84wuzmy1st

Ok, just wondering how the performance is so different... Is it the 8 speed tranny, gearing, and traction of the BMW? You would think the NA car with more torque would have the better 0-60 time with the same HP and weight. Difference in testing methods today vs 1985 (BMW supplies a car "tweaked for testing")? Just curious, I find the 0-60 for the 228i shocking considering the HP and Torque numbers for the car... I mean 5 flat? Really? Am I missing something? I might need to go test drive one.

BMW 228i

ENGINE 2.0L/240-hp/255-lb-ft turbo
TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic
CURB WEIGHT 3334 lb
0-60 MPH 5.0-5.4(5.0 motortrend, 5.4 BMW advertised) sec
QUARTER MILE 13.8 sec @ 98.3 mph

1985 Corvette

TRANSMISSION 4-Speed Automatic
ENGINE 5.7L/230-hp/330-lb-ft
CURB WEIGHT 3224 lb
0-60 MPH 5.7-6.2 sec
QUARTER MILE 14.1-14.7 sec @98-92 mph

James93LT1

Its all in the 8 speed, and torque multiplication.

http://www.viperclub.org/howto/faqs/...-gear-swap.php

ch@0s

You can't compare old tech to new. IMHO

84wuzmy1st

Ok, Ignore the comparison.

240HP, 3300 Curb Weight, 5.0 0-60?

Why is there not more hype about this, I can't remember ever seeing a car with this kind of performance. Is this the first car under 300HP and over 3000lbs with a 5.0 0-60?

I guess the WRX is pretty close as well.... I guess I am just getting old.

ch@0s

Maybe the price? I would not spend 30K on a 300 HP BMW. Maybe try the BMW forum.

84wuzmy1st

Psh... 33K+ for a 240HP BMW

I am just saying that I don't remember 0-60 numbers being so low for such little HP. It's like I missed an entire jump in auto performance somewhere.

I mean lets go up a Vette generation into the LS-1, 1997 Corvette with 345HP and 355lb, that car did 0-60 in flat 5 in testing I think. When did a 0-60 time of 5 seconds become possible with so little HP (considering vehicle weight and 2 wheel drive)?

I just don't know if I buy the numbers for the BMW, looking at current tech cars like the WRX, 370Z, Focus ST, Mazdaspeed 3, Genesis 3.8 and their 0-60. Maybe it is all in the 8 speed gearbox.

Oh, and the BMW gets 36mpg... WTF? Really? Ah, 36mpg highway... still.

MavsAK

Modern tires, and modern transmissions.

84wuzmy1st

Huh, I didn't think about the tires. It must have to do a lot with the transmission.

dtana

Well, I'm pretty sure that the non-luxury model of the 2003 Nissan 350Z with a 6 speed did damn close to 5.0, if not that. I'm sure it was way over 3000lbs & it was 287hp. So............

But what struck me as odd regarding the 228i you referenced was the 13.8 quarter mile with a low 98.3 trap speed. Shouldn't that be over 100mph, if the 13.8 is accurate??

Winnin'

My friend has a 2011 328i and my 2008 G35 smokes him. That said, my 95 corvette is faster than my Infiniti. The BMW numbers posted, look more like those of a 335I.

dtana

The OP is referring to the new 228i...........not the 3 series cars.

84wuzmy1st

I think Winnin was just agreeing that the flat 5 seconds for the 228i seems suspect.

Winnin'

yES, SORRY i MISSED THE 228 THING. Either way, the numbers llok low for the 2.8 @3300lbs.

856SPEED

I would say transmission and probably better launching capabilities the BMW will demonstrate (which is part of the gearing and tires, technology, etc.)........

but to compare apples to apples......what were specs on 1985 BMW's with the same power and weight???


Having said that, I have a 2008 BMW 135i convertible, six speed auto, with the M sport package...the car is small but weighs in at 3800+ lbs. It is powered by a 3 litre inline 6 with twin turbos RATED at 300 hp. I will tell you this....It would give my modified 350rwph Vette with specs listed below a run for the money from a dig up to roughly 65-70 mph....ask me how I know......; new technology and this 2008 BMW car hooks its power down VERY efficiently.....largely little tire spin and revs to 7,000 RPM extremely smooth and fast.....largely my wife's car.......

what would I rather drive although much more brutal, harsher riding, loud, etc.......yep.......the Vette!

dtana

Yeah, I hear you but that's not really an apples to apples either. You're talking of cars that weighed as much as a C4..........but were powered by small normally aspirated 6 cylinders. (2.8 or 3.0 liters). That's half the displacement of the C4. So is it surprising that it didn't put out 240hp??
Regardless of that, I will always give GM credit for being pretty much the first to start ramping up HP in the mid 80's. I just think it's important to put C4s & GM in the context of producing more power with comparative ease due to using engines that are larger & sometimes much larger than the competition. Let's not forget that for better or for worse most European & Japanese manufacturers of that era (& even to some extent today) would never desire to make/put a 5.7 liter into any of their cars regardless of weight or size.

MavsAK

Yeah rubber alone has come along vastly since 1985.
Our cars in 1985 were more than enough to create wheelspin down a track in 1985.

Can anyone think of the last time on Good modern rubber (not even truly great stuff, just good) any of us have broken our rear ends loose stock and launching from a dig in an auto?

dtana

Yeah, you're not wrong. Kind of makes you wonder what type of skidpad numbers the early C4 would turn today with 2014 state of the art tires. At the risk of "dating" myself.............I still remember when the best handling dry tire money could buy period was the Yokohama 008 for the street & 001 for autocross. I didn't buy them then. But ten years later I bought a set of 008s for my 911 & not only were they no longer #1, but they were barely #7 or 8. Almost everybody (including Yokohama themselves) made a far better gripping tire & a better balanced tire by then. That's why I always laugh when some people insist on getting the original Goodyears the C4 came with 20 or 30 years ago. Other than being original & overpriced there's not much else to be said. No offense.

84wuzmy1st

I just put on brand new BFGoodrich g-Force Sport COMP-2 tires on the original Z51 wheels and I can break the rear loose... might be the 3.07 gearing though helping.

Tom400CFI

That is not true at all. And it's not an answer to the question.


OP; look at the trap>ET ratio for both cars; its much better for the BMW. Traps are similar though -indicting hp/weight similarities...just as the specs show.

So why is the BMW able to ET quicker? More efficient application of power. The BMW launches faster(tires/gearing) and probably shifts much faster too.

How would a healthy L98 run w/gears, converter, shift kit and tires? Probably ABOUT 13.8ish. No magic in the BMW...just efficient drive train.

ch@0s

How can an opinion not be true? You just pointed out that the BMW in question is more technologically advanced.