BMW 135i chipped vs BMW e92 M3

ALFAHOLIC said:
I've been waiting for someone to challenge that statement, I heard it on Auto Mundial when they featured the Z4is...they said it will come to an end...I'm not sure coz this morning I
saw a rendition of the M5 on worldcarfance...lol...do some research!
Click to expand...
Hahaha. So in one elegant move they would:
  • Lose a bunch of upper end customers to AMG
  • Destroy a link to their history
  • Kill a profitable part of their business
  • Hurt the overall brand image
  • Gain nothing
ze Germans might make some dubious decisions (Bangle) but they think about plans very carefully.
 
^ that sounds spot on Havoc...lol

Seriously, i couldn't agree anymore with your closing statment. They are businessmen through and through and are often incorporating plans now that were made some 30 years ago.

Think- inca orange from 72' and the GTS of today. If M cars were to go extinct, that would have been a decision made long ago. And if this were the case... IMO, the very few but highly skilled M engineers would have made a plot to kill all the board members so that they can continue to make proper sports cars :)

To hell with luxobarges!
 
the_don46 said:
I've seen so far about performance cars that I disagree with is the preference of C30 T5 instead of Ford Focus ST. I have no first hand experience but media that I have read to base my opinion on , and from what I've read in CAR Magazine and online comments from those who've driven both, the ST is a clear winner (for a drivers car). No offence to Dolby, but Volvo's are just plain boring :)
Click to expand...

*gasp*! ;)

If the looks are boring, get an R Design or spice it up with larger wheels ;)
 
OK...so, has anyone got a YouTube link yet? I'm pretty sure some race between the two must be on there...Anyhoo just wanted to point something out...while the V8 bellows and screams in 1st that damn 135i's gearbox is so quick its in 2ncd already...I think on top end the M3 will get it...but a quick and dirrty 400m is hands down to the fact that twin turbo's are the way forward!
 
I can't see those links - but where are they (elevation)?

I'd be be inclined to put money on a modded 135i at reef - but not coast. Of the reviews I've read, they say there isn't as much difference as one would think up here (reef)

Ask adamr his thoughts though - I remember he told us from experience
 
Damn...that 1st M3 klaps the 135i like its an unwanted red headed step child, and while he's at it, somme sits with a Superbike as well...

and then the 135i kills the M3 in both last video's...must be detuned M3's lol.
 
ALFAHOLIC said:
Damn...that 1st M3 klaps the 135i like its an unwanted red headed step child, and while he's at it, somme sits with a Superbike as well...

and then the 135i kills the M3 in both last video's...must be detuned M3's lol.
Click to expand...



Well said :)
 
the_don46 said:
With all that said, the only point I've seen so far about performance cars that I disagree with is the preference of C30 T5 instead of Ford Focus ST. I have no first hand experience but media that I have read to base my opinion on , and from what I've read in CAR Magazine and online comments from those who've driven both, the ST is a clear winner (for a drivers car). No offence to Dolby, but Volvo's are just plain boring :)
Click to expand...

I think most of it comes down to personal taste. The ST or even the Golf GTI has that "boy racer - I like to dice" look (and feel) to it - if thats your cup of tea then sure...

Personally its not mine - plus IMO the C30 has better build and a more refined quality - and is by NO means a "boring S60 ship"...
 
Last edited:
a modded 135i at the coast will catch the same hiding from an m3 as a modded 135i will give to an m3 at altitude :)

stock versus stock up here, the 135i is quicker through the gears ... choose any speed and any gear and the 135i is quicker ... from a pull very close with the m3 edging the 135i by a little less than a car ... id still take an m3 ... m is m
 
Okay guys help me here. What happens to the whole 84 kw difference that the M3 has over the 135i? Please school me.
 
Air density decreases with altitude - they say around 4% for every 300m elevation. So up here in Johannesburg, we're at an average of 1,600m above sea level - which means air density is roughly 20% less up here than it is at the coast.

When any manufacturer quotes power figures for their engine, they quote coastal figures - where the engine will develop its peak power due to the high density. As that engine is elevated, however, power (KW) is going to drop because of the lower air density - so by the time the engine is 1,600m, it's developing roughly 20% less power than it was at the coast. So the naturally aspirated BMW M3 which at the coast was developing 309KW, is now only developing 250KW in Johannesburg.

The 135i is turbo charged - forced air going into the engine. Basically it won't lose any power according to the altitude/elevation - and thus develops 225KW at the coast, at 500m or even 200m.

So if both these cars are at the coast, the power is 309KW for the M3 and 225KW for the 135i - which is why the M3 takes it at the coast. Bring both cars to Johannesburg, and the M3 drops to 250KW while the 135i stays at 225KW.

* Yes, a turbo does lose a little at altitude and figures aren\t 100% - but I'm trying to show the idea :)
 
Is this the reason why I eat the 325's for break fast in my T5 up here?
 
^ yep possibly the same reason why you should steer clear of 330's or anything similar, else you'll be eating nothing more than humble pie. Its power to the wheels is out of your range even while being nuted.

Consider yourself schooled
 
Resurrecting an OLD thread :)

Dolby said:
Air density decreases with altitude - they say around 4% for every 300m elevation. So up here in Johannesburg, we're at an average of 1,600m above sea level - which means air density is roughly 20% less up here than it is at the coast.

When any manufacturer quotes power figures for their engine, they quote coastal figures - where the engine will develop its peak power due to the high density. As that engine is elevated, however, power (KW) is going to drop because of the lower air density - so by the time the engine is 1,600m, it's developing roughly 20% less power than it was at the coast. So the naturally aspirated BMW M3 which at the coast was developing 309KW, is now only developing 250KW in Johannesburg.

The 135i is turbo charged - forced air going into the engine. Basically it won't lose any power according to the altitude/elevation - and thus develops 225KW at the coast, at 500m or even 200m.

So if both these cars are at the coast, the power is 309KW for the M3 and 225KW for the 135i - which is why the M3 takes it at the coast. Bring both cars to Johannesburg, and the M3 drops to 250KW while the 135i stays at 225KW.

* Yes, a turbo does lose a little at altitude and figures aren\t 100% - but I'm trying to show the idea :)
Click to expand...

Ah ok I just saw your last sentence as your statement of 'no loss' was completely incorrect otherwise! You do lose power for sure, just less. I drove my 135i in Jo'burg (test drive from private owner) and when in Cape Town it felt much more powerful. Quite possibly with 10-15% more power than at altitude. Possibly double that loss if NA?

As to the claim of 225kw for the 135i (309kw M3) those are at the fly-wheel and not at the wheels themselves. The 135i gets in the region of 195kw at the wheels, my previous Golf 5 GTI got 152kw (same dyno). Golf weighed ~250 kg less. Not a big difference when stock. However I have a stage 1 'Xcede' upgrade, and getting a solid 240kw at the wheels, 480nm torque (I also have the BMW Performance exhaust). The owner whom runs the dyno, who races cars and runs his own workshop ('Mace Performance' in Tokai, Cape Town) stated with these figures it would most likely out-run an E92 M3.

I have seen the 135i reviewed @ 'Car & Driver' (6MT) with 0-100 km times @ 4.7 seconds - possibly 4.5-4.6 secs with a stage 1. I'm not interested in quibbling about figures or who beats who, because to me a turbo-charged car spanks a naturally-aspirated engine everytime, with huge power surge low down, far better fuel consumption (when you are dealing with engine sizes this big, you need it - believe me!), and longer engine life expectancy (as over 5k RPM's in a turbo you start to get torque drop-offs, so there's little need to rev the crapola out of it).
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing - or what I should say? ;)

I'm was trying to explain simply why the difference disappears without adding too much to confuse him even more
 
Last edited:
DiVinci said:
^ yep possibly the same reason why you should steer clear of 330's or anything similar, else you'll be eating nothing more than humble pie. Its power to the wheels is out of your range even while being nuted.

Consider yourself schooled
Click to expand...

I don't think a standard T5 would be horribly behind either a 330i here ... if at all behind it? A guess would either be next to it or within a few meters behind it

My T5 modifications only add 10% power and 30% more torque to the stock T5 and a 330i hasn't passed me. A 330D took me by 2 car lengths or so on initial pull off, but I was reeling him slowly but consistently the entire way and by 160m/h we were neck on neck
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X