Car Talk - Non S2000 General Motoring and Non S2000 Car Talk

Chalk and Cheese

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 28, 2009 | 03:48 PM
  #151  
Ultra_Nexus's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 12,330
Likes: 0
From: Frustration
Default

Sometimes, statistics themselves are bollocks, this is one of those times.

Power to weight is great and all, but past 100mph, you are looking at power to Cd.

And if you think there is going to be any noticeable difference between an E39 M5 and an E90 M3 on the public motorway/dual carridgeway you are very much mistaken.

I drive round in the S, my mate in his B18C-R'ed EK4. I have >50bhp more than he does and all the way upto 120 leptons, there is NOTHING in it. His car is limited to 120 ATM.

Although if you do want speed records, i'm sure nothing is quite as fast as the Cayenne at depreciating
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2009 | 12:08 AM
  #152  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

No idea what the relevance of your post is?

No-one has commented on speeds past 100.

The public road argument has been and gone.
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2009 | 12:15 AM
  #153  
Fieldl's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,418
Likes: 0
From: HK
Default

Tow car anyone: http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/958893.htm
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2009 | 12:25 AM
  #154  
98RON's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 929
Likes: 1
From: Nth Yks
Default

Originally Posted by MB,Mar 28 2009, 10:37 PM
Cheers Gad.

The new M3 look superb and is getting rave reviews (apart from poor brakes)



It's revvy too.

Seeing as the Coupe can be had for low 30's, i'd be interested.

RE the 0-60 times, the auto is a touch quicker according to BMW website.

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecif...t-bmwuk,00.html
I've had three drives (an hour or so each time - twice coupe, once saloon). It's a fine car. If you prefer/need four seats. Which I don't. It's no sportscar. But it is a very fine sports coupe/saloon. Engine is a gem. For me, it's still a bit of an exec coupe - albeit one with a fab engine - and that's not my thing. I consider that engine so good that I nearly bought one late Nov last year more or less JUST for the engine. The car has taken a real beating residuals-wise and is fairly brutal economy-wise if you cane it. Which you will! The car is solidly and well-made and feels very planted to the road. I didn't notice an issue with the brakes but then again I never really stratched them. I've heard of one or two sxpensive tinkly noises turning up in engines but if under warranty WGAF anyway. A decent looking car too.

Anyway, no point me rambling on - go and have a damned good thrash of one yourself soon and let us know what you make of it!

98
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2009 | 05:46 AM
  #155  
Nick Graves's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,181
Likes: 58
From: Hertford
Default

What a lovely bore/stroke ratio!

Might consider one when the Lude expires; bit of a bulky old barge and no 4WS, so I won't be capable of parking the damn thing...
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2009 | 06:11 AM
  #156  
Nottm_S2's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 23,297
Likes: 831
From: Nottingham
Default

Moggy, be specific, i'm interested not being argumentative. which bits of the stats i found are BS?

i think most petrolheads know the E39 M5's rep and love the car for that
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2009 | 09:43 AM
  #157  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

Originally Posted by Nottm_S2,Mar 29 2009, 02:11 PM
Moggy, be specific, i'm interested not being argumentative. which bits of the stats i found are BS?

i think most petrolheads know the E39 M5's rep and love the car for that
I'd already said which ones are BS

The M5 is 400bhp.

The weight is 1795kg with a full tank of fuel and a driver.

Therefore the power to weight is somewhere between 222-235bhp/tonne, depending on how you are comparing cars.

0-62 is 5.3s
0-75 is 7.2s
Standing start kilometre is 24.1s

All the above are taken straight from the owners manual.

0-100 is around 11s, depending upon which test run you read-(you can do a reasonableness test on this figure using the 0-62 & 0-75 stats above and assuming linear accelaration up to 100). Possibly you posted 14.1 by mistake? Seriously, I could do that without the use of my legs.
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2009 | 11:24 AM
  #158  
Nottm_S2's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 23,297
Likes: 831
From: Nottingham
Default

no, it's honestly sourced from the sites i mentioned. which may be wrong for all i know
the stuff i do know first hand has always been correct though

they quote 4.9 and 10.79 for the 60 and 100 sprints


EDIT

i've just noticed a typo .. i wrote 14.1 but it was actually 13.1

is that nearer the mark?
Reply
Old Mar 29, 2009 | 11:40 PM
  #159  
Moggy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,541
Likes: 0
From: omnipresent
Default

you great puddin!

Yes, 13.1 for 1/4 sounds reasonable.
Reply
Old Mar 30, 2009 | 12:26 AM
  #160  
Nottm_S2's Avatar
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 23,297
Likes: 831
From: Nottingham
Default

Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CrypticApathy
S2000 Under The Hood
2
Jun 18, 2015 11:05 AM
sicknastyap1
Carolinas
0
Apr 12, 2012 03:25 PM
Trumpfis2K
Car and Bike Talk
20
Sep 25, 2007 03:04 PM
kippermoon
UK & Ireland S2000 Community
17
Mar 15, 2007 03:03 AM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:21 PM.