Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





335i Coupe

mobarmobar Posts: 1
edited March 6 in BMW

Comments

  • jaserbjaserb Posts: 858
    So, it's not just a little bit strange that the press car has that extra half PSI of boost over the customer car, and not the other way around? Kudos to Edmunds to getting it on a dyno to figure out what was up, but why didn't they make a bigger stink about it? They should have called someone at BMW on the carpet.

    Oh, and I hope poor Sophie feels better.

    -Jason
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,369
    MARK GILLIES
    The BMW 335i may just be the best car in the world at the moment, if you balance performance, style, and sheer driving pleasure against value for the dollar. It has replaced the outgoing E46 M3 as the car I would buy as my daily driver, particularly since it is far more forgiving over broken pavement yet still has the suds to allow you to kick the tail out of line when you’re in hooligan mode. I even like the way it looks, which is an admission for someone who has generally loathed the Bangle/van Hooydonk experiment with ugliness at BMW. The car’s only fault? An interior that still looks low-rent compared with the beautifully crafted cabin of the old 3-series.

    DAVE VANDERWERP
    There are few things we’d change on the current 3-series, but until now, it had somewhat average horsepower. The ’07 335i matches the performance of an E46 M3 but without the raspy metallic scream or compromised ride quality, and it packs the strongest midrange ever felt in a 3-series. Don’t worry, BMW didn’t forget that we all love its smooth, quick-revving inline-sixes, so the turbo engine conceals its newfound boost with a shockingly linear power delivery all the way to the high 7000-rpm redline. Even the classic six-cylinder sound is retained. Long-running benchmarks don’t have to lead on every front, but now the 3-series does just that.

    CSABA CSERE
    The current BMW 3.0-liter inline-six offers such a sublime combination of power, refinement, light weight, and efficiency that I was not jazzed by the prospect of seeing twin turbos bolted onto it. Why compromise throttle response, economy, and weight for just 45 more ponies? But the new engine delivers broadband performance way beyond its specs, shaving nearly a second from the 330i’s quarter-mile time. And it does so with only a hint of turbo lag — at 1500 rpm — and the same turbine smoothness that makes all BMW engines so delicious. There’s a reason the company’s initials stand for Bavarian Motor Works.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,369
    2007 BMW 335i Coupe - Specs

    1 | 2 | 3 | 4
    (continued)

    BMW 335i

    Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe

    Price as tested: $45,720

    Price and option breakdown: base BMW 335i (includes $695 freight), $41,295; Premium package (includes universal garage-door opener, auto-dimming rearview mirror with compass, and lumbar support), $2450; Sport package (consists of 18-inch alloy wheels, sport seats, and increased top-speed limiter), $1000; heated front seats, $500; metallic paint, $475

    Major standard accessories: power windows, seats, locks, and sunroof; remote locking; A/C; cruise control; tilting and telescoping steering wheel; rear defroster

    Sound system: BMW AM-FM radio/CD player, 13 speakers

    ENGINE
    Type: twin-turbocharged and intercooled inline-6, aluminum block and head
    Bore x stroke: 3.31 x 3.53 in, 84.0 x 89.6mm
    Displacement: 182 cu in, 2979cc
    Compression ratio: 10.5:1
    Fuel-delivery system: direct injection
    Turbocharger: Mitsubishi
    Maximum boost pressure: 8.5 psi
    Valve gear: chain-driven double overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters, variable intake- and exhaust-valve timing
    Power (SAE net): 300 bhp @ 5800 rpm
    Torque (SAE net): 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm
    Redline: 7000 rpm

    DRIVETRAIN
    Transmission: 6-speed manual
    Final-drive ratio: 3.08:1
    Gear: Ratio: Mph/1000 rpm Max test speed
    I 4.06 5.8 40 mph (7000 rpm)
    II 2.40 9.7 68 mph (7000 rpm)
    III 1.58 14.8 104 mph (7000 rpm)
    IV 1.19 19.7 138 mph (7000 rpm)
    V 1.00 23.4 144 mph (6150 rpm)
    VI 0.87 26.9 144 mph (5350 rpm)

    DIMENSIONS
    Wheelbase: 108.7 in
    Track, front/rear: 59.1/59.6 in
    Length/width/height: 180.3/70.2/54.2 in
    Drag area, Cd (0.30) x frontal area (22.7 sq ft, est): 6.8 sq ft
    Curb weight: 3557 lb
    Weight distribution, F/R: 51.1/48.9%
    Curb weight per horsepower: 11.9 lb
    Fuel capacity: 15.9 gal

    CHASSIS/BODY
    Type: unit construction
    Body material: welded steel stampings and injection-molded thermoplastic

    INTERIOR
    SAE volume, front seat: 49 cu ft
    rear seat: 37 cu ft
    trunk: 11 cu ft
    Front-seat adjustments: fore-and-aft, seatback angle, front height, rear height, lumbar support, upper side bolsters, thigh support
    Restraint systems, front: manual 3-point belts; driver and passenger front, side, and curtain airbags
    rear: manual 3-point belts, curtain airbags

    SUSPENSION
    Front: ind, strut located by 1 lateral link and 1 diagonal link, coil springs, anti-roll bar
    Rear: ind; 2 lateral links, 2 diagonal links, and 1 toe-control link per side; coil springs; anti-roll bar

    STEERING
    Type: rack-and-pinion with variable hydraulic power assist
    Steering ratio: 16.0:1
    Turns lock-to-lock: 3.0
    Turning circle curb-to-curb: 36.1 ft

    BRAKES
    Type: hydraulic with vacuum power assist, anti-lock control, and electronic panic assist
    Front: 13.7 x 1.2-in vented disc
    Rear: 13.2 x 0.9-in vented disc

    WHEELS AND TIRES
    Wheel size: F: 8.0 x 18 in, R: 8.5 x 18 in
    Wheel type: cast aluminum
    Tires: Bridgestone Potenza RE050A RFT; F: 225/40R-18 88W, R: 255/35R-18 90W
    Test inflation pressures, F/R: 33/35 psi
    Spare: none

    C/D TEST RESULTS

    ACCELERATION


    Seconds

    Zero to 30 mph


    1.9

    40 mph


    2.6

    50 mph


    3.8

    60 mph


    4.9

    70 mph


    6.5

    80 mph


    8.1

    90 mph


    9.9

    100 mph


    12.1

    110 mph


    15.0

    120 mph


    17.9

    130 mph


    21.6

    140 mph


    28.0

    Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.6
    Top-gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 6.5
    50-70 mph: 6.0
    Standing 1/4 mile: 13.6 sec@ 105 mph
    Top speed (drag limited): 144 mph

    BRAKING
    70-0 mph @ impending lockup: 160 ft

    HANDLING
    Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.87 g
    Understeer: minimal moderate excessive

    FUEL ECONOMY
    EPA city driving: 19 mpg
    EPA highway driving: 28 mpg
    C/D observed: 18 mpg

    INTERIOR SOUND LEVEL
    Idle: 49 dBA
    Full-throttle acceleration: 75 dBA
    70-mph cruising: 69 dBA

    It's interesting that the fuel econpmy drops with the turbo's. I'm sure it's due to the nature of the test, leaning toward performance.

    The bottom line is BMW is on the offensive with this series vs. the G, IS, and A/S4.

    Regards,
    OW
  • Um, actually if you dig around on the forums (bimmerfest, e90post.com) you'll see many, many dynos and there's always variation.

    The following is related to stock v. tuned 335i cars:

    http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37515

    As you can see the 335 has tremendous amount of space for massive power gains.
  • jaserbjaserb Posts: 858
    Yeah, but this is same dyno, same day, with very different boost measurements on totally stock cars. I'm no turbo tuning expert, but either one car had some bad / low octane gas or the boost control is set differently between the two cars.

    All that said, what a fantastic car.

    -Jason
  • threxxthrexx Posts: 31
    Yes, I agree - all dyno test results tend to have some variation due to different temperature, humidity, mileage on the car, small differences in the way the car/motor was built that particular day, general 'luck of the draw' factors, and especially the machine that was used to dyno being different, often times not even close to the same make and model of dyno machine or testing methods.

    But in this case everything should have been almost identical. In fact they WERE almost identical until almost 6000 on the nose. Same day, same dynometer, I doubt the temp or humidity changed dramatically in such a short passage of time.

    And, I could be wrong but aren't modern day turbo cars very closely monitored by the engine control unit to the point where the ECU would easily see the extra half a pound of extra boost and cut back on it unless it had been programmed to use that much boost?

    I suppose the best way to get an idea if this is possibly an ethical issue with BMW trying to sneak in a 'slight' ringer to Edmunds (and possibly others) would be to have some other private BMW owners actually monitor their stock boost on the dyno. If everyone else is consistantly half a pound lower at high RPM then I think the answer here is obvious.

    Heck, it may already be pretty obvious to Edmunds but they don't risk making BMW mad and/or the off chance that they make a false accusation... so they've left it up to us to 'connect the dots'?
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,369
    It really doesn't matter if this is true or not. The bottom line is there was no major mechanical or electronic differences that were apparent. I like the fact that this test was done to show variations car to car.

    I assume we would ask the testing editors of C&D, R&T, Automobile, Etc. to continue the dyno results vs. other cars not in any given road test to see if apples = apples or if there is a marketing factor involved.

    Let's test the testers, so to speak.

    Regards,
    OW
  • threxxthrexx Posts: 31
    Maximum boost being half a pound high on stock trim is possibly the result of a change to the ECU (electronics) which affects the mechanicals and results in a pretty major power increase across the upper RPM range (where acceleration tests will be improved)

    I'd say it does matter from an ethical standpoint if BMW is trying to slip slightly modded tester cars to the magazines and editorials.

    It doesn't change the fact that it's still a great performing car for the money, but it might cause people to watch BMW test vehicles a little more closely to see if they're playing fair and if the numbers the magazines put up for acceleration tests are truly realistic for the cars being sold to consumers.
  • circlewcirclew Posts: 8,369
    I agree with you on ethical standards. The point is that exact test results are hard to come by. Also, the public does not require the test results for any specification so we trust the mfg. rating. We also look to the various testing resources to qualify those ratings but rarely check on our own.

    The only place necessary to make sure power ratings are in the required range is in a qualified racing event sanctioned by a recognized group on or before race day.

    Regards,
    OW
  • threxxthrexx Posts: 31
    Right, but the manufacturer can rate cars any way they want to really unless they want to be SAE v2 certified or something.

    Even then - BMW rated the 335i at 300 flywheel horsepower which is not a lie. We know by now that the 335i is at LEAST 300 flywheel horsepower because almost every independent dyno test has showed RWD power figures would be equal to 300+hp even if the drivetrain loss was only 10% (which it's almost certainly several percent higher).
    However if they start supplying the magazines and online editorials with tweaked cars that will provide better than factory response, then everybody starts saying things like "man those cars are even more under-rated than we thought! They'll put out almost 300hp to the rear wheels and run low-mid 13s in the 1/4-mile!". In other words the performance enthusiasts start thinking they've found another under-rated car out there, kinda like the LS1 f-bodies were always rated at 305hp without their respective SLP packages, yet everyone knew they put out more like 340-350hp at the flywheel.
    It's kinda like BMW using others to spread misinformation so that if it gets exposed they can just pretend like the car must have been a ringer. If they themselves said the car made more power and performed better than it did then they'd have nobody to blame except themselves - kinda like the situation Ford got into with the 1999 Mustang Cobras that were overrated (that got them in a class action lawsuit that required them to make all of the Cobras faster by doing some power adding mods to the motor under 'warranty').
    For some reason nothing gets performance enthusiasts more excited than a heavily under-rated car. I honestly believe in some cases if the manufacturer had just rated the car at a higher power output from the getgo they wouldn't have sold nearly as many or generated nearly as much of a buzz because people like to get 'something for nothing' so to speak.
    Kinda like how stores have learned if you slap on a somewhat unrealistically high "MSRP" on a product and then put it on a "huge sale" it will get a lot more attention than if you just priced it at that "Sale" price normally. Same product, same price, but human psychology is weird like that.

    Again, let me clarify I'm NOT saying this is what BMW has done here - just pointing out how (in my opinion) the POTENTIAL for them to have done something like this is a bigger issue than it may seem on the surface to some people.

    In an official track-day type race they may want to make sure your car's power is not too high or low for the class of car you're in, but that doesn't mean that's the only time that a person should care that their impression of their car's performance may have been formed on an intentional bending of the truth.

    I have lots of friends who take pride in their car and while they, of course, are not be able to floor their car and say "oh I feel 20 less horsepower than I should feel according to that Edmunds.com article!"... if you told them they were missing 20 ponies from the test car they read about I bet they'd wonder why, and if it was because of intentional undisclosed tweaking by the manufacturer, I bet they wouldn't be too happy.
    They might even take their car to the local drag strip and see they can't under any circumstances seem to reproduce the times they read in a particular article. They might chalk it up to just bad luck and the numerous variables involved, but what if that wasn't why the difference was there? What if they had been deceived?

    Sorry to ramble/rant - not trying to argue - just kind of sorting through my thoughts. :)
  • I have only one question, did the customer car have the sport package also. If not, then it is known that they have slightly different tuneing, including top speed. Also widely known in the BMW community is that later 335i's actualy make a few HP less as they are using a newer computer flash version with slightly different tune. This has been confirmed by shiv (of vishnu tuinin), I really dont think BMW sliped them a fast one, I think they got a sport package car vs a non sport package one. The falloff in power at redline is a known issue with all non sport package cars. Hope this clears things up. see e90post.com forums for more detail.

    EDIT: sorry for the spelling, it is late, i am tired will sleep now.
  • vmmvmm Posts: 3
    The new 335i may be a great car... but many dislike it's design and especially despise the idrive. My only concern about your article is the e46 m3 0-60 time quoted. I realize that it's from the review of the ZCP a few months back... but your times are significantly slower than any other published out there. I've seen e46 M3 times ranging from 4.5 to 4.8 seconds. Having recently sat in 325i loaner from a dealer... I have to say the interior of the new 3 series is uninspired. Most e46 M3 enthusiasts are eagerly waiting to see the e90/392 M3. That should be quite a beast. I do think that BMW will need to be careful with it's price point. I love my e46 M3... but if BMW overcharges... many people like my self will simply go out and purchase a 997 Porsche. Sorry about the meandering post. I think most people who are spending time debating the 335i are gearheads who are thinking about what the next generation M3 will bring to the table.
  • designmandesignman Posts: 2,129
    I do think that BMW will need to be careful with it's price point. I love my e46 M3... but if BMW overcharges... many people like my self will simply go out and purchase a 997 Porsche.

    Well, you'll be moving from one extortionist to another. I don't know what your expectations are but chances are you will not be satisfied with the starting $73K 997. You might want to start fortifying that checkbook. I think the new M3 will still be significantly less than a 997, that is, a 997 that handles in the manner that we expect of a 911. Porsche has gotten real cute with their product offerings and pricing. I think I could buy a BMW very close to starting price… not so with a Porsche these days. Would a V8 400hp M3 starting at $57K be too much? I could probably buy that without one option added. I’d have to be at around $83K with a 911. Of course these are MSRP and a difference is that you could probably get a better discount with a 911.
  • If you're buying the 997 when the E92 M3 does indeed cost 57k that doesn't seem logical at all. Doesn't make sense for someone to buy the more expensive car if said person balks at even the price of the cheaper one, which in this case is the next-gen M3.
  • vmmvmm Posts: 3
    It does if you are unhapppy with the design and weight of the new car... I wouldn't pay the 57k (without options) along with 10-15 k markup for a car which I wouldn't enjoy as much as my 2005 ZCP M3. Once you throw in options and markup... you're in the same ballpark as the 911. It's not the cost which bothers me as much as the changes in the new coupe. I agree with both previous posts that Porsche has gotten a little cute with the various product offerings and packages. I hope the new M3 doesn't drive like a large sedan with gobs of HP. The 911 certainly has balance and dynamics which one can't get in the M3. I worry that the increase in weight in the new M3 will make it drive less like the 911 and more like an S4.
  • i think i'd rather go with the e46 m3 too. i have an e63 m6 and even though it's an outstanding car, i'm not in love. the gadetry and design are cool (it's very sci-fi), and it even tears into better than the m3 (i had an e46 previously) when pushed ... but it's just a little too over the top compared to the less lofty builds of the e46 m3 or the porsche 997.

    for all you weight fanatics though ... porsche's weight has been on the creep for a while now too. The 911 turbo is just under 3600 pounds and the 997 S cars are coming in around 3200 with options. The old m3 was around 3400 if I recall correctly.

    Sure the m6 is heavier ... but at least with all that weight you get a huge trunk and some outstanding road characteristics. The weight of the M6 makes it the ultimate smooth cruiser when it's not being pushed around those corners. Besides, it's nice to have a couple hundred extra pounds if you decide to take it over 200mph.

    I guess it's all those safety features and good sounding stereos jacking up the weight on these newer cars? But at some point I'm tired of hearing this weight argument ... if you want low weight, either remove everything from your car or get a lotus. Otherwise it's all about preferences ... in other words, performance vs. luxury.
This discussion has been closed.