximum boost being half a pound high on stock trim is possibly the result of a change to the ECU (electronics) which affects the mechanicals and results in a pretty major power increase across the upper RPM range (where acceleration tests will be improved) I'd say it does matter from an ethical standpoint if BMW is trying to slip slightly modded tester cars to the magazines and editorials. It doesn't change the fact that it's still a great performing car for the money, but it might cause people to watch BMW test vehicles a little more closely to see if they're playing fair and if the numbers the magazines put up for acceleration tests are truly realistic for the cars being sold to consumers. Replies to this message: circlew (Nov 28, 2006 2:41 pm) threxx (Nov 28, 2006 7:29 pm) blue330xi (Dec 03, 2006 11:38 pm)
#11 of 18 Re: BMW slipped Edmunds a ringer! [threxx] by circlew Nov 28, 2006 (2:41 pm)
Replying to: threxx (Nov 28, 2006 2:32 pm) I agree with you on ethical standards. The point is that exact test results are hard to come by. Also, the public does not require the test results for any specification so we trust the mfg. rating. We also look to the various testing resources to qualify those ratings but rarely check on our own. The only place necessary to make sure power ratings are in the required range is in a qualified racing event sanctioned by a recognized group on or before race day. Regards, OW Replies to this message: threxx (Nov 28, 2006 7:29 pm) blue330xi (Dec 03, 2006 11:38 pm)
#12 of 18 Re: BMW slipped Edmunds a ringer! [circlew] by threxx Nov 28, 2006 (7:29 pm)
Replying to: circlew (Nov 28, 2006 2:41 pm) Right, but the manufacturer can rate cars any way they want to really unless they want to be SAE v2 certified or something. Even then - BMW rated the 335i at 300 flywheel horsepower which is not a lie. We know by now that the 335i is at LEAST 300 flywheel horsepower because almost every independent dyno test has showed RWD power figures would be equal to 300+hp even if the drivetrain loss was only 10% (which it's almost certainly several percent higher). However if they start supplying the magazines and online editorials with tweaked cars that will provide better than factory response, then everybody starts saying things like "man those cars are even more under-rated than we thought! They'll put out almost 300hp to the rear wheels and run low-mid 13s in the 1/4-mile!". In other words the performance enthusiasts start thinking they've found another under-rated car out there, kinda like the LS1 f-bodies were always rated at 305hp without their respective SLP packages, yet everyone knew they put out more like 340-350hp at the flywheel. It's kinda like BMW using others to spread misinformation so that if it gets exposed they can just pretend like the car must have been a ringer. If they themselves said the car made more power and performed better than it did then they'd have nobody to blame except themselves - kinda like the situation Ford got into with the 1999 Mustang Cobras that were overrated (that got them in a class action lawsuit that required them to make all of the Cobras faster by doing some power adding mods to the motor under 'warranty'). For some reason nothing gets performance enthusiasts more excited than a heavily under-rated car. I honestly believe in some cases if the manufacturer had just rated the car at a higher power output from the getgo they wouldn't have sold nearly as many or generated nearly as much of a buzz because people like to get 'something for nothing' so to speak. Kinda like how stores have learned if you slap on a somewhat unrealistically high "MSRP" on a product and then put it on a "huge sale" it will get a lot more attention than if you just priced it at that "Sale" price normally. Same product, same price, but human psychology is weird like that. Again, let me clarify I'm NOT saying this is what BMW has done here - just pointing out how (in my opinion) the POTENTIAL for them to have done something like this is a bigger issue than it may seem on the surface to some people. In an official track-day type race they may want to make sure your car's power is not too high or low for the class of car you're in, but that doesn't mean that's the only time that a person should care that their impression of their car's performance may have been formed on an intentional bending of the truth. I have lots of friends who take pride in their car and while they, of course, are not be able to floor their car and say "oh I feel 20 less horsepower than I should feel according to that Edmunds.com article!"... if you told them they were missing 20 ponies from the test car they read about I bet they'd wonder why, and if it was because of intentional undisclosed tweaking by the manufacturer, I bet they wouldn't be too happy. They might even take their car to the local drag strip and see they can't under any circumstances seem to reproduce the times they read in a particular article. They might chalk it up to just bad luck and the numerous variables involved, but what if that wasn't why the difference was there? What if they had been deceived? Sorry to ramble/rant - not trying to argue - just kind of sorting through my thoughts. Replies to this message: blue330xi (Dec 03, 2006 11:38 pm)
#13 of 18 wow im slow to reply....but... by blue330xi Dec 03, 2006 (11:38 pm)
Replying to: threxx (Nov 28, 2006 7:29 pm) I have only one question, did the customer car have the sport package also. If not, then it is known that they have slightly different tuneing, including top speed. Also widely known in the BMW community is that later 335i's actualy make a few HP less as they are using a newer computer flash version with slightly different tune. This has been confirmed by shiv (of vishnu tuinin), I really dont think BMW sliped them a fast one, I think they got a sport package car vs a non sport package one. The falloff in power at redline is a known issue with all non sport package cars. Hope this clears things up. see e90post.com forums for more detail. EDIT: sorry for the spelling, it is late, i am tired will sleep now.
#14 of 18 e46 times slow by vmm Dec 04, 2006 (9:35 pm)
The new 335i may be a great car... but many dislike it's design and especially despise the idrive. My only concern about your article is the e46 m3 0-60 time quoted. I realize that it's from the review of the ZCP a few months back... but your times are significantly slower than any other published out there. I've seen e46 M3 times ranging from 4.5 to 4.8 seconds. Having recently sat in 325i loaner from a dealer... I have to say the interior of the new 3 series is uninspired. Most e46 M3 enthusiasts are eagerly waiting to see the e90/392 M3. That should be quite a beast. I do think that BMW will need to be careful with it's price point. I love my e46 M3... but if BMW overcharges... many people like my self will simply go out and purchase a 997 Porsche. Sorry about the meandering post. I think most people who are spending time debating the 335i are gearheads who are thinking about what the next generation M3 will bring to the table. Replies to this message: designman (Dec 05, 2006 8:59 am) chrnochime (Dec 08, 2006 7:59 pm) vmm (Dec 26, 2006 10:24 am)
#15 of 18 Re: e46 times slow [vmm] by designman Dec 05, 2006 (8:59 am)
Replying to: vmm (Dec 04, 2006 9:35 pm) I do think that BMW will need to be careful with it's price point. I love my e46 M3... but if BMW overcharges... many people like my self will simply go out and purchase a 997 Porsche. Well, you'll be moving from one extortionist to another. I don't know what your expectations are but chances are you will not be satisfied with the starting $73K 997. You might want to start fortifying that checkbook. I think the new M3 will still be significantly less than a 997, that is, a 997 that handles in the manner that we expect of a 911. Porsche has gotten real cute with their product offerings and pricing. I think I could buy a BMW very close to starting price… not so with a Porsche these days. Would a V8 400hp M3 starting at $57K be too much? I could probably buy that without one option added. I’d have to be at around $83K with a 911. Of course these are MSRP and a difference is that you could probably get a better discount with a 911.
#16 of 18 Re: e46 times slow [vmm] by chrnochime Dec 08, 2006 (7:59 pm)
Replying to: vmm (Dec 04, 2006 9:35 pm) If you're buying the 997 when the E92 M3 does indeed cost 57k that doesn't seem logical at all. Doesn't make sense for someone to buy the more expensive car if said person balks at even the price of the cheaper one, which in this case is the next-gen M3. Replies to this message: vmm (Dec 26, 2006 10:24 am)
#17 of 18 Re: e46 times slow [chrnochime] by vmm Dec 26, 2006 (10:24 am)
Replying to: chrnochime (Dec 08, 2006 7:59 pm) It does if you are unhapppy with the design and weight of the new car... I wouldn't pay the 57k (without options) along with 10-15 k markup for a car which I wouldn't enjoy as much as my 2005 ZCP M3. Once you throw in options and markup... you're in the same ballpark as the 911. It's not the cost which bothers me as much as the changes in the new coupe. I agree with both previous posts that Porsche has gotten a little cute with the various product offerings and packages. I hope the new M3 doesn't drive like a large sedan with gobs of HP. The 911 certainly has balance and dynamics which one can't get in the M3. I worry that the increase in weight in the new M3 will make it drive less like the 911 and more like an S4.
#18 of 18 out with the new, in with the old by kimchimofo Apr 21, 2007 (8:39 pm)
i think i'd rather go with the e46 m3 too. i have an e63 m6 and even though it's an outstanding car, i'm not in love. the gadetry and design are cool (it's very sci-fi), and it even tears into better than the m3 (i had an e46 previously) when pushed ... but it's just a little too over the top compared to the less lofty builds of the e46 m3 or the porsche 997. for all you weight fanatics though ... porsche's weight has been on the creep for a while now too. The 911 turbo is just under 3600 pounds and the 997 S cars are coming in around 3200 with options. The old m3 was around 3400 if I recall correctly. Sure the m6 is heavier ... but at least with all that weight you get a huge trunk and some outstanding road characteristics. The weight of the M6 makes it the ultimate smooth cruiser when it's not being pushed around those corners. Besides, it's nice to have a couple hundred extra pounds if you decide to take it over 200mph. I guess it's all those safety features and good sounding stereos jacking up the weight on these newer cars? But at some point I'm tired of hearing this weight argument ... if you want low weight, either remove everything from your car or get a lotus. Otherwise it's all about preferences ... in other words, performance vs. luxury.