2001 BMW Z3 1.9... underpowered?

Ok - here's from memory ...

RSI (coast - real test) ... 7.8 seconds
Type R (coast - real test) ... 7.5ish seconds
RSI (reef - real test) ... 8.8 seconds
Type R (reef - test) ... 8.5ish seconds
PGTI (coast/reef) ... 8.2ish seconds

Check CAR, Topgear and other local sites.

I'd agree with JK8 on a PGTI beating a Type R at reef - and I'd agree with a Type R beating a PGTI at coast.
 
Derailed. Regardless, I would but a cheap Z3 in good nick without thinking twice. Helluva fun ride.
 
Dolby said:
Ok - here's from memory ...

RSI (coast - real test) ... 7.8 seconds
Type R (coast - real test) ... 7.5ish seconds
RSI (reef - real test) ... 8.8 seconds
Type R (reef - test) ... 8.5ish seconds
PGTI (coast/reef) ... 8.2ish seconds

Check CAR, Topgear and other local sites.

I'd agree with JK8 on a PGTI beating a Type R at reef - and I'd agree with a Type R beating a PGTI at coast.
Click to expand...

I meant official source :p
 
Aw xrapidx ... was awaiting a credible source to blast a few links your way ;)

Anyway - I see CAR magazine (credible?) got it at 7.75 seconds to 100km/h for the Type R. CAR also tested the pre-facelift RunX RSI in 2003 at 8.54 seconds to 100km/h - and the facelift did in fact get under 8 seconds (tested) at the coast. So facelifted was actually almost a second quicker when tested ;)

Bring them up here and Topcar got a 8.8 seconds and 16.6 1/4 mile for the RSI and the Type R was - again - roughly the same.

In fact, Cars In Actions got it at 8.4 and 16.8 seconds 1/4 mile.

In all cases, both are extremly close and I'd put my money on the RSI. And as to your earlier comment, that's a stock 1.8 litre from the showroom;)

At reef altitude, they got a 8.4 seconds to 100km/h and a 16.8 1/4 mile.
 
Last edited:
Didn't see the updated :p

.5 seconds is a huge difference 0-100km/h - I would love an extra .5s on my vehicle.

Not sure why you'd but your money on the RSI when its slower, as you just posted - and uglier (IMO)
 
I was trying to show they're pretty close as all figures everywhere are within split seconds of each other - down there, up there and any test you wish to look at.

However if you want to be exact, the 2006 test got a 7.8 seconds ... a full second quicker than the Type R. Up here, the facelist is also quicker over the 1/4 mile. This is why I'd put my money on the faster car ;) Your question earlier said which car from the showroom comes close and in my eyes, the RSI does.

Agreed the RSI isn't great look - but it is 7 or 8 years old, costs 25% less and was never touted as a 'hot hatch'. The Type R is a hot hatch and it disappoints.
 
Strange - everything I've seen has the Type R as quite a bit faster.... ? And If I recall correctly, the previous gen Type R was quicker than the previous one?
 
You mean the real world test you posted of the N/A RSI vs the ridiculous manufacturer claims of the coastal Type R? :/

At the very least, try bring them to the same altitude - and even better would be a real world test at the same altitudes would be even better (I've posted those, btw).

Apart from Cars In Action, Topcar, CAR and Wheels all getting between 7.5-8.5 for the Type R, I saw a few tests from a SWedish magazine and a UK publication getting the same figures. The Type R wouldn't be a disappointment *if* Honda upped the 6.6 claim - or made the car reach achieve under 7 seconds at the very least :/

xrapidx said:
How so? Haven't seen any other NA vehicles performing as well out of the box?
Click to expand...

Smaller engined RSI :)
 
Last edited:
You've made all this claims without a single link?

Unfortunately, the RSI doesn't seem to have much going on internationally, which also makes it very difficult to compare.
 
Well, being motoring magazines, links aren't the easiest to come by ... however you're more than welcome to get an old copy and check?

However, if you check this thread http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/143348-CAR-Magazine-tests?highlight= that I started, I had a link to the tests which the correct information. We get a coastal time of 7.75 seconds - over a second off the claim. You can also check this reef link http://www.carsinaction.net/FullTest.asp?cat=5&m= 1.8 seconds off the claim. The Championship edition is 8.7 seconds ... over 2 seconds beyond the claim. There are other tests littered over the web with 7-8 seconds. Hardly a hot hatch!-

Here's the UK test at 7.4 seconds http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsHistory/Honda-Civic-2.0-i-VTeC-Type-R/223991/
 
Last edited:
Regarding the first RSI they tested, they got a 8.54 seconds to 100km/h http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showfull.php?photo=3981 ... out the box, naturally aspirated 1800. This was 2003 pre-facelist version. They then retested the facelifted with different ECU and pitted against two other cars http://www.carmag.co.za/article/toyota-road-test-runx-rsi-2007-09-02

You'll notice the revised at 7.88 seconds and 222km/h at that test - out the box.

Again, you're more than pull up the reef Topcar test at 8.8 seconds and 16.6 1/4 mile. I'll try get my own graph where I did a 9 second and 16.6 1/4 too and link to it.
 
xrapidx said:
You've made all this claims without a single link?

Unfortunately, the RSI doesn't seem to have much going on internationally, which also makes it very difficult to compare.
Click to expand...

Dolby said:
Well, being motoring magazines, links aren't the easiest to come by ... however you're more than welcome to get an old copy and check?

However, if you check this thread http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/143348-CAR-Magazine-tests?highlight= that I started, I had a link to the tests which the correct information. We get a coastal time of 7.75 seconds - over a second off the claim. You can also check this reef link http://www.carsinaction.net/FullTest.asp?cat=5&m= 1.8 seconds off the claim. The Championship edition is 8.7 seconds ... over 2 seconds beyond the claim. There are other tests littered over the web with 7-8 seconds. Hardly a hot hatch!-

Here's the UK test at 7.4 seconds http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsHistory/Honda-Civic-2.0-i-VTeC-Type-R/223991/
Click to expand...

Dolby said:
Regarding the first RSI they tested, they got a 8.54 seconds to 100km/h http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showfull.php?photo=3981 ... out the box, naturally aspirated 1800. This was 2003 pre-facelist version. They then retested the facelifted with different ECU and pitted against two other cars http://www.carmag.co.za/article/toyota-road-test-runx-rsi-2007-09-02

You'll notice the revised at 7.88 seconds and 222km/h at that test - out the box.

Again, you're more than pull up the reef Topcar test at 8.8 seconds and 16.6 1/4 mile. I'll try get my own graph where I did a 9 second and 16.6 1/4 too and link to it.
Click to expand...

All useless because the 141kw and the 147kw Jap cars are slower than the 110kw German car :D :D :D
Dont cry about N/A vs Turbo!
 
JK8 said:

All useless because the 141kw and the 147kw Jap cars are slower than the 110kw German car :D :D :D
Dont cry about N/A vs Turbo!
Click to expand...

We're not discussing a German PGTI ;)

This is purely the fact the Type R is overrated and disappointing.

Anyway - I'm sure you're smart enough to realise that the 7.88 of the RunX RSI is quicker than 8.24 seconds of the PGT ;) Or even the Corolla RSI 1.6 that did the same time in 7.71 is almost half a second quicker?

Anyway - we've stablished that you run with 200KW+ cars ... so we exclude you if we talk about a PGTI :)
 
JK8 said:

All useless because the 141kw and the 147kw Jap cars are slower than the 110kw German car :D :D :D
Dont cry about N/A vs Turbo!
Click to expand...

You keep forgetting that YOUR pgti is also faster than a Zonda, hence you are excluded from discussing the much slower REAL cars :rolleyes:
 
Unfortunately, I haven't seen many RSi's run against anything - so I can't really compare, but I do know of someone with an RSi (modified) - and I do also know of someone with a Type R (modified) - and the Type R is considerably faster than the RSi....

But this may come down to modification... it doesn't look like the RSi has made a huge impact on any market, so that by definition makes it disappointing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X