OT : Do they make BMW 'M' estates - or is my car sick????
08-01-2006, 12:23 PM
#91
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DaveK,
So what are the paper figures? 964 0-60 in 5.5ish? BMW 330D?
Assuming they are the same, then you'd expect the drag to be even, but if the BMW is slower on paper then there is something amiss is there not?
PS: I guess that as the race was from 20/30mph upwards the big in-gear torque from the turbo (BMW) might have given it an edge at certain ranges, as indeed would my 911turbo. By the way from the start were you in 1st, 2nd or 3rd? From a standing start the NA 911's have always been prolific in their fast launches though.
So what are the paper figures? 964 0-60 in 5.5ish? BMW 330D?
Assuming they are the same, then you'd expect the drag to be even, but if the BMW is slower on paper then there is something amiss is there not?
PS: I guess that as the race was from 20/30mph upwards the big in-gear torque from the turbo (BMW) might have given it an edge at certain ranges, as indeed would my 911turbo. By the way from the start were you in 1st, 2nd or 3rd? From a standing start the NA 911's have always been prolific in their fast launches though.
08-01-2006, 02:20 PM
#92
Pro
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right then...
330D Touring, standard 0-60 is ~7.5 seconds - but that's not the point. The roll-on acceleration is bloody quick, the torque is produced from 2000 rpm. To keep up in my 964 I would have to drop a couple of gears and bury the throttle.
I'm worried now - am I a mixed up stereotype for owning a 964 and a 330D BMW? If I'm going any distance with luggage (or the dog, which is why I have an estate car) then the BMW wins every time. If I'm going out for a drive, I want to have fun and I'll take the 964 for the whole experience. As someone has already mentioned, mine was bought to fulfil a childhood dream - and it still puts a huge grin on my face. There's always someone who is going to be quicker - I had a ride in a Caterham last week that would blow most motor cycles into the weeds!
Barry
330D Touring, standard 0-60 is ~7.5 seconds - but that's not the point. The roll-on acceleration is bloody quick, the torque is produced from 2000 rpm. To keep up in my 964 I would have to drop a couple of gears and bury the throttle.
I'm worried now - am I a mixed up stereotype for owning a 964 and a 330D BMW? If I'm going any distance with luggage (or the dog, which is why I have an estate car) then the BMW wins every time. If I'm going out for a drive, I want to have fun and I'll take the 964 for the whole experience. As someone has already mentioned, mine was bought to fulfil a childhood dream - and it still puts a huge grin on my face. There's always someone who is going to be quicker - I had a ride in a Caterham last week that would blow most motor cycles into the weeds!
Barry
08-01-2006, 02:40 PM
#93
Race Car
Thread Starter
I'm worried now - am I a mixed up stereotype for owning a 964 and a 330D BMW?
08-01-2006, 06:00 PM
#95
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: WhippetWorld, .........is it really only this many
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
just found this
"So we made the journey to Bruntingthorpe and strapped the test gear on to find out what the true performance gains are. A standard 330Cd gets to 60mph in a little over 7sec, which is no mean achievement. But even on the first run the DMS demolished these figures, producing a best of 6.1sec to 60mph and 16.3secs to 100mph (over 3sec quicker than the standard car). We eventually brought proceedings to a halt at 144mph as we were about to run out of runway. And all this in an auto - the manual would be a few tenths quicker still."
so Dave's story stacks up if it's a 330d
Now if Dave had a C2
BMW
"So we made the journey to Bruntingthorpe and strapped the test gear on to find out what the true performance gains are. A standard 330Cd gets to 60mph in a little over 7sec, which is no mean achievement. But even on the first run the DMS demolished these figures, producing a best of 6.1sec to 60mph and 16.3secs to 100mph (over 3sec quicker than the standard car). We eventually brought proceedings to a halt at 144mph as we were about to run out of runway. And all this in an auto - the manual would be a few tenths quicker still."
so Dave's story stacks up if it's a 330d
Now if Dave had a C2
BMW
08-02-2006, 03:27 AM
#96
Drifting
Tony,
Thats why I mentioned a Chipped 330D, I've been frequenting the Beemer froums for a replacement for my Audi, and when chipped these things can produce a reliable 240bhp, and more torque than M3...they are monsters and look very ordinary......as standard they are on 205hp...the newer 535D is even more powerfull, if power alone was a reaon they present a very powerfull argument for switching to the dark side, thank god though power isn't the be all and end all.
Kevin
Thats why I mentioned a Chipped 330D, I've been frequenting the Beemer froums for a replacement for my Audi, and when chipped these things can produce a reliable 240bhp, and more torque than M3...they are monsters and look very ordinary......as standard they are on 205hp...the newer 535D is even more powerfull, if power alone was a reaon they present a very powerfull argument for switching to the dark side, thank god though power isn't the be all and end all.
Kevin
08-02-2006, 04:30 AM
#97
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: WhippetWorld, .........is it really only this many
Posts: 1,081
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
nicked this off a similar thread on pistonheads
"944Turbo(220bhp) 0-100 - 16.2 secs 0-130 - 31.8 Maximum 158mph
944TurboSE 0-100 - 14.2 secs 0-130 - 26.7 Maximum 154mph
Cayman S 0-100 - 12 secs 0-130 - 21.9 Max 171mph
Actually whilst we are talking iconic older Pork
A 928 GT (320bhp manual) 0-130 - 23.5
A 911 Carrera Club sport 0-130 - 25.4
A 964 Carrera 2 0-130 - 23.7
A 964 RS took 0-130 - 21.8
A 993 Carrera (94 pre-vario-ram) 0-130 - 24.1
A 993 Carrera varia ram targa 0-130 - 23
A 996 C2 0-130 - 17.4 (suspiciously fast!)
A 997 C2S 0-130 - 18.7
(all Autocar figures) "
where tbh I think the 964 stacks up pretty well against the newer stuff. Especially if you believe the 964 was detuned to give 250hp. Basic performance upgrades give good power gains without seemingly affecting relaibility.
"944Turbo(220bhp) 0-100 - 16.2 secs 0-130 - 31.8 Maximum 158mph
944TurboSE 0-100 - 14.2 secs 0-130 - 26.7 Maximum 154mph
Cayman S 0-100 - 12 secs 0-130 - 21.9 Max 171mph
Actually whilst we are talking iconic older Pork
A 928 GT (320bhp manual) 0-130 - 23.5
A 911 Carrera Club sport 0-130 - 25.4
A 964 Carrera 2 0-130 - 23.7
A 964 RS took 0-130 - 21.8
A 993 Carrera (94 pre-vario-ram) 0-130 - 24.1
A 993 Carrera varia ram targa 0-130 - 23
A 996 C2 0-130 - 17.4 (suspiciously fast!)
A 997 C2S 0-130 - 18.7
(all Autocar figures) "
where tbh I think the 964 stacks up pretty well against the newer stuff. Especially if you believe the 964 was detuned to give 250hp. Basic performance upgrades give good power gains without seemingly affecting relaibility.
08-03-2006, 01:04 PM
#98
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the entire 7 pages of posts, but I have a little bit of information that is hopefully new. BMW did make an E34 M5 Touring, but in very limited numbers. I didn't see from your post, what estimated year the BMW was, but if you're talking about possible M Tourings, the E34 model ran through 1996. After that, it was the E39 through 2003 (no M Tourings offered), ending in the current E60, which there is also, no M Touring offered.
Assuming you were chasing an E34 M5, they are not diesel nor are they automatics. Even the Touring was a 5-speed manual. The motor is the S38, which is of direct lineage of the motor that began life in the famed BMW M1. It is a 3.6L straight 6, with 6 throttlebodies making 310hp. In 1993, the motor went up to a 3.8L and 340hp. The car weighs about 1,000lbs. more than a 964 at 3,990 lbs. Original magazine ratings recorded 0-60mph of about 6.3 in the early cars and I think, 5.9 in the 340hp cars (don't quote me on that, it's my best recollection).
I speak as an individual who sold my 1991 M5 for my 1993 RS America. Based completely on faith, I sold this car:
http://www.bmwmregistry.com/detail.php?id=1177
for the attached car.
Having had both cars (although not the 340hp E34 M5), I can say that the M5 is definately not a sprinter. The sweet spot starts at about 80mph and at 140mph, was still egging me on for more. 140mph was simply cruising speed. Assuming the M5 started accelerating in 3rd gear, at very near 80mph, I would say the speed of the M5 is very nearly on par with my 964. They feel very similar (speedwise) at the high end (again, mine was the early car with 310hp).
Knowing all that, I would say, if the car you saw was an older BMW in the body style of my old car, you probably saw a late model 340hp M5 Touring. Given the additional weight, I don't know that an early car would have been as even with your car. However, the additional power of the late model, would probably make up for the additional weight of a Touring, equalizing the performance.
Even by today's standards, the E34 M5 is still a contender. And this is a car that is at least 10 years old now.
The M5 I sold was very clean and was one of the best cars I've had and enjoyed. Whenever I speak about it, I get nostalgic. The engine note was the best I've ever heard on a car...absolutely sonorous. But I tell everyone the same thing, I miss the car, but do not regret selling it for the RSA. The RSA is so much more raw than the M5. The feedback on the car is incredible. However, they are completely different types of cars, serving two different purposes.
I did contract my right of first refusal, if the buyer of my M5 later decides to re-sell the car. Maybe by then, I will be in a place in life where I can actually have both.
This was probably more information than you wanted, but hopefully was helpful.
Assuming you were chasing an E34 M5, they are not diesel nor are they automatics. Even the Touring was a 5-speed manual. The motor is the S38, which is of direct lineage of the motor that began life in the famed BMW M1. It is a 3.6L straight 6, with 6 throttlebodies making 310hp. In 1993, the motor went up to a 3.8L and 340hp. The car weighs about 1,000lbs. more than a 964 at 3,990 lbs. Original magazine ratings recorded 0-60mph of about 6.3 in the early cars and I think, 5.9 in the 340hp cars (don't quote me on that, it's my best recollection).
I speak as an individual who sold my 1991 M5 for my 1993 RS America. Based completely on faith, I sold this car:
http://www.bmwmregistry.com/detail.php?id=1177
for the attached car.
Having had both cars (although not the 340hp E34 M5), I can say that the M5 is definately not a sprinter. The sweet spot starts at about 80mph and at 140mph, was still egging me on for more. 140mph was simply cruising speed. Assuming the M5 started accelerating in 3rd gear, at very near 80mph, I would say the speed of the M5 is very nearly on par with my 964. They feel very similar (speedwise) at the high end (again, mine was the early car with 310hp).
Knowing all that, I would say, if the car you saw was an older BMW in the body style of my old car, you probably saw a late model 340hp M5 Touring. Given the additional weight, I don't know that an early car would have been as even with your car. However, the additional power of the late model, would probably make up for the additional weight of a Touring, equalizing the performance.
Even by today's standards, the E34 M5 is still a contender. And this is a car that is at least 10 years old now.
The M5 I sold was very clean and was one of the best cars I've had and enjoyed. Whenever I speak about it, I get nostalgic. The engine note was the best I've ever heard on a car...absolutely sonorous. But I tell everyone the same thing, I miss the car, but do not regret selling it for the RSA. The RSA is so much more raw than the M5. The feedback on the car is incredible. However, they are completely different types of cars, serving two different purposes.
I did contract my right of first refusal, if the buyer of my M5 later decides to re-sell the car. Maybe by then, I will be in a place in life where I can actually have both.
This was probably more information than you wanted, but hopefully was helpful.
08-03-2006, 02:59 PM
#100
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just re-read what Sten said
"To keep up in my 964 I would have to drop a couple of gears and bury the throttle."
That's the point I was making, the 911 is very rev happy. There is no problem in dropping down a gear and flooring it, that is one of the main strengths of 911's. Against more modern machinery you cannot take it as easy as the other guy, 911's need to be taken by the 'scruff of the neck'. If you drive them hard, you can shame almost anything.
End of the sermon.
"To keep up in my 964 I would have to drop a couple of gears and bury the throttle."
That's the point I was making, the 911 is very rev happy. There is no problem in dropping down a gear and flooring it, that is one of the main strengths of 911's. Against more modern machinery you cannot take it as easy as the other guy, 911's need to be taken by the 'scruff of the neck'. If you drive them hard, you can shame almost anything.
End of the sermon.
08-03-2006, 04:23 PM
#101
Race Car
Thread Starter
I'm pretty sure that I've said (several times) on this thread that I was using the red line as the point to change up - which actually is what I do every time I open the car up.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't taking it easy - and I still feel that even if you rev the nuts off it, you will not shame many modern cars.
I actually think the 964 needs revving a lot less than many modern sports cars (obviously not than diesel estates though), and I have no doubt that over 100mph it will leave almost anything behind. But I really don't think my car is all that sick - and yet if I raced my mates turbo fiat coupe I don't believe I'd shame him for a second up to 100mph.
I'm pretty sure that wasn't taking it easy - and I still feel that even if you rev the nuts off it, you will not shame many modern cars.
I actually think the 964 needs revving a lot less than many modern sports cars (obviously not than diesel estates though), and I have no doubt that over 100mph it will leave almost anything behind. But I really don't think my car is all that sick - and yet if I raced my mates turbo fiat coupe I don't believe I'd shame him for a second up to 100mph.
08-03-2006, 04:39 PM
#102
Intermediate
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR6: Thanks for the compliments. Fikse FM10. 
Dave: The rates of acceleration on the two cars, in my opinion, are pretty close. Give him the benefit of the doubt at a late model M5 Touring with 340hp, and empty car and low gas tank, I think it'll give the 964 a run for the money, so long as it's not at a dead stop. From a roll-on, when the weight plays less of a factor, the M5 will pull like a freight train. I used to love hammering the car through the gears while listening to the music coming from the motor. But like I said, the "smile factor" on the Porsche is bigger. The 964 is not slow. It's just that the M5 is not slow either. By today's standards, they still hold their own, which is not easy to say about a car that is over 10 years old.
I do agree that todays tech is moving forward quickly. When an Accord comes with 250hp, you know that it won't be long before an "entry level" car will have performance knocking on the door and rivaling the 964. But like it's also been said, there's more than just straight line speed that's important. The unquantifiable "soul" is a big part, which is directly related to the "smile factor".
Dave: The rates of acceleration on the two cars, in my opinion, are pretty close. Give him the benefit of the doubt at a late model M5 Touring with 340hp, and empty car and low gas tank, I think it'll give the 964 a run for the money, so long as it's not at a dead stop. From a roll-on, when the weight plays less of a factor, the M5 will pull like a freight train. I used to love hammering the car through the gears while listening to the music coming from the motor. But like I said, the "smile factor" on the Porsche is bigger. The 964 is not slow. It's just that the M5 is not slow either. By today's standards, they still hold their own, which is not easy to say about a car that is over 10 years old.
I do agree that todays tech is moving forward quickly. When an Accord comes with 250hp, you know that it won't be long before an "entry level" car will have performance knocking on the door and rivaling the 964. But like it's also been said, there's more than just straight line speed that's important. The unquantifiable "soul" is a big part, which is directly related to the "smile factor".
08-03-2006, 05:29 PM
#103
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
A Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo's official 0-60 is 6.1 (and that will be optimistic) against a 964 C4 5.5 (Porsche figure = conservative) so the Porsche will be quicker, but it only takes a less than perfect gear change to lose the half second edge.
(BTW, I owned a brand new 20V turbo for 4 years and it was a brilliant car, the joy of ownership second only in my experience to 911. I believe Fiat dropped it because it was so good that it was stealing customers from their beloved Alfa GTV!)
I realise that you have a C4 so its not going to be as quick as a C2 or even a well sorted 3.2 in the drag. Obviously your real strength will be on the slippery twisties with your 4wheel drive.
I do agree that for cars with such similar acceleration times (eg. 0-60 split by 10%) they will be very close and its purely down to miniscule differences in the performance on the day.
A Fiat Coupe 20V Turbo's official 0-60 is 6.1 (and that will be optimistic) against a 964 C4 5.5 (Porsche figure = conservative) so the Porsche will be quicker, but it only takes a less than perfect gear change to lose the half second edge.
(BTW, I owned a brand new 20V turbo for 4 years and it was a brilliant car, the joy of ownership second only in my experience to 911. I believe Fiat dropped it because it was so good that it was stealing customers from their beloved Alfa GTV!)
I realise that you have a C4 so its not going to be as quick as a C2 or even a well sorted 3.2 in the drag. Obviously your real strength will be on the slippery twisties with your 4wheel drive.
I do agree that for cars with such similar acceleration times (eg. 0-60 split by 10%) they will be very close and its purely down to miniscule differences in the performance on the day.
08-06-2006, 04:22 PM
#104
Many new cars are faster and do it with more poise, less noise and with less pollution too.
I have a 997S X51 producing 358hp at the wheels. It would whip my 964's behind any which way or shape. My new E60 M5 would leave it behind without even sweating. I think a few months back I posted my experience trying to out drag a WRX wagon at a light to avoid being boxed in.
It stayed with me (being auto and probably modified since the exhaust note was very loud) preventing me from over taking him. The advancement in turbo technology and even engine technology has been amazing in the last 16 years.
I'm quite sure I could've knocked him at about 60+ but this was LA streets so I let off.
As for brand loyalty, I don't know if I get what the 911 or 964 is. I just like driving it and there's a lot of sentimental value in the ol'964. As long as there's fuel to drive it , I'll keep it. I'd get rid of all my other cars first before it goes.
I have a 997S X51 producing 358hp at the wheels. It would whip my 964's behind any which way or shape. My new E60 M5 would leave it behind without even sweating. I think a few months back I posted my experience trying to out drag a WRX wagon at a light to avoid being boxed in.
It stayed with me (being auto and probably modified since the exhaust note was very loud) preventing me from over taking him. The advancement in turbo technology and even engine technology has been amazing in the last 16 years.
I'm quite sure I could've knocked him at about 60+ but this was LA streets so I let off.
As for brand loyalty, I don't know if I get what the 911 or 964 is. I just like driving it and there's a lot of sentimental value in the ol'964. As long as there's fuel to drive it , I'll keep it. I'd get rid of all my other cars first before it goes.
08-06-2006, 06:33 PM
#105
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by Eggplant Cab
As long as there's fuel to drive it , I'll keep it. I'd get rid of all my other cars first before it goes.