545i Vs 535d
#271
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by sapkan' post='263358' date='Apr 1 2006, 11:27 AM
The only direct comparison between the two that I have seen is the German magazine article published earlier on this thread. The test looks pretty thorough to me and they probably used something more accurate than a g-tech. I'd like to see more comparisons too. I made my choice when I drove a 645 before I bought my car. It didn't do it for me. Felt gutless compared to the diesel. Every time I wanted to get even a modest amount of acceleration I had to bury my foot into the carpet. My car feels much more alive and responsive than that its not even close.
#272
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 535D Sport' post='263364' date='Apr 1 2006, 11:54 AM
#273
Senior Members
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 6,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Znod' post='263387' date='Apr 1 2006, 08:52 PM
0 to 62 is not given--only 0 to 60. The 0 to 60 given implies 0 to 62 of about 6.25 (maybe more)--which is good. But, even 6.25 is only one data point. And, what about the preponderance of evidence given in post #244 and in the last table I posted above pertaining only to German mag results? I mentioned the FastSaloon data on post #244, but did not include them because I have no idea how credible they are or even how the 535d values were determined.
#274
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by BetterMakeWay' post='263399' date='Apr 1 2006, 01:33 PM
And who dictates wich are credible and wich are not and thus resulting the preponderace? You...
#275
Senior Members
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 6,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Znod' post='263402' date='Apr 1 2006, 09:39 PM
I determine what I feel to be credible enough for me to report. Everyone else does the same for themselves I presume. Do you have any idea how the FastSaloon times are determined? I'd greatly appreciate it if anyone would/could figure it out.
So there you have it, everyone goes interpreting wich are credible and not so there must be a preponderance for each and every one. On that basis i dpn't know what you are trying to prove with "your own preponderance"
#276
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by BetterMakeWay' post='263404' date='Apr 1 2006, 01:43 PM
Nope...i don't but we simply have to take into consideration all the tests, except obviously the ridiculous ones.
So there you have it, everyone goes interpreting wich are credible and not so there must be a preponderance for each and every one. On that basis i dpn't know what you are trying to prove with "your own preponderance"
So there you have it, everyone goes interpreting wich are credible and not so there must be a preponderance for each and every one. On that basis i dpn't know what you are trying to prove with "your own preponderance"
#277
Senior Members
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 6,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Znod' post='263412' date='Apr 1 2006, 10:14 PM
I have included everything I know about on post #244--including the fastsaloon.com data--in a footnote.. You continually try to find ways to make what I say and the conclusions I draw look bad. You must understand that it is not me who ends up looking bad the way you go about things. The idea of including data without any idea of how they are determined is preposterous. Oh, by the way, I heard that a guy did 4.29 to 60 and 12.24 @ 116.32 in the 1/4 in an unmodded 545i. Should I include these data in my results?
I mentioned "ridiculous" there in my last post. Of course you should not include that time, or go ahead do it, i don't care, i know it's impossible. But to say 14.1-14.5 for 1/4 in the 535d or around 6 sec 0-62 is ridiculous also (by analogy) is too much imo.
#279
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 6,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2014 X5 xDrive 5.0 M Package Carbon Black Metallic/2008 M Roadster Imola Red
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by BetterMakeWay' post='263424' date='Apr 1 2006, 02:45 PM
I'm not continuing anything, i just said some logicly stuff. I don't pursuit to make you look bad or anything, you're taking it too personaly. I just said some logicly, objective and true stuff on my last post.
I mentioned "ridiculous" there in my last post. Of course you should not include that time, or go ahead do it, i don't care, i know it's impossible. But to say 14.1-14.5 for 1/4 in the 535d or around 6 sec 0-62 is ridiculous also (by analogy) is too much imo.
I mentioned "ridiculous" there in my last post. Of course you should not include that time, or go ahead do it, i don't care, i know it's impossible. But to say 14.1-14.5 for 1/4 in the 535d or around 6 sec 0-62 is ridiculous also (by analogy) is too much imo.
Maybe you don't believe what I am going to say, but it looks like you believe that I am somehow trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes by selectively including and excluding data/information. But, I am not out to prove a point--although I will "debate" when I think that someone is drawing fanciful conclusions from the data/information I post. I simply am out to provide data for others to base their performance beliefs on--which certainly may differ from mine. I have to admit being surprised when I see individuals focus on only the data points that support their "wants"/car ownership while ignoring the more substantive data indicating otherwise.
#280
Senior Members
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: sofia / london
Posts: 3,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by sapkan' post='263358' date='Apr 1 2006, 04:27 PM
The only direct comparison between the two that I have seen is the German magazine article published earlier on this thread. The test looks pretty thorough to me and they probably used something more accurate than a g-tech. I'd like to see more comparisons too. I made my choice when I drove a 645 before I bought my car. It didn't do it for me. Felt gutless compared to the diesel. Every time I wanted to get even a modest amount of acceleration I had to bury my foot into the carpet. My car feels much more alive and responsive than that its not even close.
the 650i goes as quick as the m3.. would you call that gutless?
and on the 745i with dtc on and sport, everytime when i half press on the accelerator, i get wheelspin.. what more do you want?