Also,

Keep in mind that different peformance tests have different cars, and some may have lesser miles on them which means a tighter engine. Not to mention variable weather conditions. From the major magazines I've seen anywhere from 13.9 to 14.4sec quarter mile runs. Member's who have run their cars have hit anywhere in between these times and maybe better. I really don't care for magazine numbers because when it comes down to the street (uhh.. track) it's all about the driver. I really would not sweat over a magazine time.

Another thing, I've noticed BMW's being exceptionally fast in magazines for what they are. A 220hp 330ci running a 14.4? Sounds like a little $$$ under the table.

-Bryan

 

I always find it funny when someone claims that BMW must be paying off magazines to get the performance numbers that they get.

First off, why would any magazine, let alone ALL the magazines (which not surprisingly all have similar times for all cars, including BMW's) alienate all other car manufacturers by getting bribes from BMW in exchange for fake performance numbers?

Second, how much do you really think it would cost BMW to pay off dozens of car magazines around the world for the fake times you're suggesting they're getting? Don't you think it would be a little better for BMW to just use that money instead to actually make the car faster?

Doesn't that seem a little more likely, or are you still convinced BMW is spending half of its profits to pay off C. Van Tune and his cronies so that the 330i can be tested at 1/2 a second faster in the 1/4 mi?

Have you ever driven a 330i? Have you ever raced one in your Z? I guarantee you'll find that the two cars, despite the difference in power, have very similar straight-line acceleration.

How can that be? Well it's very simple:
1. Power-to-weight ratio
2. Gearing
3. Efficient drivetrains
4. Underrated engines
5. Flat torque curve
6. Area under the power curve

The last point refers to the plot of horsepower vs rpm, in other words a dyno chart. Having a flat power curve with a wide powerband gives much better acceleration than having peaky power delivery, even if the peak engine power is higher.

I know it's frustrating to everyone else that BMW is able to get so much performance out of their engines, but it's true. It must be that those Bavarian horses are bigger than the ones in Japan.

 

Punk MD. Niiiiice post. I tried something similar and lost all my "points". The numbers in the mags may be slow for the Z, but they are just as slow for the Beemers, Porsches, Ferrari's, Vipers...........

 

There you have it my friends. Magazine racing at its finest.

wooo wooooo Bubba

 

I can't fault them for liking the Z06, though. It's one helluva car.

 

It's ok, I have enough real life experiences to back up the numbers that the mags have gotten. In most situations, the 330 and Z will be very close based on races I've had (my car versus a 330 and a Z in separate encounters).

All that I posted earlier is theory, but it explains why BMW's are faster then the power ratings would suggest.

 

 

Hey Punk MD,

I'm so glad to see that some one cared that much about my post. And yes I've driven a 330ci, and a 330i while I was shopping for the Z. I also raced a 330ci manual with my Volvo S60T5, and beat it by over a car length. And before you go get your Car and Driver out I'll tell you the specs. 247hp vs. 220hp, 15.0 sec. 1/4 mile for the Volvo and 14.4 for the 330ci, so C&D says. Don't get me wrong the 3 series BMW's are great cars, they are fun to drive and excellent quality, but they are not the best thing out there. If you want me to take back what I said about the money under the table, I'll do it. But just keep in mind, look at your past magazines comparison tests, and I'll bet you the car that places first is the one who's company does the most advertising in the magazine.

-Bryan

 

For those that have read this article...Did anyone else notice the mistake R&T made? They keep claiming to have tested a Track model, but NONE of their pictures are of a Track model. They have either a Performance of Touring model. The wheels are wrong. They are the regular 18's, not the Rays! Also, if I remember correctly, they had the weight at around 3400 lbs. In reality, the Track model is 3225 lbs. (without driver). With mistakes like this I can see why many of their other numbers might not have lived up to our expectations.

 

From Nissan's site:
Base, Manual transmission 3,188 lbs.
Enthusiast, Manual transmission: 3,197 lbs.
Performance, Manual transmission: 3,217 lbs.
Touring, Manual transmission: 3,247 lbs.
Track, Manual transmission: 3,225 lbs.

...which one was 3400 lbs.?

 

er, the M3 yes, that was a ringer, the Z06? the bets 1/4 mile from a Z06 i've ever seen from any multiple brand magazine was a 12.8, stock C5s with better rubber are running 12.8s, real people have gotten them to do low 12s consistantly (or is it consistently? i can never remember. . .)
either way, dont worry about mags, it is whoever pays the most $, how else did the thunderturd win car of the year? they also run ringers (coughBMW) or "calculate" 1/4 mile times and then lop off a few seconds because it's imported, gotta love mags.

 

This has got to be one of the funniest conversations I've ever seen! All these conspiracy theories...

FYRHWK1: Why do you say the M3 was a ringer? It only ran a 13.5 @104, which is the slowest mag time I've seen, and slower than most people I know that have run their M3's. Not only that, it was actually beaten by the Z around the track, even tho the Z is much slower in all acceleration tests.

Especially with SMGII, a consistent 13.0 is easy and I know people that have hit 12.7. Trap speed is also low, most people run around 106-108.

I agree that the Z06's numbers are also low compared to what some people really get at the track...low 12's are pretty common.

Just remember that it has to do with the actual track, and apparently R&T's track is pretty slow, whether it's because of altitute, track conditions, weather, or whatever.

The important thing is that all cars were tested on the same track, so the cars relative performance is accurate, even if you dont like the numbers they got.

 

skwez: Frequently car mags use different cars for testing than they do for the photo shoots. That's probably what's going on there.

The weight was listed at 3310 for the Z. Test weight was 3430. You guys realize that they actually weighed the cars, right? They're not just making these numbers up. They weigh all cars with the same setup, probably something like with 1/2 tank of gas, driver, and test equipment. Some car manufacturers list their weights differently. Some use dry weight, which is without any fluids, but there's no real convention. So, even if Nissan says the car weighs 3225 lbs, on test day it had the same handicap as all the other cars and weighed 3430 lbs.

 

Bryan,

Fair enough, I didnt say that a 330 will always beat every car it should beat. In that situation maybe it was driver dependent. Maybe he couldnt drive and you could, or you were driving an auto. Maybe you were at a high altitude where your car with its turbos would have an advantage.

I dont know, but I raced an S60 T5 in my last car, a 328is, and beat it by about the same amount you beat a 330. Just goes to show that you never know what the other guy is going to be able to do. What the magazine numbers do is tell you what the car is capable of under ideal situations with a good driver. Reality is often different.

 

I'm failing to see how these points favor the 330 over the Z.

1. Power to Weight

330ci 3285lbs/225hp = 14.6 lbs per HP
Z Touring 3247lbs/287hp = 11.3 lbs per HP

2. This discussion isn't B&W.. it varies by condition and your goal.. I'll skip this one. The discussion obviously isn't about top end, so final gear ratio is moot.

3. No one has exact data on the Z yet.. but its somewhere between 15-20%.

4. Possibly.. but we aren't talking 20% here or more.. nor did I see any 3 series BMWs posting greater then 200 rwhp at our dyno day the other day. My Z did 239 rwhp. And if the crank is 'as rated'.. that 17% loss.. or my engine is less then rated.

5. Look at a Z dyno.. it doesn't get much flatter..

6. Since the Z torque curve is so flat.. it has the most area under the curve (torque vs HP is a linear equation) so the flat line torque gives the most area possible for that torque value. Hence, the Z is as efficent as you can get in this respect. I didn't look at any of the 3 series dyno charts yesterday, because only the M roadsters were posting anything remotely interesting... all I know is people were crapping their pants at the Z's curve.

You pretty much spelled out Z there.. the torque curve is flat as a table. On my dyno pull.. 228 across the whole chart varying only slightly. If you compare rated.. 274ft-lbs vs 214ft-lbs. Now if the Z didn't have a flat torque curve.. maybe you could make a point.. (underrated BMW.. better torque curve) but it does.. so I don't see what you are trying to say.

 

SOmebody should show this guy the video posted earlier with the Z whipping a 330i. Stop comparing sedans with a sports car, end of discussion.

 

Anyone else upset with the cars they decided to run the Z against? I know they were trying to determine if it had "elite" status, but come on. Did anyone actually think the Z would compete with a vette or a 911???

Oh, and did anyone else notice the small article about the Nisimo 350Z? Pretty nice if you ask me.

 

I really don't understand why everyone is whining over this story.. the point wasn't to run the 350z against its peers.. it was to run it against cars that people percieve to be in a league above something in the 350z's price and class and see how it does. Hence the reason the article puts the Z against each car seperatly.. not a 'shoot out'.

There have already been plenty of articles of the Z vs other cars in its price range and buying class.

 

I think the Z was in "over it's head". That's why I don't understand why everybody is upset with the outcome. I said it earlier in the thread that if they drove each car at it's limit on the road course the Z06 would be light years ahead of the competition and the Z would be in last place by over a second behind the M3. Flame away...AGAIN. I have the Z, I like the Z, but it doesn't stand a chance against these cars....

Great car at a great price...and looks cool!

 

This isn't the only comparison where they have been this close.. there are others.. including a series from Japan with the TOP DRIVERS OUT THERE!

Why do people on a forum get off thinking they can qualify someone else who they know nothing about and their ability to drive a car to its limit.

These guys are car nuts.. and I'm sure plenty of them have more then adequate skills to drive these cars... otherwise, there would be tons of people lined up to replace them.

Are they F1 racers? Not likely.. but I bet they have more experience and track time then even the top weekend racers who hang out here.