[300hp]

Originally Posted by Auto Pilot

I wish you could get an adjustable suspension for xdrive cars so you can adjust the ride height.

To be honest I think we are splitting hairs here. We are talking about how the cars feels but everyone seems to be ignoring that the xdrive beat the rwd in the figure 8. Granted this unit has the ppk but its wearing all seasons. Put staggered 19 summers on that and those results would be marginally better but better all the same.

Also note that MT said they had no problems with this car on canyon roads and the xdrive does not feel nose heavy like the rwd.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Another thing to consider.

We might not be seeing the full potential of the PPK yet.

This is the first test of the Xdrive 335 F30 period.

We have already seen 4.6/13.3 at 105.5mph from a RWD 335. So 4.4/13.0 at 105.4 is largely the traction of Xdrive, the fact that the trap speed may only be equal to a NON PPK RWD car-well we might see interesting numbers from a PPK RWD car. 4.4/12.9 at 106+ maybe. That would be neat to see.

[300hp]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Another thing to consider.

We might not be seeing the full potential of the PPK yet.

This is the first test of the Xdrive 335 F30 period.

We have already seen 4.6/13.3 at 105.5mph from a RWD 335. So 4.4/13.0 at 105.4 is largely the traction of Xdrive, the fact that the trap speed may only be equal to a NON PPK RWD car-well we might see interesting numbers from a PPK RWD car. 4.4/12.9 at 106+ maybe. That would be neat to see.

Two things:

MT tested their 335i at 13.3@103.4 mph. the test you are referring to was a C&d test. different driver different tracks so i would not draw any conclusions from comparing these two tests, especially as it relates to trap speeds.

Second, note that the rwd you are referring to was wearing staggered summer 19s. There is a lot of time left on the table for both rwd and xdrive.

Either way this is exciting news for PPK

I agree with you, both could easily be trapping 106mph with the right tires.

Lots of potential here.

[300hp]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Another thing to consider.

We might not be seeing the full potential of the PPK yet.

This is the first test of the Xdrive 335 F30 period.

We have already seen 4.6/13.3 at 105.5mph from a RWD 335. So 4.4/13.0 at 105.4 is largely the traction of Xdrive, the fact that the trap speed may only be equal to a NON PPK RWD car-well we might see interesting numbers from a PPK RWD car. 4.4/12.9 at 106+ maybe. That would be neat to see.

I just checked the rwd did the 1/4 at 105mph not 105.5. Nothing has trapped higher than this F30

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by 300hp

Two things:

MT tested their 335i at 13.3@103.4 mph. the test you are referring to was a C&d test. different driver different tracks so i would not draw any conclusions from comparing these two tests, especially as it relates to trap speeds.

Second, note that the rwd you are referring to was wearing staggered summer 19s. There is a lot of time left on the table for both rwd and xdrive.

Either way this is exciting news for PPK

I agree with you, both could easily be trapping 106mph with the right tires.

Lots of potential here.

Staggered summer tires are less of an issue on an Xdrive car when we are talking about straight line numbers. Staggered summer tires will help out off the line acceleration, biggest benefactor would be a manual trans RWD car or an abusive launch on a Xdrive 6mt car. I doubt traction of the line was an issue in an 8spd Xdrive car or an abusive enough launch could be committed. So trap speeds will show little to no affect on a car where off the line traction cannot be exploited. Now if the all seasons meant the testers could not launch aggressively, summer tires would help-but those would further reduce 0-60 times, but usually at the expense of trap speeds. Basically wheel spin=good for traps, bad for ET/0-60.

But in the end, I agree and we will hopefully see more testing of PPK equipped cars-I am hoping in varieties such as RWD and or 6mt.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by 300hp

I just checked the rwd did the 1/4 at 105mph not 105.5. Nothing has trapped higher than this F30

It was from memory-I guess it's getting fuzzy

But it did not say xxx.x for any car in the CD test with the IS350 and ATS, they did not include the fraction as they did in the PPK testing via MotorTrend.

[300hp]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

It was from memory-I guess it's getting fuzzy

But it did not say xxx.x for any car ion the CD test with the IS350 and ATS, they did not include the fraction as they did in the PPK testing via MotorTrend.

Agreed. I also thought the 105.5 was the result but had to check in order to confirm.

We all think we remember stuff well at times. I once thought I read that the msport 4 series would come standard with adaptive dampers.lol. Big mistake

Edit: MT's rwd did the 1/4 @103.9mph not 103.4 as i had noted so fuzzy memory is not working for us today, lol.

[kdbryce]

that makes me happy

[jddssc121]

Originally Posted by KevRyd

MSport is not an option for XDrive.

Kevin

Then I am driving a car that doesn't exist .

[Phaeron]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Still does not help the issue.

There are no track oriented BMWs. You get closer with an M product. But we are not talking about that.

Every F30 test heralds some things but clearly states cause for concern with the steering and softer handling. Every 328 head to head, the N20 is so much faster in straightline measurements than the competition it's funny. The same thing happens with the 335, often nearly a second faster in 0-60.

So why spend $4k to have a $61k MSRP in a PPK car that will be faster still and brakes that do not show an improvement in numbers and or street performance.

None of those things counter the criticism of the F30 all the mags have had. The proper wheels/tires combined with the MPerformance suspension would have done the job.

Now if the mag specifically wanted to test an Xdrive car, well then that argument of mine goes out the window. Then BMW-as Elk suggested put a bandaid on it by loading up an Xdrive with other means of performance as they have no performance suspension option on top or in place of DHP.

I really do not care to get into a debate about the findings of American mags. I have already talked at length about them and it is well documented. The concerns about the steering is bullshit that is just American mags whining over EPS because they want to be "traditionalists!" because we all know hydraulic power steering is the enthusiast performance oriented steering of choice... Despite the fact that Professional Race car drivers will rather deal with driver fatigue due to manual steering then allow their engineers to put a power steering unit in. When Carlos Lago actually has a racing resume I will listen to what he has to say but seeing how he was just some kid with good writing skills that sometimes tracked his parents car.... I don't give a fuck what he or Lieberman or the Editors of C&D say.

However, I think the big issue is when you compare the 328i to the 335i. The real issue I see when driving the 335i is that you can feel the weight in the nose. As for the "softer suspension" fuck that noise.. that is just bullshit statement. The only concern I ever felt when blasting down VIR with the new 335i is at higher speeds the nose does not turn in as crisp or as accurate as the 328i. Having said that the tires on my 328i is the Pirelli summer tires and they do not respond fast enough to steering input as the Bridgestone Potenza runflats on the 335i.

A lot of people do not realize that the rubber on the wheels massively effects the way your car drives. I cannot wait to get some Bridgestone Pole Positions to so I can really see what the car can do.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

No times.

A manual will give up a tenth or two but trap a bit faster. While an auto will make up time and be faster due to speed of shifts, it is still an auto which causes more drivetrain loss than manual trans. This will be reflected in power to the wheels and in the end the trap speed. It will be a small difference, 1mph at the most.

Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by "trap" and are you saying I will get more power to the wheels with a manual? I see that you drive a manual F30 do you ever like you made a comprise on speed?

[jddssc121]

Originally Posted by Powaup

Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by "trap" and are you saying I will get more power to the wheels with a manual? I see that you drive a manual F30 do you ever like you made a comprise on speed?

trap speed is your average speed for the last 66 feet of drag strip run. (it is not, as some people think, your single "point in time" speed as you cross the finish line)

the PPK adds more torque to the 8AT model than it does the 6MT. So while on a non-PPK model you could argue that a manual with no torque converter has less drivetrain loss than the auto** and therefore more "power", I would argue that the extra torque on a 8AT PPK vs a 6MT PPK makes up for any torque converter penalty.


**although I will say MFGR's across the board have spent a great deal of engineering in closing this gap significantly. Torque converters are not the power sucks they were 10 years ago.

[Phaeron]

Trap speed is the maximum speed your car is at near the end of a time location.

[rallybull]

the reason BMW sent an XDrive to MT for this test is to show off the best possible 0-60 numbers. rwd would have been somewhere around 4.6s-4.7s and that would not have been a very good show case for the MPPK.

[jddssc121]

Originally Posted by Phaeron

Trap speed is the maximum speed your car is at near the end of a time location.

nope

see my post above

[jddssc121]

Originally Posted by tojo_m

the reason BMW sent an XDrive to MT for this test is to show off the best possible 0-60 numbers. rwd would have been somewhere around 4.6s-4.7s and that would not have been a very good show case for the MPPK.

bingo

[Phaeron]

Originally Posted by jddssc121

nope

see my post above

A drag strip run is a timed location.... you are measuring max speed of the car near the end of the run.

[jddssc121]

Originally Posted by Phaeron

A drag strip run is a timed location.... you are measuring max speed of the car near the end of the run.

no

For trap, you are measuring your average speed across a certain distance. Average and max are not the same.

But don't take my word for it

This is a direct quote from the NHRA website, in the section entitled "The basics of drag racing:"

Speed is measured in a 66-foot "speed trap" that ends at the finish line. Each lane is timed independently.

[Powaup]

Originally Posted by jddssc121

trap speed is your average speed for the last 66 feet of drag strip run. (it is not, as some people think, your single "point in time" speed as you cross the finish line)

the PPK adds more torque to the 8AT model than it does the 6MT. So while on a non-PPK model you could argue that a manual with no torque converter has less drivetrain loss than the auto** and therefore more "power", I would argue that the extra torque on a 8AT PPK vs a 6MT PPK makes up for any torque converter penalty.


**although I will say MFGR's across the board have spent a great deal of engineering in closing this gap significantly. Torque converters are not the power sucks they were 10 years ago.

Thanks for the explanation. Would a car equipped with a 6MT also be 15-30 lbs lighter than a car with the ZF8 since there is no torque converter?

[jddssc121]

Originally Posted by Powaup

Thanks for the explanation. Would a car equipped with a 6MT also be 15-30 lbs lighter than a car with the ZF8 since there is no torque converter?

not sure on the actual weight. Once you throw in the flywheel and clutch, I am not sure how much weight savings you're actually getting. You might be better off skipping breakfast or not wearing socks

[Phaeron]

Originally Posted by jddssc121

no

For trap, you are measuring your average speed across a certain distance. Average and max are not the same.

But don't take my word for it

This is a direct quote from the NHRA website, in the section entitled "The basics of drag racing:"

Speed is measured in a 66-foot "speed trap" that ends at the finish line. Each lane is timed independently.

Right... that is timed location but I thought it was max not average. Meh, I am not a drag racer so blah.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by Powaup

Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by "trap" and are you saying I will get more power to the wheels with a manual? I see that you drive a manual F30 do you ever like you made a comprise on speed?

I think trap speeds were already explained.

a 1/4 mile pass is 1320 ft. It takes you time to go from 0 to crossing that marker at 1320 ft. The time, that is referred to as your ET or ELAPSED TIME.

When you cross that line and register the ET, the speed you are traveling when you register it is your TRAP SPEED.

Power to the wheels, is the power that makes it to the ground after all the losses associates with a drivetrain like transmission, axles etc.

A torque converter found in an automatic transmission saps a small amount of power more than a manual transmission. This allow for more power to reach the ground.

More power to the ground is best represented by trap speeds, not necessarily by ET. ET and 0-60 is very traction dependent.

Example:

High powered front wheel drive cars. I grew up on them. They are very difficult to launch and so I had terrible 0-60 times but could plant the power at higher speeds, making for roll on races or races from a high speed rolling start. A cars roll on prowess is better indicated by trap speed.

So my FWD car might do 0-60 in 6.0 seconds, ET 14.2 but Trap at 105mph
My RWD car might do 0-60 in 5.4 seconds, ET 14.2 but trap at 100mph.

So racing, well if I was in the RWD car I would want to race the FWD from a dead stop where I have the advantage. If I am in the FWD car, I ask to race from a "roll", maybe 30-100.

Make sense?