Mugen Civic - £38.5k!
25 October 2009, 09:48 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why did a stock 335d beat a stock MANUAL 335i around Bruntingthorpe in a BMW Driver track test then? Why does a 335d get a 0-60 and 0-100 time MUCH better than it's power to weight ratio suggests? Hmm - let me guess?
Torque is very much understood. By those who've driven many torqueless and torquey motors.
Torque is very much understood. By those who've driven many torqueless and torquey motors.
Last edited by Matteeboy; 25 October 2009 at 10:20 AM.
25 October 2009, 03:08 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Matteeboy;9016466]So why did a stock 335d beat a stock MANUAL 335i around Bruntingthorpe in a BMW Driver track test then? Why does a 335d get a 0-60 and 0-100 time MUCH better than it's power to weight ratio suggests? Hmm - let me guess?
torque is better because the 335d is quicker than the 335i around a race track?
as i said torque is misunderstood (do you drive a diesel?)
lets give both cars the same gearing with CVT gearboxes that operate in the the cars peak torque RPM so same gearing at the wheels.
your 428ft/lb diesel motor (at about 2000rpm)
lets go to the other extreme of the worlds most powerful 6pot diesel and give the petrol motor a
347ft/lb ferrari F50 engine (at 6500rpm)
why would it by lapping you at bruntingthorpe if torque is everything?
allow me to explain, simplifying it, 428ft/lb at 2000rpm is the same as 214ft/lbs at 4000rpm or 107ft/lbs at 8000rpm
on the other hand 347ft/lb at 6500 is the same as 694ft/lbs at 3250rpm etc etc.
workdone vs workrate. torque vs bhp, they belong to each other, can't have one without the other.
torque is better because the 335d is quicker than the 335i around a race track?
as i said torque is misunderstood (do you drive a diesel?)
lets give both cars the same gearing with CVT gearboxes that operate in the the cars peak torque RPM so same gearing at the wheels.
your 428ft/lb diesel motor (at about 2000rpm)
lets go to the other extreme of the worlds most powerful 6pot diesel and give the petrol motor a
347ft/lb ferrari F50 engine (at 6500rpm)
why would it by lapping you at bruntingthorpe if torque is everything?
allow me to explain, simplifying it, 428ft/lb at 2000rpm is the same as 214ft/lbs at 4000rpm or 107ft/lbs at 8000rpm
on the other hand 347ft/lb at 6500 is the same as 694ft/lbs at 3250rpm etc etc.
workdone vs workrate. torque vs bhp, they belong to each other, can't have one without the other.
25 October 2009, 07:55 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see a clearer example. without trying to get too scientific, of the usefulness of torque than the 335i (306bhp/ around 300lbs/ft) vs 335d (286bhp/428lbs/ft) round Brunters - sameish weight, chassis, brakes, handling, etc.
Unlike an F50 which weighs nothing and is near enough a race car. So how did the 335d win (albeit only by 0.1 seconds)? And countless other lightweight but very quick track cars weigh naff all and have naff all torque but are MUCH quicker- I'm not deluded so I'm relying on facts - the power/weight ratio of a 335d is a mere 170bhp/tonne - not much more than the old shape CTR. So how does it post such good performance figures? It begins with the letter "t. It's only a fraction over 2 seconds slower than an E90 M3 round the track too!!
I have the test on my machine as a pdf - it's a very good article. They trash BMWs stock acceleration figures too - 5.6 to 60 and 13.3 to 100 for the 335d for example.
I've done a print screen on the last page (the rest isn't so relevant but can do the same if needed) and saved it - you'll need to zoom in but it might just be readable...
Some figures on the acceleration table are for mapped versions but they used "normal" cars for the track work.
It's not just the 335d though, there are plenty of other quick diesels out there doing similar thing - new Jag XF 3.0D, several Mercs, etc.
I KNOW it's not the fastest or best car in the World but even the most anti diesel purist has to admit, it's pretty good for a car that in my case, looks like a stock 318s SE (apart from the exhausts, badge and chrome grille). Can you get a more subtle fast car? I can't think of any.
Unlike an F50 which weighs nothing and is near enough a race car. So how did the 335d win (albeit only by 0.1 seconds)? And countless other lightweight but very quick track cars weigh naff all and have naff all torque but are MUCH quicker- I'm not deluded so I'm relying on facts - the power/weight ratio of a 335d is a mere 170bhp/tonne - not much more than the old shape CTR. So how does it post such good performance figures? It begins with the letter "t. It's only a fraction over 2 seconds slower than an E90 M3 round the track too!!
I have the test on my machine as a pdf - it's a very good article. They trash BMWs stock acceleration figures too - 5.6 to 60 and 13.3 to 100 for the 335d for example.
I've done a print screen on the last page (the rest isn't so relevant but can do the same if needed) and saved it - you'll need to zoom in but it might just be readable...
Some figures on the acceleration table are for mapped versions but they used "normal" cars for the track work.
It's not just the 335d though, there are plenty of other quick diesels out there doing similar thing - new Jag XF 3.0D, several Mercs, etc.
I KNOW it's not the fastest or best car in the World but even the most anti diesel purist has to admit, it's pretty good for a car that in my case, looks like a stock 318s SE (apart from the exhausts, badge and chrome grille). Can you get a more subtle fast car? I can't think of any.
Last edited by Matteeboy; 25 October 2009 at 08:07 PM.
25 October 2009, 09:02 PM
#36
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see a clearer example. without trying to get too scientific, of the usefulness of torque than the 335i (306bhp/ around 300lbs/ft) vs 335d (286bhp/428lbs/ft) round Brunters - sameish weight, chassis, brakes, handling, etc.
Unlike an F50 which weighs nothing and is near enough a race car. So how did the 335d win (albeit only by 0.1 seconds)? And countless other lightweight but very quick track cars weigh naff all and have naff all torque but are MUCH quicker- I'm not deluded so I'm relying on facts - the power/weight ratio of a 335d is a mere 170bhp/tonne - not much more than the old shape CTR. So how does it post such good performance figures? It begins with the letter "t. It's only a fraction over 2 seconds slower than an E90 M3 round the track too!!
I have the test on my machine as a pdf - it's a very good article. They trash BMWs stock acceleration figures too - 5.6 to 60 and 13.3 to 100 for the 335d for example.
I've done a print screen on the last page (the rest isn't so relevant but can do the same if needed) and saved it - you'll need to zoom in but it might just be readable...
Some figures on the acceleration table are for mapped versions but they used "normal" cars for the track work.
It's not just the 335d though, there are plenty of other quick diesels out there doing similar thing - new Jag XF 3.0D, several Mercs, etc.
I KNOW it's not the fastest or best car in the World but even the most anti diesel purist has to admit, it's pretty good for a car that in my case, looks like a stock 318s SE (apart from the exhausts, badge and chrome grille). Can you get a more subtle fast car? I can't think of any.
Unlike an F50 which weighs nothing and is near enough a race car. So how did the 335d win (albeit only by 0.1 seconds)? And countless other lightweight but very quick track cars weigh naff all and have naff all torque but are MUCH quicker- I'm not deluded so I'm relying on facts - the power/weight ratio of a 335d is a mere 170bhp/tonne - not much more than the old shape CTR. So how does it post such good performance figures? It begins with the letter "t. It's only a fraction over 2 seconds slower than an E90 M3 round the track too!!
I have the test on my machine as a pdf - it's a very good article. They trash BMWs stock acceleration figures too - 5.6 to 60 and 13.3 to 100 for the 335d for example.
I've done a print screen on the last page (the rest isn't so relevant but can do the same if needed) and saved it - you'll need to zoom in but it might just be readable...
Some figures on the acceleration table are for mapped versions but they used "normal" cars for the track work.
It's not just the 335d though, there are plenty of other quick diesels out there doing similar thing - new Jag XF 3.0D, several Mercs, etc.
I KNOW it's not the fastest or best car in the World but even the most anti diesel purist has to admit, it's pretty good for a car that in my case, looks like a stock 318s SE (apart from the exhausts, badge and chrome grille). Can you get a more subtle fast car? I can't think of any.
25 October 2009, 11:34 PM
#38
I can't see a clearer example. without trying to get too scientific, of the usefulness of torque than the 335i (306bhp/ around 300lbs/ft) vs 335d (286bhp/428lbs/ft) round Brunters - sameish weight, chassis, brakes, handling, etc.
Unlike an F50 which weighs nothing and is near enough a race car. So how did the 335d win (albeit only by 0.1 seconds)? And countless other lightweight but very quick track cars weigh naff all and have naff all torque but are MUCH quicker- I'm not deluded so I'm relying on facts - the power/weight ratio of a 335d is a mere 170bhp/tonne - not much more than the old shape CTR. So how does it post such good performance figures? It begins with the letter "t. It's only a fraction over 2 seconds slower than an E90 M3 round the track too!!
I have the test on my machine as a pdf - it's a very good article. They trash BMWs stock acceleration figures too - 5.6 to 60 and 13.3 to 100 for the 335d for example.
I've done a print screen on the last page (the rest isn't so relevant but can do the same if needed) and saved it - you'll need to zoom in but it might just be readable...
Some figures on the acceleration table are for mapped versions but they used "normal" cars for the track work.
It's not just the 335d though, there are plenty of other quick diesels out there doing similar thing - new Jag XF 3.0D, several Mercs, etc.
I KNOW it's not the fastest or best car in the World but even the most anti diesel purist has to admit, it's pretty good for a car that in my case, looks like a stock 318s SE (apart from the exhausts, badge and chrome grille). Can you get a more subtle fast car? I can't think of any.
Unlike an F50 which weighs nothing and is near enough a race car. So how did the 335d win (albeit only by 0.1 seconds)? And countless other lightweight but very quick track cars weigh naff all and have naff all torque but are MUCH quicker- I'm not deluded so I'm relying on facts - the power/weight ratio of a 335d is a mere 170bhp/tonne - not much more than the old shape CTR. So how does it post such good performance figures? It begins with the letter "t. It's only a fraction over 2 seconds slower than an E90 M3 round the track too!!
I have the test on my machine as a pdf - it's a very good article. They trash BMWs stock acceleration figures too - 5.6 to 60 and 13.3 to 100 for the 335d for example.
I've done a print screen on the last page (the rest isn't so relevant but can do the same if needed) and saved it - you'll need to zoom in but it might just be readable...
Some figures on the acceleration table are for mapped versions but they used "normal" cars for the track work.
It's not just the 335d though, there are plenty of other quick diesels out there doing similar thing - new Jag XF 3.0D, several Mercs, etc.
I KNOW it's not the fastest or best car in the World but even the most anti diesel purist has to admit, it's pretty good for a car that in my case, looks like a stock 318s SE (apart from the exhausts, badge and chrome grille). Can you get a more subtle fast car? I can't think of any.
We get it, its fast, and it doesnt shout about it, unlike the owners !
I personally cant understand it, they are so fast and BMW practically give them away compared to the petrol ones, what is it 30 odd grand on the road compared to the 335i at, er, about 30 odd grand.
There is an element of choice here, personally however good they are, I dont want one, 335i or 335D, nothing against them but would rather go for something that isnt every third car, currently saving up for a Mustang, Probably a GT (maybe a Supercharged one), about 310 bhp and I am sure you will tell me a 335D is faster and corners better but I am not bothered in the slightest as the tenths of seconds saved I doubt I would do anything meaningful anyway, I suspect I may be too busy listening to the noise coming fromt he exhausts instead, the BMW *35D debate always seems to be like a car version of when old people say "You know the price of everything and the value of nothing".
26 October 2009, 10:46 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J4cko - fair comments TBH. A Mustang has an engine note to die for and it's not all about track times - It (the test) was just the clearest demonstration I can think of (same car, weight, chassis, one petrol, one diesel, both high performance) I can think of that demonstrates that a lot of torque IS useful - hence Peugeot and Audi kicking **** in Le Mans with soot chuckers. I don't need to bleat on about it's performance - everyone knows both the 335i and 335d are quick.
If there was another clearer demonstration of power vs torque on a track, I'd have used that instead.
I know it's not everyone's cup of tea (especially mainly Scoobyheads) but it shows that diesel, which I used to HATE with a passion, is actually now an alternative choice for the enthusiast.
I'm afraid I've done the highish power, low torque thing and I'm just not interested any more. High torque, high power needs big turbos and/or large capacity so in a petrol that means crap range and vicious emissions. High power, high torque and reasonable range with low emissions (179g/km for the 335d!!) is too useful to ignore for many.
But if you do get a 'Stang, be sure to video it and stick it up on the net so we can hear the sound. I still miss the Golf's V6 howl and always will. But the 35d is the best sounding diesel around (although the V10 TDI VAG unit sounds good too). It's just (only just) pleasant enough when pushed to raise the odd hair on the back of the neck as the horizon approaches at startling speeds.
Isn't this a car enthusiasts website anyway? Are we not allowed to talk about our own cars? Do people not bleat on about how super fast their Subarus are all day? Or is it that now I have something pretty quick and you can't mock it, you don't like it?
Hmmm...
If there was another clearer demonstration of power vs torque on a track, I'd have used that instead.
I know it's not everyone's cup of tea (especially mainly Scoobyheads) but it shows that diesel, which I used to HATE with a passion, is actually now an alternative choice for the enthusiast.
I'm afraid I've done the highish power, low torque thing and I'm just not interested any more. High torque, high power needs big turbos and/or large capacity so in a petrol that means crap range and vicious emissions. High power, high torque and reasonable range with low emissions (179g/km for the 335d!!) is too useful to ignore for many.
But if you do get a 'Stang, be sure to video it and stick it up on the net so we can hear the sound. I still miss the Golf's V6 howl and always will. But the 35d is the best sounding diesel around (although the V10 TDI VAG unit sounds good too). It's just (only just) pleasant enough when pushed to raise the odd hair on the back of the neck as the horizon approaches at startling speeds.
Isn't this a car enthusiasts website anyway? Are we not allowed to talk about our own cars? Do people not bleat on about how super fast their Subarus are all day? Or is it that now I have something pretty quick and you can't mock it, you don't like it?
Hmmm...
Last edited by Matteeboy; 26 October 2009 at 11:05 AM.
26 October 2009, 05:07 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ron - first turbo kicks in at about 1500rpm (I think) then the bigger one comes in at just under 3k rpm. Redlines just about 5k rpm. TBH it's so smooth that it's hard to tell and they are sequential so not a case of "one on one off" - more techy people might know the exact figures?
Just went for a surf (it's a good surfmobile) which means joining onto the A30 (dual carriageway) with very little slip road - so you need to floor it. Stuck it in DS (more aggressive auto) and went for it. It's pi55ing it down here so expected some fishtailing - none at all. Traction light went a bit bonkers until I hit 60ish but it coped very well. It also dries the brakes automatically. No idea how but it works a treat!
There is no discernable power "gap" unlike my Astra 1.9CDTi which did nothing until 2.5k rpm and ran out of ideas at 4.5k.
Just went for a surf (it's a good surfmobile) which means joining onto the A30 (dual carriageway) with very little slip road - so you need to floor it. Stuck it in DS (more aggressive auto) and went for it. It's pi55ing it down here so expected some fishtailing - none at all. Traction light went a bit bonkers until I hit 60ish but it coped very well. It also dries the brakes automatically. No idea how but it works a treat!
There is no discernable power "gap" unlike my Astra 1.9CDTi which did nothing until 2.5k rpm and ran out of ideas at 4.5k.
26 October 2009, 05:24 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes and as sometimes happens in such topics, I mentioned that Hondas have NO torque then someone said you don't need torque. I disagreed.
And I would never in a billion years spend 335i/almost new M3/not very old RS4 money on a friggin Honda - ever.
If you'd care to point out where I have written any ****e then be my guest. You don't appear to be very bright though so my expectations are low.
And I would never in a billion years spend 335i/almost new M3/not very old RS4 money on a friggin Honda - ever.
If you'd care to point out where I have written any ****e then be my guest. You don't appear to be very bright though so my expectations are low.
26 October 2009, 10:40 PM
#44
YouTube - MG ZT 260 Start up and Drive off
Thats what they sound like, thats my uncles ZT 260, which has a Mustang engine.
Personally I dont do jealous, would go mad if I did with some of the tasty stuff round here, wierdly I can get a little bit envious about some of the stuff on retro rides, old Datsuns with Silvia turbo engines, lowered, tasteful mods on JDM wheels, wierd stuff like that you cant really buy.
Thats what they sound like, thats my uncles ZT 260, which has a Mustang engine.
Personally I dont do jealous, would go mad if I did with some of the tasty stuff round here, wierdly I can get a little bit envious about some of the stuff on retro rides, old Datsuns with Silvia turbo engines, lowered, tasteful mods on JDM wheels, wierd stuff like that you cant really buy.
27 October 2009, 09:20 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it really the same engine?!!
There's a V8 ZT around this way in silver - nice and understated and it sounds amazing. Can't beat a nice V8 rumbling away.
Old 240z - stunning.
Mk1 rally spec Escort - stunning
E30 M3 - stunning
And countless others - it doesn't have to be newish. Just fun.
There's a V8 ZT around this way in silver - nice and understated and it sounds amazing. Can't beat a nice V8 rumbling away.
Old 240z - stunning.
Mk1 rally spec Escort - stunning
E30 M3 - stunning
And countless others - it doesn't have to be newish. Just fun.
27 October 2009, 10:35 AM
#46
Explains the exceptional real world performance then - lots and lots of torque with a good spread, and very accessible with it. Although higher revving cars that produce the same or more power can produce the same or more torque at the wheels, it's really hard to extract this performance when it lies at the top end of the rev range and when there's not a good spread of it
27 October 2009, 01:37 PM
#47
Owner of SNet
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 11,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed that the 335d is an amazing car full stop. I hadn't appreciated how close it is performance wise to the stock 335i though ... diesels are catching up with petrol but I thought they had a few years to go yet before they "overtake" them 
TX.
TX.
I KNOW it's not the fastest or best car in the World but even the most anti diesel purist has to admit, it's pretty good for a car that in my case, looks like a stock 318s SE (apart from the exhausts, badge and chrome grille). Can you get a more subtle fast car? I can't think of any.
27 October 2009, 04:50 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 7,833
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ron - first turbo kicks in at about 1500rpm (I think) then the bigger one comes in at just under 3k rpm. Redlines just about 5k rpm. TBH it's so smooth that it's hard to tell and they are sequential so not a case of "one on one off" - more techy people might know the exact figures?
Just went for a surf (it's a good surfmobile) which means joining onto the A30 (dual carriageway) with very little slip road - so you need to floor it. Stuck it in DS (more aggressive auto) and went for it. It's pi55ing it down here so expected some fishtailing - none at all. Traction light went a bit bonkers until I hit 60ish but it coped very well. It also dries the brakes automatically. No idea how but it works a treat!
There is no discernable power "gap" unlike my Astra 1.9CDTi which did nothing until 2.5k rpm and ran out of ideas at 4.5k.
Just went for a surf (it's a good surfmobile) which means joining onto the A30 (dual carriageway) with very little slip road - so you need to floor it. Stuck it in DS (more aggressive auto) and went for it. It's pi55ing it down here so expected some fishtailing - none at all. Traction light went a bit bonkers until I hit 60ish but it coped very well. It also dries the brakes automatically. No idea how but it works a treat!
There is no discernable power "gap" unlike my Astra 1.9CDTi which did nothing until 2.5k rpm and ran out of ideas at 4.5k.
no wonder its so quick to 100mph.The Astra sounds like the Ford diesels i've driven rather laggy and no revs.
Last edited by ronjeramy; 27 October 2009 at 04:52 PM.
27 October 2009, 05:13 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mars
Posts: 11,470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ron - the Astra engine wasn't bad and a lot better than the Focus version I tried. 150bhp and 235lbs/ft so no slouch but it was definitely a small power band. Once you learned to stay in the band at all costs, it was quite quick really. Until that point I hated it.
But I do enjoy having NO gap in power delivery again (the R32 also had no gaps).
Who'd have thought a diesel automatic could be fun to drive? Certainly not me until I drove a 535d and even more so in the 335d.
Only the new Jag 3.0 diesel gets close - less bhp but more torque. Shame the XF weighs about 200kgs more than a 335d or it would be a true contender for the soot chucking performance crown. Still a very good engine though. They now have it in the Disco - I reckon that's a good match.
Back to the Civic - what is the torque? CTR is around 145ish. I would be surprised if it's much more than that.
But I do enjoy having NO gap in power delivery again (the R32 also had no gaps).
Who'd have thought a diesel automatic could be fun to drive? Certainly not me until I drove a 535d and even more so in the 335d.
Only the new Jag 3.0 diesel gets close - less bhp but more torque. Shame the XF weighs about 200kgs more than a 335d or it would be a true contender for the soot chucking performance crown. Still a very good engine though. They now have it in the Disco - I reckon that's a good match.
Back to the Civic - what is the torque? CTR is around 145ish. I would be surprised if it's much more than that.
Last edited by Matteeboy; 27 October 2009 at 05:24 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post