Z4M vs. 335i "feeling"

[AtoB]

Originally Posted by epbrown

Umm, not with that wing, it doesn't.

X2

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by rc'Z

Gumulri, put a chip in your car. Saw one on 'Pass Time' that was stock other than being chipped and turned a 12.3 sec 1/4 mile. Wish the Z's could be chipped and have the same result, but they don't.

Chipping is for dyno chart poser boys! You want to make a real difference in acceleration without adversely affecting reliability and driveability you change the gearing, as God intended!

[izzy]

After driving couple 335i I was impressed by the power delivery initially but coming from a Turbo MINI who wouldn't. Then the power delivery became so boring and unemotive, typical turbo delivery. Then the handling was not responsive but rather woody resulting in delayed response by the car. Then you enter a ///M car and then you understand what precision driving means.

As I do not own a 335i or a ///M these views are just based on my road tests.

In regards to lap timeS, look below:


BMW 335i Coupe vs BMW Z4 M Roadster

Lap Times
Exclude "wet laps"
Track 335i Coupe Z4 M Roadster
Nordschleife 8:26 8:15
Hockenheim Short 1:17.8 1:16.7
Virginia International Raceway 3:10.5 3:11.7
Autozeitung test track 1:45.8 1:42.8
Inta 1:14.58 1:15.15
Specs
Discipline 335i Coupe Z4 M Roadster
Max speed 155 m/h (250 km/h) 155 m/h (250 km/h)
0-100 km/h acceleration 5.4 4.9
0-160 km/h acceleration 13.0 11.3
0-200 km/h acceleration 18.7 17.0
0-300 km/h acceleration - -
Quarter mile time 13.5 13.2
Power/weight ratio 0.14 0.17
Summary
Discipline 335i Coupe Z4 M Roadster
Track Performance 9 points 76 points
Straight line speed 198 points 214 points
Total 207 290
The Answer
BMW Z4 M Roadster is noticeably faster.

[8000RPM]

I don't own a 335i but my other car is an '08 535i.

The 535i is quite a machine and the turbo boost is entertaining.

But I can tell you I have a hard time wiping off that silly grin on my face whenever my M Coupe is screaming towards that 8000RPM redline with a mechanical fury that is simply pure bliss.

[jamboMR]

Originally Posted by Gumulri

I don't care about who's fast or not
my car looks much better than Z4

It looks very much like the 10 other ones I see on my walk into work each morning

hehehe just playing, nice car dude If I needed a back seat the coupe version of those would be pretty hard to go past, the folding roof just seems to add so much weight, about 250lbs or something right?

Back on topic- That leads me into another big reason why I chose the Z4 body over a 3 series - there is no weight penalty for having a drop top, and I really wanted one to make the most of CA

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Gumulri

I don't care about who's fast or not
my car looks much better than Z4
Attachment 200652

Wow... someone has no style.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Wow... someone has no style.

I can appreciate how he (as the owner) thinks that. Nonetheless, people's taste do differ considerably. I like the look of the 3 series verts (and 1 series verts for that matter), but just the scale of the 3er vert turns me off to owning one. I'd much rather have a 2-seater vert or if a 4-seater BMW vert, the E46 then (preferrably M3).

[karmasabish]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Wow... someone has no style.

i think its a nice lookin car! don't hate

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by karmasabish

i think its a nice lookin car! don't hate

Yep, I really like the E92 and E93, to the point that I'd own an E92 if I didn't have an M Coupe.

[AtoB]

Originally Posted by epbrown

Yep, I really like the E92 and E93, to the point that I'd own an E92 if I didn't have an M Coupe.

then i have the best of both worlds (kind of).
i have a Z4M and i just got a 328xi coupe for the wife... not a 335, maybe next time.

[epbrown]

Originally Posted by AtoB

then i have the best of both worlds (kind of).
i have a Z4M and i just got a 328xi coupe for the wife... not a 335, maybe next time.

Actually, that's how I'd do it - 328i and M Coupe.

[VoiD]

Got a chance to drive a 335i sedan for 3 weeks when my M Coupe was in for service. When I first drove the 335 I was quite impressed with the smooth power.. lots of torque at lower revs. Was thinking about getting a 335 for my next car but changed my mind when I got my M coupe back. There is a big difference in terms of handling between two cars.. 335 just seems very boring. Now I don't know if there would are any mods available for the E90/92 that will improve its handling or if there's any difference between E90 and E92, but so far I'm happy with my M coupe.

[Mikewarlover]

Originally Posted by VoiD

Got a chance to drive a 335i sedan for 3 weeks when my M Coupe was in for service. When I first drove the 335 I was quite impressed with the smooth power.. lots of torque at lower revs. Was thinking about getting a 335 for my next car but changed my mind when I got my M coupe back. There is a big difference in terms of handling between two cars.. 335 just seems very boring. Now I don't know if there would are any mods available for the E90/92 that will improve its handling or if there's any difference between E90 and E92, but so far I'm happy with my M coupe.

Theres no difference between the coupe and sedan they are both pretty soft compared to M coupe but then they are certainly the best compact cars for daily commute.

[karmasabish]

how are they compact cars?

[krnnerdboy]

Originally Posted by VoiD

Got a chance to drive a 335i sedan for 3 weeks when my M Coupe was in for service. When I first drove the 335 I was quite impressed with the smooth power.. lots of torque at lower revs. Was thinking about getting a 335 for my next car but changed my mind when I got my M coupe back. There is a big difference in terms of handling between two cars.. 335 just seems very boring. Now I don't know if there would are any mods available for the E90/92 that will improve its handling or if there's any difference between E90 and E92, but so far I'm happy with my M coupe.

I had a similar experience as yours only I traded with my buddy who has a 335i coupe w/rpi intake and kw var3 coilovers/track aligned.
Hope he doesn't see this thread
We started doing runs where I would constantly pull on him...he couldn't get it into his head that my z4m was faster than him. Especially after reading all the hoopla on the forums so he proposed that we swap cars...he actually put more car length for the M as it seems he was the better driver. But regardless of the race it was the handling and soul of the 335i that got my attention. As fast as it was it just didn't feel engaging, and as stable as the handling was it just wasn't as responsive(felt boring). I couldn't wait to get out of the 335 and back into my M, but he obviously felt the same way and didn't give it back needless to say he came to the same conclusion that it would take alot of money for his car to feel anywhere near an M. He bought an M3 e92 a month after

good luck w/ your decision

[Congoman775]

Originally Posted by krnnerdboy

I had a similar experience as yours only I traded with my buddy who has a 335i coupe w/rpi intake and kw var3 coilovers/track aligned.
Hope he doesn't see this thread
We started doing runs where I would constantly pull on him...he couldn't get it into his head that my z4m was faster than him. Especially after reading all the hoopla on the forums so he proposed that we swap cars...he actually put more car length for the M as it seems he was the better driver. But regardless of the race it was the handling and soul of the 335i that got my attention. As fast as it was it just didn't feel engaging, and as stable as the handling was it just wasn't as responsive(felt boring). I couldn't wait to get out of the 335 and back into my M, but he obviously felt the same way and didn't give it back needless to say he came to the same conclusion that it would take alot of money for his car to feel anywhere near an M. He bought an M3 e92 a month after

good luck w/ your decision

thats certainly one way to do it.

[The HACK]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

Chipping is for dyno chart poser boys! You want to make a real difference in acceleration without adversely affecting reliability and driveability you change the gearing, as God intended!

I guess my BEAT-DOWN on your asinine posts over at Bimmerfest didn't work.

It's not one aspect of a chassis that affects acceleration. It's a three element triangle. Simply having better gearing won't help acceleration. Simply having more torque won't help acceleration. Simply having more power won't help acceleration.

Better acceleration comes from having more torque at higher RPM that can take advantage of better gearing.

[Mikewarlover]

Originally Posted by karmasabish

how are they compact cars?

3 series is considered to be entry level compact sports sedan. I guess not so much in Europe where Hatchbacks are considered to be compact.

[rc'Z]

Originally Posted by The HACK

I guess my BEAT-DOWN on your asinine posts over at Bimmerfest didn't work.

It's not one aspect of a chassis that affects acceleration. It's a three element triangle. Simply having better gearing won't help acceleration. Simply having more torque won't help acceleration. Simply having more power won't help acceleration.

Better acceleration comes from having more torque at higher RPM that can take advantage of better gearing.

Must be a trait of little engines. In the 60's when we wanted to go faster in the 1/4 mile, we pulled out the 3:23 gears and slapped in some 4:11 gears. Always gave us faster acceleration according to clock and speedometer. Strange it doesn't work the same in BMW's.....

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by rc'Z

Must be a trait of little engines. In the 60's when we wanted to go faster in the 1/4 mile, we pulled out the 3:23 gears and slapped in some 4:11 gears. Always gave us faster acceleration according to clock and speedometer. Strange it doesn't work the same in BMW's.....

Lower rear axle gearing won't always give better acceleration in any car. If more gear changes have to be made or if the increased torque at the tyres causes a loss of traction, then any gain from the lower gearing can be negated or even reversed by the time lost in gear changes or wheelspin (or having to back off the throttle because you can't use the power without wheelspin).

The numerical value of a rear axle ratio has no meaning without also knowing transmission ratios and tyre sizes. A 3.23:1 axle in one car can have a completely different effect in another car with different sized tyres and transmission ratios.

[MVF4Rrider]

Originally Posted by The HACK

I guess my BEAT-DOWN on your asinine posts over at Bimmerfest didn't work.

It's not one aspect of a chassis that affects acceleration. It's a three element triangle. Simply having better gearing won't help acceleration. Simply having more torque won't help acceleration. Simply having more power won't help acceleration.

Better acceleration comes from having more torque at higher RPM that can take advantage of better gearing.

You want a real beat down, let me know. In the meantime, quit being such a forum chicken s**t by talking big from thousands of miles away. You wouldn't do that to my face... Reagrdless, it's just unnecessary and shows a lack maturity to turn what anyone says into a personal attack. You can disagree without resorting to this kind of adolescent behavior.

BTW, what you wrote is incomplete and misleading. Acceleration comes from the amount of multiplied torque across the rpm range being used in each gear. That means for first gear it's the multiplied torque at each and every rpm from launch rev/clutch disengagement rev to redline, and each gear thereafter from the point the rev counter lands after shift to redline. It's also the combination of the elements working together that affects this (engine torque output per rpm and engine efficiency (from design to tune), gear ratio, final drive, rear tire circumference, mass, aero efficiency, tire grip).

By simply changing the final drive to any available shorter gear in the marketplace (given), you will produce more multiplied torque at every rpm in which your rev counter experiences. All things remaining equal (all other variables), your car will accelerate quicker. Case closed.

The other theoretical hogwash (aerobod) about too short of gearing causing adverse affects isn't something that could or would happen considering the aftermarket gearing options under discussion, unless your tires no longer have any grip and/or your car is sitting on ice. You have to assume during these discussions that conditions are somewhat normal (dry and warm) and that people know how to drive their cars and the car is in passable safety condition (ie, the tires are within wear limits).

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by MVF4Rrider

The other theoretical hogwash (aerobod) about too short of gearing causing adverse affects isn't something that could or would happen considering the aftermarket gearing options under discussion, unless your tires no longer have any grip and/or your car is sitting on ice. You have to assume during these discussions that conditions are somewhat normal (dry and warm) and that people know how to drive their cars and the car is in passable safety condition (ie, the tires are within wear limits).

I'm sorry that your automotive experience seems to be rather limited. The circumstances of where a car is to be used (specific track, getting from 0-60mph fastest, 1/4 mile times, etc) will determine if there are specific circumstances where a numerically lower rear-end can produce a faster car than a higher one. In general the numerically higher rear end will be faster, but some of the specific circumstances where it can be slower are:

- 0-60mph when the numerically higher rear-end requires 2 gear changes instead of 1.
- On a track when 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th have to be used, compared with 3rd, 4th & 5th, requiring about 25% more gear changes per lap.
- Passing other cars on the road when a gear change is required, when with the numerically lower rear end it wouldn't be.

Also, with respect to tyre traction, off the line, assuming some clutch slip and wheelspin:

A good summer tyre on a dry road surface will have a static friction of 1.7 and dynamic friction of 1.4
Assuming the tyre is wide enough to minimise any tread block distortion
Assuming a 50/50 weight distribution will change to 60% on the rear wheels due to weight transfer
For a Z4M, the total rear weight during a wheelspinning start will therefore be about 1450kg * 9.81 * 0.6 = 8535N
The friction force to overcome between the tyre and road will be 1.4 * 8535 = 11949N
The loaded tyre radius will be approximately 0.32m
Therefore maximum torque tyre can transmit during wheelspin is 11949 *.32 = 3824Nm (or 4643Nm when the throttle is feathered after launch and traction is maximised)

The Z4M with a stock 3.62:1 rear end will have a torque multiplication of 15.75:1 in first gear, a 4.11:1 rear end 17.88:1. If we assume 12% driveline loss, then the maximum torque at the wheels is 5059Nm and 5743Nm respectively.

Although we can go into more depth, the basic issue in 1st gear for the Z4M is that with good road tyres, maximum engine torque can't be used without wheelspin with either 3.62:1 or 4.11:1 gears, leading to traction as opposed to gear limited acceleration in 1st gear.

BTW, please lay off the Red Bull or other high caffeine energy drinks, there seems to be a common overly aggressive attitude in your posts, as opposed to civilised discussion.