Entry Level Luxury Performance Sedans

billyperks4

Hey sween- I am in twin scroll (F10) land now and loving every moment of it.
Sport Plus mode is a beast on the highway.

qbrozen

graphicguy said:

Q....I know it's not something you buy your car for, but what kind of MPG are you getting on your V-Sport?

Its been about 21 through the arctic weather we've had the past couple of months. Last tank improved to 22mpg with the slightly milder temps. This is all using the remote start ALOT, by the way. I'm guessing the warmer weather will see upwards of 23. Cruising all highway gets me about 26. So its pretty darned close to the mustang. Not surprising given their similar HP and not-so-dissimilar weight. (the extra 2 gears in the CTS is probably what offsets the extra 200 lbs and thirst of the extra torque.) I'm itching to get the summer tires back on there.

benjaminh

As this article says, it's very difficult these days to compete with the "big 3" of luxury: BMW, Lexus, and MB....

http://www.autonews.com/article/20150316/RETAIL01/303169995/tier-2-luxury-brands-struggle-to-compete-with-elite-germans-lexus

"....The big three brands enjoy an enviable combination of advantages -- deep product lineups, global reach, strong residual values and rock-solid brand images -- that aspiring brands cannot match.

Cross-shopping data show that customers of the aspiring brands are more likely to defect to one of the big three or Audi than the other way around.

Not since 1998 has any brand other than BMW, Mercedes and Lexus topped the U.S. luxury market in sales. That year, Lincoln led the field. Before 1998, Cadillac held an unbroken grip on the top spot going back to before 1970.

Since Mercedes grabbed the top prize in 1999, imports have dominated the playing field. Lexus ruled 11 straight years from 2000-10. These days, the top three remain locked in a bitter struggle for the luxury title. BMW has taken the crown three of the last four years but is third so far this year, trailing Mercedes and Lexus.

Ambitious Lexus is breathing down the neck of Mercedes-Benz in a bid to regain the top spot it hasn't held since 2010. Through February, Lexus sales have jumped 26 percent, passing BMW to move into second place behind Mercedes. Like its rivals, Lexus is basing its growth on an aggressive product offensive....

Acura finished sixth in the U.S. behind Cadillac in 2014 but has jumped past Audi and Cadillac into fourth place for the first two months of 2015, demonstrating just how hot the competition is among the aspiring brands...."

roadburner

I took my son's 2004 X3 2.5i(171k and going strong) to my dealer for an inspection and was given an X1 xDrive2.8i. This is the second time the dealer has given me an X1, and I really do like those little trucks. The steering and brake feel is spot on and the size is just about right- although it is a extremely porky at over 3800 lbs. 0-60 in 6 seconds is nothing to write home about, but adequate for its intended purpose. I could actually see owning an M Sport X1 xDrive 35i. While still no ball of fire(0-60 in 5.2 seconds) the truck would be a lot of fun for a second car or work hack.

nyccarguy

@roadburner - how about an X3 with the diesel motor?

roadburner

That would be a nice sled as well- especially if Alpina had their way with it...

cdnpinhead

nyccarguy said:

@roadburner - how about an X3 with the diesel motor?

I bet I know the answer, but I'll ask anyway. Is that X3 available with a manual transmission? Which diesel is it?

nyccarguy

No MT (this is BMW we are talking about after all). It is a 2.0L 4cyl Turbo Diesel. 180 hp - 280 lb ft torque.

graphicguy

roadburner said:

I took my son's 2004 X3 2.5i(171k and going strong) to my dealer for an inspection and was given an X1 xDrive2.8i. This is the second time the dealer has given me an X1, and I really do like those little trucks. The steering and brake feel is spot on and the size is just about right- although it is a extremely porky at over 3800 lbs. 0-60 in 6 seconds is nothing to write home about, but adequate for its intended purpose. I could actually see owning an M Sport X1 xDrive 35i. While still no ball of fire(0-60 in 5.2 seconds) the truck would be a lot of fun for a second car or work hack.

RB....While I was having my issues with my previous Audi, I looked pretty closely at those X1s. I thought in 35i guise, it was a nice little vehicle. Very liveable with a little bit of spunk added to a daily hauler. Plus, I think all loaded up, it came in at somewhere around the mid $40s, all shiny and new.

nyccarguy

I've driven an X1 as a loaner for a few days and really liked it. I'd take it over a 320xi.

graphicguy

qbrozen said:

graphicguy said:

Q....I know it's not something you buy your car for, but what kind of MPG are you getting on your V-Sport?

Its been about 21 through the arctic weather we've had the past couple of months. Last tank improved to 22mpg with the slightly milder temps. This is all using the remote start ALOT, by the way. I'm guessing the warmer weather will see upwards of 23. Cruising all highway gets me about 26. So its pretty darned close to the mustang. Not surprising given their similar HP and not-so-dissimilar weight. (the extra 2 gears in the CTS is probably what offsets the extra 200 lbs and thirst of the extra torque.) I'm itching to get the summer tires back on there.

Q....that's not far off from what I'm getting on my 2.0T. Admittedly, I keep my foot in it, but that mileage is exemplary.

I'm getting 22-23 around town. Hit 30 MPG on one all highway trip from Columbus and back from Cincinnati....mostly with cruise on 70 MPH given the amount of bubble tops on the highway that day.

Good job.

Mr_Shiftright

You don't think 5.2 sec is fast? A 2015 Camaro with over 400 hp is sitting at about 5 secs.

roadburner said:

I took my son's 2004 X3 2.5i(171k and going strong) to my dealer for an inspection and was given an X1 xDrive2.8i. This is the second time the dealer has given me an X1, and I really do like those little trucks. The steering and brake feel is spot on and the size is just about right- although it is a extremely porky at over 3800 lbs. 0-60 in 6 seconds is nothing to write home about, but adequate for its intended purpose. I could actually see owning an M Sport X1 xDrive 35i. While still no ball of fire(0-60 in 5.2 seconds) the truck would be a lot of fun for a second car or work hack.

henryn

roadburner said:

I took my son's 2004 X3 2.5i(171k and going strong) to my dealer for an inspection and was given an X1 xDrive2.8i. This is the second time the dealer has given me an X1, and I really do like those little trucks. The steering and brake feel is spot on and the size is just about right- although it is a extremely porky at over 3800 lbs. 0-60 in 6 seconds is nothing to write home about, but adequate for its intended purpose. I could actually see owning an M Sport X1 xDrive 35i. While still no ball of fire(0-60 in 5.2 seconds) the truck would be a lot of fun for a second car or work hack.

Most people would consider 0-60 in 5.2 seconds to definitely be a "ball of fire". Complete with flames.

roadburner

Mr_Shiftright said:

You don't think 5.2 sec is fast? A 2015 Camaro with over 400 hp is sitting at about 5 secs.

5.2 seconds is definitely mid-pack these days. A dead stock 1st. Generation MS3 can do it in 5.4 seconds. Any of the V8 ponycars with at least 400 hp can do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds or less. To be considered very fast these days I'd think that a car has to go 0-60 in under 4 seconds- and 0-100 in under 11 seconds. The goalposts have moved quite a bit.

roadburner

henryn said:

Most people would consider 0-60 in 5.2 seconds to definitely be a "ball of fire". Complete with flames.

To each his own, my tweaked MS3 is only a tick faster; I can't say it's slow, but it's not a rocketship by current standards.

sweendogy

The ilx at 6.2 is a dog.

roadburner

nyccarguy said:

I've driven an X1 as a loaner for a few days and really liked it. I'd take it over a 320xi.

Same here; it really feels different from the newer cars. Contrast that with the X6 I drove at the press intro a few months ago- it was pretty quick but dull as dishwater to drive; a totally uninvolving steer, as the Brits would say.

robr2

sweendogy said:

The ilx at 6.2 is a dog.

You know, we've got it pretty good. In the 80's and early 90's, a 0-60 of under 10 seconds was IMPRESSIVE.

roadburner

robr2 said:

sweendogy said:

The ilx at 6.2 is a dog.

You know, we've got it pretty good. In the 80's and early 90's, a 0-60 of under 10 seconds was IMPRESSIVE.

I'd say that was true in the '70s, but not in the '80s or '90s. My 1988 M6 could do 0-60 in the high 5 second range with a Dinan or Conforti chip. The 325i and 535i were 7 second cars, easy. The Mustang GT and Z28 were also 6 second cars by the late '80s.

nyccarguy

roadburner said:

nyccarguy said:

I've driven an X1 as a loaner for a few days and really liked it. I'd take it over a 320xi.

Same here; it really feels different from the newer cars. Contrast that with the X6 I drove at the press intro a few months ago- it was pretty quick but dull as dishwater to drive; a totally uninvolving steer, as the Brits would say.

Agree with your assessment. I've driven a friend's F10 ///M5. The car was insanely fast, yet utterly uninspiring. I've told him a few times that the ///M5 wasn't "the car" to buy at the $130K price point. He couldn't swing (or should I say, his wife's trust fund woudn't allow) the $150K plus for a Panamera Turbo and wouldn't drive a "regular" Panamera 4S because it wasn't the fastest "top of the line" model.

Mr_Shiftright

I kinda doubt one would even feel the difference between a 4.5 car and a 5.0 car. To me, radical speed is something like the Ariel Atom, which is under 3 seconds and probably feels completely different from a 4.5 car.

sweendogy

Would say this 0-6O just a measure - real world passing is where its at on the highway - being able to just blast the gas at 45 and loook down and see 65/70 in a blink is where its at. Did it today just to get around slower traffic: gonzo - pretty good 2/3/5/7 seconds (dk.) 

dino001

European magazines have additional additional tests, not known here, such as equivalent of going from 40 to 60 mph, or 50 to 75 mph on on highest, or second highest gear to assess flexibility of the engine, as well as its performance. This was especially important for manual transmission cars, to get you feel how much you need to operate that stick.

nyccarguy

dino001 said:

European magazines have additional additional tests, not known here, such as equivalent of going from 40 to 60 mph, or 50 to 75 mph on on highest, or second highest gear to assess flexibility of the engine, as well as its performance. This was especially important for manual transmission cars, to get you feel how much you need to operate that stick.

Like in my Prelude. Loafing along at 70 in 5th & need to pass? Drop down to 3rd & up shift back up to 4th at 80;)

The Legacy gets the job done. It's far from the fastest car on the road, but it doesn't complain when I floor it at 70 to pass a slow roller and it has to hit 90 to get by:)

roadburner

dino001 said:

European magazines have additional additional tests, not known here, such as equivalent of going from 40 to 60 mph, or 50 to 75 mph on on highest, or second highest gear to assess flexibility of the engine, as well as its performance. This was especially important for manual transmission cars, to get you feel how much you need to operate that stick.

That is a good point, since flexibility-as you note-is also an important performance parameter. It's one place my MS3 really does shine; stock it did 50 to 70 mph in sixth gear in 6.7 seconds, and the minor tweaks to my car have dropped that time to 5.9 seconds- a fairly low number that not many cars can match.

Contrast that with my Club Sport; which needs to be kept above 4,000 rpm to make reasonably rapid progress. The Bimmer actually made me a better driver as there's not enough horsepower to cover up mistakes such as over-braking or blowing a corner. Horsepower can cover up a multitude of sins; it's harder for a student to "get it" when his first HPDE car has a lot of power and grip. I once had a B student who-driving a mildly modified E46 325i shod with R-comps-lapped an E46 M3, E92 M3, EVO VIII, and 993 in her run group. More than once. Talk about a humbling experience.

henryn

Back in the day, no one ever talked about 0-60 times. It was always quarter mile times. I had a 69 Charger 440, which could get in the 13's with street tires, and in the 12's with slicks. That was pretty d___ quick for a daily driver in those days.

I remember when Car and Driver did a road test of the AC Cobra 427 (1966?). They did 0 to 100 back to 0 in 10 seconds. (I think I'm remembering that correctly.) I thought that was the epitome of performance.

andres3

I think if GM wants to be treated seriously by most buyers they are going to have to make cars that don't go into limp mode at a weekend HPDE (track event) when they are extremely low miles and unmodified such as the V6 Camaro I rented. The weather was mildly warm, never got above 85 degrees the whole weekend.

Granted, you might say the V6 Camaro with an automatic transmission isn't GM's front running "track car," but neither is the '06 A3 for Audi, and it NEVER went into limp mode at low miles or being left unmodified. Even modified and higher miles it usually only happened at temps above 90 degrees.

Now why would GM make cars that so easily are put into "limp" mode? The answer lies in previous model year rental Camaros likely BLOWING brand new transmissions and spewing fluid on the track. Solution to most car companies would be to build a better more reliable durable car with a better transmission. Solution for GM (post BK by the way) was to apparently create and/or lower threshold of going into limp mode. FAIL.

robr2

roadburner said:

robr2 said:

sweendogy said:

The ilx at 6.2 is a dog.

You know, we've got it pretty good. In the 80's and early 90's, a 0-60 of under 10 seconds was IMPRESSIVE.

I'd say that was true in the '70s, but not in the '80s or '90s. My 1988 M6 could do 0-60 in the high 5 second range with a Dinan or Conforti chip. The 325i and 535i were 7 second cars, easy. The Mustang GT and Z28 were also 6 second cars by the late '80s.

As I said, under 10 was impressive. I'm thinking more pedestrian vehicles.

roadburner

henryn said:

Back in the day, no one ever talked about 0-60 times. It was always quarter mile times. I had a 69 Charger 440, which could get in the 13's with street tires, and in the 12's with slicks. That was pretty d___ quick for a daily driver in those days.
.

As I said, the goalposts have moved, 13 second quarters can now be achieved in many cases with a mildly modified hot hatch.

graphicguy

sweendogy said:

Would say this 0-6O just a measure - real world passing is where its at on the highway - being able to just blast the gas at 45 and loook down and see 65/70 in a blink is where its at. Did it today just to get around slower traffic: gonzo - pretty good 2/3/5/7 seconds (dk.) 

I concur....I think the prevalence of all these blown motors excel once you get them rolling. Even from a dead stop, they have come to the point where there is no turbo lag because of twin turbos and twin scroll turbos. S/Cs are even better.

All of these high technology motors with DI, OHC/DOHC, turbo/SC, etc have come ot the point where they're all pretty impressive given the power AND efficeincy they offer.

I know the 2.0T in my current CTS can hold court with the ;05 Mustang GT I had some years ago. By my seat of the pants, they certainly felt similar in the thrust dept. Handling, comfort, fuel efficiency, features, build quality and materials....no contest. Caddy wins....as it should. In real world $$$$$ it was $15K more than the Mustang (maybe a little less than that, given the differences in today's dollars vs dollars 10 years ago.

On the other end of that spectrum, the old adage "there's no repacement for displacement" still rings true....especially in the torque dept.

I wouldn't mind some seat time in a new Mustang GT or a Challenger Scat Pack!

nyccarguy

andres3 said:

I think if GM wants to be treated seriously by most buyers they are going to have to make cars that don't go into limp mode at a weekend HPDE (track event) when they are extremely low miles and unmodified such as the V6 Camaro I rented. The weather was mildly warm, never got above 85 degrees the whole weekend.

Granted, you might say the V6 Camaro with an automatic transmission isn't GM's front running "track car," but neither is the '06 A3 for Audi, and it NEVER went into limp mode at low miles or being left unmodified. Even modified and higher miles it usually only happened at temps above 90 degrees.

Now why would GM make cars that so easily are put into "limp" mode? The answer lies in previous model year rental Camaros likely BLOWING brand new transmissions and spewing fluid on the track. Solution to most car companies would be to build a better more reliable durable car with a better transmission. Solution for GM (post BK by the way) was to apparently create and/or lower threshold of going into limp mode. FAIL.

Why on Gd's Green Earth would you rent a V6 Camaro with an Automatic Transmission and take it to the track? The auto enthusiasts that track their cars are so few and far between that they barely register on manufacturers' radar. You want a Camaro suited for the track? You local Chevrolet dealer will gladly sell you a Z/28 Camaro.

Mr_Shiftright

Well torque relates to cylinder displacement, not the number of cylinders, so you could in fact have a very torquey 4 cylinder motor, but building one over 3.0L is not advisable.

graphicguy said:

sweendogy said:

Would say this 0-6O just a measure - real world passing is where its at on the highway - being able to just blast the gas at 45 and loook down and see 65/70 in a blink is where its at. Did it today just to get around slower traffic: gonzo - pretty good 2/3/5/7 seconds (dk.) 

I concur....I think the prevalence of all these blown motors excel once you get them rolling. Even from a dead stop, they have come to the point where there is no turbo lag because of twin turbos and twin scroll turbos. S/Cs are even better.

All of these high technology motors with DI, OHC/DOHC, turbo/SC, etc have come ot the point where they're all pretty impressive given the power AND efficeincy they offer.

I know the 2.0T in my current CTS can hold court with the ;05 Mustang GT I had some years ago. By my seat of the pants, they certainly felt similar in the thrust dept. Handling, comfort, fuel efficiency, features, build quality and materials....no contest. Caddy wins....as it should. In real world $$$$$ it was $15K more than the Mustang (maybe a little less than that, given the differences in today's dollars vs dollars 10 years ago.

On the other end of that spectrum, the old adage "there's no repacement for displacement" still rings true....especially in the torque dept.

I wouldn't mind some seat time in a new Mustang GT or a Challenger Scat Pack!

graphicguy

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well torque relates to cylinder displacement, not the number of cylinders, so you could in fact have a very torquey 4 cylinder motor, but building one over 3.0L is not advisable.

graphicguy said:

sweendogy said:

Would say this 0-6O just a measure - real world passing is where its at on the highway - being able to just blast the gas at 45 and loook down and see 65/70 in a blink is where its at. Did it today just to get around slower traffic: gonzo - pretty good 2/3/5/7 seconds (dk.) 

I concur....I think the prevalence of all these blown motors excel once you get them rolling. Even from a dead stop, they have come to the point where there is no turbo lag because of twin turbos and twin scroll turbos. S/Cs are even better.

All of these high technology motors with DI, OHC/DOHC, turbo/SC, etc have come ot the point where they're all pretty impressive given the power AND efficeincy they offer.

I know the 2.0T in my current CTS can hold court with the ;05 Mustang GT I had some years ago. By my seat of the pants, they certainly felt similar in the thrust dept. Handling, comfort, fuel efficiency, features, build quality and materials....no contest. Caddy wins....as it should. In real world $$$$$ it was $15K more than the Mustang (maybe a little less than that, given the differences in today's dollars vs dollars 10 years ago.

On the other end of that spectrum, the old adage "there's no repacement for displacement" still rings true....especially in the torque dept.

I wouldn't mind some seat time in a new Mustang GT or a Challenger Scat Pack!

It does indeed.

But, when a motor with displacement of only 2.0L and offers nearly 300 ft/lb of torque, have to admit, that's impressive. Actually, the torque figures are better than those found in the 3.6L V6 motor they also use.

qbrozen

graphicguy said:

On the other end of that spectrum, the old adage "there's no replacement for displacement" still rings true....especially in the torque dept.

I disagree. My 3.6L TT CTS has quite a bit more torque than the 5.0L Mustang does, and over a wider RPM band, too. While that Coyote V8 sounds great, runs smooth, revs nicely, etc, I always felt it was a bit weak in the low RPM range.

Check out Edmunds dyno of the CTS Vsport

flightnurse

robr2 said:

sweendogy said:

The ilx at 6.2 is a dog.

You know, we've got it pretty good. In the 80's and early 90's, a 0-60 of under 10 seconds was IMPRESSIVE.

I think people like to stir the pot... We have car's that are faster, safer, and get better MPG then we had 10,20,30 years ago, but to call a car that can do 0-60 in 5 sec's, the 1/4 in high 14's and still get 30 on the highway is incredible. As I wrote people use to drool over my 302, but show up in a 2015 Mustang GT and those same people would walk away from the 2015 and stand next to the 1970 302 and say, this is a real muscle car... Roadburner is the same thing, anything new BMW is junk, he loves his son's X3 because it is older..

flightnurse

graphicguy said:

sweendogy said:

Would say this 0-6O just a measure - real world passing is where its at on the highway - being able to just blast the gas at 45 and loook down and see 65/70 in a blink is where its at. Did it today just to get around slower traffic: gonzo - pretty good 2/3/5/7 seconds (dk.) 

I concur....I think the prevalence of all these blown motors excel once you get them rolling. Even from a dead stop, they have come to the point where there is no turbo lag because of twin turbos and twin scroll turbos. S/Cs are even better.

All of these high technology motors with DI, OHC/DOHC, turbo/SC, etc have come ot the point where they're all pretty impressive given the power AND efficeincy they offer.

I know the 2.0T in my current CTS can hold court with the ;05 Mustang GT I had some years ago. By my seat of the pants, they certainly felt similar in the thrust dept. Handling, comfort, fuel efficiency, features, build quality and materials....no contest. Caddy wins....as it should. In real world $$$$$ it was $15K more than the Mustang (maybe a little less than that, given the differences in today's dollars vs dollars 10 years ago.

On the other end of that spectrum, the old adage "there's no repacement for displacement" still rings true....especially in the torque dept.

I wouldn't mind some seat time in a new Mustang GT or a Challenger Scat Pack!

Is that a misprint? 2.0T??

flightnurse

Mr_Shiftright said:

Well torque relates to cylinder displacement, not the number of cylinders, so you could in fact have a very torquey 4 cylinder motor, but building one over 3.0L is not advisable.

When it comes to non turbo charged cars, I agree, but when you have a force feed engine, displacement doesn't always mean weak..

roadburner

flightnurse said:

Roadburner is the same thing, anything new BMW is junk, he loves his son's X3 because it is older..

Wrong, I actually like the 2 Series, the M3/4, and the B6- as well as the X1.
And yes, I do like my son's truck; when I drive it I can actually tell what is going on at the contact patches.

flightnurse

roadburner said:

flightnurse said:

Roadburner is the same thing, anything new :BMW is junk, he loves his son's X3 because it is older..

Wrong, I actually like the 2 Series, the M3/4, and the B6- as well as the X1.
And yes, I do like my son's truck; when I drive it I can actually tell what is going on at the contact patches.

Thats right the steering in the current BMW is so bad that no one can tell what is happening with the front wheels with the whole lack of feedback.

roadburner

Exactly!

What, exactly, befell the new 535i? Steering feel. Rather, lack of steering feel. The new electric power assist has not only rendered the steering uncommunicative—particularly on-center—but, for some reason, it has also become heavier. When you can’t determine road textures and slip angles and how hard those 19-inch Goodyear run-flats are working, you lose confidence if the roads are damp and as kinked as week-old spaghetti.

Car and Driver July 2011

There are actually more than a few drivers who want to know what the front wheels are doing; if that's not a priority then the F30 is an excellent choice.

graphicguy

flightnurse said:

graphicguy said:

sweendogy said:

Would say this 0-6O just a measure - real world passing is where its at on the highway - being able to just blast the gas at 45 and loook down and see 65/70 in a blink is where its at. Did it today just to get around slower traffic: gonzo - pretty good 2/3/5/7 seconds (dk.) 

I concur....I think the prevalence of all these blown motors excel once you get them rolling. Even from a dead stop, they have come to the point where there is no turbo lag because of twin turbos and twin scroll turbos. S/Cs are even better.

All of these high technology motors with DI, OHC/DOHC, turbo/SC, etc have come ot the point where they're all pretty impressive given the power AND efficeincy they offer.

I know the 2.0T in my current CTS can hold court with the ;05 Mustang GT I had some years ago. By my seat of the pants, they certainly felt similar in the thrust dept. Handling, comfort, fuel efficiency, features, build quality and materials....no contest. Caddy wins....as it should. In real world $$$$$ it was $15K more than the Mustang (maybe a little less than that, given the differences in today's dollars vs dollars 10 years ago.

On the other end of that spectrum, the old adage "there's no repacement for displacement" still rings true....especially in the torque dept.

I wouldn't mind some seat time in a new Mustang GT or a Challenger Scat Pack!

Is that a misprint? 2.0T??

No.....!

flightnurse

roadburner said:

Car and Driver July 2011

There are actually more than a few drivers who want to know what the front wheels are doing; if that's not a priority then the F30 is an excellent choice.

After 25K miles no issues with steering, I guess myself and the other 500K people who have a F30 are just lucky we haven't gotten into an accident..

roadburner

flightnurse said:

After 25K miles no issues with steering, I guess myself and the other 500K people who have a F30 are just lucky we haven't gotten into an accident..

I've never said it's an awful car, but it does lacks a quality that used to be standard issue across the entire BMW model line. And it's a capability that I-and others on the more enthusiastic side of the automotive spectrum-think is an important facet of the driving experience. You don't, and you like your F30. That's understandable, but don't get yourself in a lather when some of us are less than enamored with the platform's driving dynamics- especially when it is fitted with the base suspension..

roadburner

To shift gears a bit(no pun intended), I hope to do a bit more instructing this year. I find it helpful to read/re-read some of the classic books on track driving. I decided to start with Piero Taruffi's The Technique of Motor Racing. It was first published in 1959, but the basics of high performance driving(and the laws of physics) remain constant. It's not for everyone- Taruffi uses lots of equations and diagrams to illustrate basic and advanced driving principles. On the lighter side, the vintage pictures of F1 and sports car races at various tracks are entertaining as well. And as far as driver safety goes, things have moved on a bit, as there is some discussion of leather helmets as well as the pros and cons of wearing seat belts in an open car. All in all, I still find it to be a valuable read.
Recommended.

sweendogy

2.0t rut ro ????? Drama killing me. 

(As mentioned) I would alos like to add the turbo and "super" chargers have made engines more lovable- the audi I drive gets 28/29 on long hugh way runs and can stay with any American standard V8. It's also quiet when not pushed and luxo like on runs to the grocer. Cars are Better now - [non-permissible content removed] load more money too 

andres3

nyccarguy said:

andres3 said:

I think if GM wants to be treated seriously by most buyers they are going to have to make cars that don't go into limp mode at a weekend HPDE (track event) when they are extremely low miles and unmodified such as the V6 Camaro I rented. The weather was mildly warm, never got above 85 degrees the whole weekend.

Granted, you might say the V6 Camaro with an automatic transmission isn't GM's front running "track car," but neither is the '06 A3 for Audi, and it NEVER went into limp mode at low miles or being left unmodified. Even modified and higher miles it usually only happened at temps above 90 degrees.

Now why would GM make cars that so easily are put into "limp" mode? The answer lies in previous model year rental Camaros likely BLOWING brand new transmissions and spewing fluid on the track. Solution to most car companies would be to build a better more reliable durable car with a better transmission. Solution for GM (post BK by the way) was to apparently create and/or lower threshold of going into limp mode. FAIL.

Why on Gd's Green Earth would you rent a V6 Camaro with an Automatic Transmission and take it to the track? The auto enthusiasts that track their cars are so few and far between that they barely register on manufacturers' radar. You want a Camaro suited for the track? You local Chevrolet dealer will gladly sell you a Z/28 Camaro.

Why on God's Green Earth? I'll tell you why

Some idiot in a Lexus RX 350 sidelined my 4-month old S4 by darting out of a parking lot (in an apparent left turn at exactly the wrong moment when I was going straight; colliding his front left with my front right).

He sidelined my S4 with less than a month to go for a track weekend, a track weekend I didn't want to miss being that I had missed the previous one with the club for other reasons.

Hertz (insurance rental) didn't do me any favors, in fact, they pretty much sabotaged my plans, and nearly (after over 3 weeks advance warning and notice) put me in a Buick Lacrosse. Given the choice between a Camaro RS V6 and the Buick, well, it was no choice at all. Really, they should have saved the C250 Benz for me. Most people at the track said a Focus would have been more fun to drive. I didn't end up having much fun, as the Camaro is too heavy. Next time I'll specify a Focus.

flightnurse

.

andres3 said:

<

Why on God's Green Earth? I'll tell you why

Some idiot in a Lexus RX 350 sidelined my 4-month old S4 by darting out of a parking lot (in an apparent left turn at exactly the wrong moment when I was going straight; colliding his front left with my front right).

He sidelined my S4 with less than a month to go for a track weekend, a track weekend I didn't want to miss being that I had missed the previous one with the club for other reasons.

Hertz (insurance rental) didn't do me any favors, in fact, they pretty much sabotaged my plans, and nearly (after over 3 weeks advance warning and notice) put me in a Buick Lacrosse. Given the choice between a Camaro RS V6 and the Buick, well, it was no choice at all. Really, they should have saved the C250 Benz for me. Most people at the track said a Focus would have been more fun to drive. I didn't end up having much fun, as the Camaro is too heavy. Next time I'll specify a Focus.

Hertz rents the Hertz Mustang GT as well as C7 or the Camero SS, I know they have them at the airport location, so if you really want a fun for that weekend, I would have taken one of them. I know when I flew into San Diego, I was always temped to just one for the few days I was going to be in town.

tlong

nyccarguy said:

andres3 said:

I think if GM wants to be treated seriously by most buyers they are going to have to make cars that don't go into limp mode at a weekend HPDE (track event) when they are extremely low miles and unmodified such as the V6 Camaro I rented. The weather was mildly warm, never got above 85 degrees the whole weekend.

Granted, you might say the V6 Camaro with an automatic transmission isn't GM's front running "track car," but neither is the '06 A3 for Audi, and it NEVER went into limp mode at low miles or being left unmodified. Even modified and higher miles it usually only happened at temps above 90 degrees.

Now why would GM make cars that so easily are put into "limp" mode? The answer lies in previous model year rental Camaros likely BLOWING brand new transmissions and spewing fluid on the track. Solution to most car companies would be to build a better more reliable durable car with a better transmission. Solution for GM (post BK by the way) was to apparently create and/or lower threshold of going into limp mode. FAIL.

Why on Gd's Green Earth would you rent a V6 Camaro with an Automatic Transmission and take it to the track? The auto enthusiasts that track their cars are so few and far between that they barely register on manufacturers' radar. You want a Camaro suited for the track? You local Chevrolet dealer will gladly sell you a Z/28 Camaro.

So what you are saying is that the Camaro (at least that model) isn't really a sports car but a poser car. I concur.

tlong

roadburner said:

flightnurse said:

After 25K miles no issues with steering, I guess myself and the other 500K people who have a F30 are just lucky we haven't gotten into an accident..

I've never said it's an awful car, but it does lacks a quality that used to be standard issue across the entire BMW model line. And it's a capability that I-and others on the more enthusiastic side of the automotive spectrum-think is an important facet of the driving experience. You don't, and you like your F30. That's understandable, but don't get yourself in a lather when some of us are less than enamored with the platform's driving dynamics- especially when it is fitted with the base suspension..

I recently rented a BMW 328, admittedly a low end model, and I was very unimpressed by the steering feel. Frankly (and seriously), our 2007 Mazda 5 microvan has much better steering feel than that BMW did.

benjaminh

The BMW 320i has 180 hp, while the 328i has 240 hp. I wondered what differences in the engine could account for that 60hp, but according to this article probably the biggest difference between the two models is in the engine software:

http://www.bimmerfest.com/news/670647/f30-320i-vs-328i-engines--part-number-comparison/

I know it's completely against where the market is going, but to me base BMW 320i with the 6 speed manual and few or no options seems somewhat appealing. It's closest, anyway, to what a BMW 5 series was 30 years ago, except it's a lot safer and has less steering feel.. MSRP in white with Sensatec comes to $33.9k.