znod

znod

I believe it's common for bmw to understate performance. Also I agree with the previous poster as magazine numbers are ideal as many owners are not willing or able to punish or push their cars to those limits.

Sure I could practice my launches at the expense of my clutch, but unless I line up with someone or go to the dragstrip, the practice would seem somewhat fruitless.
[/quote]Maybe BMW does understate performance, but I don't know why they would do so--unless they want to make sure that no one gets a car slower than advertised. But, as some of what you say might imply, maybe BMW simply does not abuse the cars in getting their times--rather than understating their performance. And, abuse might be the answer to the magazine times. I wonder, for example, on a Step, how many tenths to 60 or in a 1/4 mile might be saved by doing massive brake torquing. Any thoughts? How about 4,000K, or whatever, launches with a manual?


From what I've read somewhere the the performance a car company claims is calculated, not measured. Anyone knows?

[/quote]
I don't think that would be the case. I think magazines sometimes use the manufacturer's claims and refer to them as "est.[imated]."

EBMCS03

[/quote]

Ya I think I know what you're saying but you cant change what people think. They think what they want to think and argue to the end for it. Merc might "now" be as good as BMW in handling or at least very close but that wasnt always true and when one person / magazine or whatever claim that BMW is better people will think back in history and go "oh ya thats right" and have that mentality.

Just like how magazines publish times... and rate how one car is better than another. And BMW usually gets the throne for that so as long as a magazine says "BMW handled better" and have a slightly better lap time... then people will claim the "way more" statment for BMW.

And heres somthing to think about... you were comparing the SLK times to the M5 right? what if you throw in the M3's time, perhaps the (future) E90 V8 M3 time in there then it might be a few seconds faster in lap times than the SLK 55.

And some mercs get such good lap times is because of their acceleration... their power to PULL out of a corner and accelerate down the straight. Look at the SL 65. even if its slow in the corners it'll make up that time in the straights.

So it can be... BMW might still corner better than a Merc.

One other note. Most people who make these claims including me have not driven Sooooooooo many ///Ms and AMGs down the track where they know the cars limits to say BMW is way more than just acceleration.

Its a combination of things that make people have these claims... history, bias, magazine influence, word of mouth etc...

Competition is closing the gap thats whats happening!

znod

Ya I think I know what you're saying but you cant change what people think. They think what they want to think and argue to the end for it. Merc might "now" be as good as BMW in handling or at least very close but that wasnt always true and when one person / magazine or whatever claim that BMW is better people will think back in history and go "oh ya thats right" and have that mentality.

I agree with you. And, thanks for contributing so much to this topic.

While this topic is not about changing minds, it is about trying to gather some data upon which we all could form more solid opinions. If the data support changing minds, then good. But, if not, then good too. At the outset, I said:

"What I am interested in thinking about at this point is anything that comes to your mind when reading the following. But, I am also interested in comparisons of acceleration and handling times for cars that are major competitors with any roughly comparable 5-series cars you are interested in. To some extent, I have dealt with the M5 and some roughly comparable Mercs below. I encourage you to toss any biases out the window and have a sprited discussion based on the best "facts" that can be found."

As indicated, I did the best I could do to this point with the M5 and some Mercs. I am hoping some will try to do the same with "cars that are major competitors with any roughly comparable 5-series cars ... [they] are interested in. Personally, I am looking for data to compare the AMG C55 with the 545i. While rather different cars, they are the only 2 cars I considered for various reasons. I chose the 545i because of looks, adequate acceleration, the prospect of modding it a little to improve its acceleration, known excellent handling, and feel (i.e., the prices were close enough to not be an influence). But, I was in the dark on the handling ability of the Merc. I assumed it was more than adequate, but really did not know. At this point, I am beginning to look for the missing handling data to make the comparison complete in my mind and the minds of others.

Just like how magazines publish times... and rate how one car is better than another. And BMW usually gets the throne for that so as long as a magazine says "BMW handled better" and have a slightly better lap time... then people will claim the "way more" statment for BMW.

That may be true. I hope not though. I am hoping that if we all have comparables, then we will be more objective. While not my objective, I would imagine that even our discussion is making some realize that they are making claims out of bias rather than on the basis of the best data available.

And heres somthing to think about... you were comparing the SLK times to the M5 right? what if you throw in the M3's time, perhaps the (future) E90 V8 M3 time in there then it might be a few seconds faster in lap times than the SLK 55.

Well, that's no problem. Assuming the SLK out accelerated the new M3, that would provide no basis for saying "yeah, but the M3 is about way more than acceleration." The implication would simply be that both are very good performers on both dimensions--with one better on one dimension and the other better on the other. But, also if your speculation turned out to be true, then the new M3 also would a better handler than the M5. But, that's no problem at all either. What it would say is that the M3 is an extremely good handling auto. It wouldn't lead to the silly "yeah, but the M5 is about way more than handling (i.e., it is about straight-line acceleration too)." See how silly the "yeah, but" "argument sounds when applied in various uninformed ways.

And some mercs get such good lap times is because of their acceleration... their power to PULL out of a corner and accelerate down the straight. Look at the SL 65. even if its slow in the corners it'll make up that time in the straights.

Right. That's the nature of racing in general--although often racing is spec-based so that the tendency of one factor to compensate for another is minimized. But, you raise an important point that I have glossed over unintentionally. There is a difference in track-time competency and pure handling capability. This distinction is what makes "feel" important to purchasers. When talking about both handling and acceleration, I have been talking about road course and dragstrip times.

So it can be... BMW might still corner better than a Merc.

And, there is no doubt that this possibility might hold--in the sense of pure handling capability. But, that is not an issue either. Even if true, it doesn't necessary imply that it is sound for some to assert, in effect, that Mercs aren't good handling cars via the "yeah, but" "argument." The point is that some Mercs can out accelerate some comparable BMW's and still be about more than just acceleration--even if they don't handle quite as well as the BMW's in the pure sense. In this regard, some BMW's can out handle some comparable BMW's in the pure sense and still be about more than just handling--even if they don't accelerate quite as well as the Mercs.

One other note. Most people who make these claims including me have not driven Sooooooooo many ///Ms and AMGs down the track where they know the cars limits to say BMW is way more than just acceleration.

I am hoping that all making such statements on the basis of how well they know their BMW's handling capabilities will start making alternative statements that don't imply that Mercs, for example, are not competent handlers.

Its a combination of things that make people have these claims... history, bias, magazine influence, word of mouth etc...

Competition is closing the gap thats whats happening!

I think you are right on both of the above counts. Thank you for making me more aware of why the claims seem to come so fast and furious and without any regard to the best data available. I am enjoying the conversation with you. Among other things, you are testing what I am saying for logical consistency, and I appreciate you doing so.

More tomorrow. Manana for now.
[/quote]

ipse dixit

Bear with me for a moment and allow me to chime in with my 0.02, for whatever it is worth.

I think the fascination with 0-60 times or acceleration numbers is very similar to barstool banter about who has the bigger penis. Yeah, I know, the analogy is sort of weird but hear me out.

One of the easiest ways to show who is the "better guy/lover/jock or whatever" is to say my unit is bigger than yours or my unit needs its own area code or something similar ...

The same is true with cars and manufacturer's braggadocio. Instead of using penile length as an immediate measure of greatness, car manufacturers like to publicize and boast 0-60 times.

Why? Because these numbers are immediately recognized and identifiable by the general public. People intuitively understand that a 0-60 time of under 5 seconds is extremely impressive -- in the same way that people recognize that a penis the length of a football field is impressive.

But we all know that 0-60 times do not make a car great (or bad) -- in the same way that men and woman understand that a large penis does not necessarily make for a great lover. Girth, technique, stamina, etc. all go into being a great lover.

This then is also true with cars. Sure 0-60 times are important, but so is cornering, braking, handling, etc. But cornering numbers don't translate in the public's mind. No one really understands what a slalom time means, for example.

Speed and acceleration is important, but it becomes critical to marketing a car in part of because of ease of understanding and in part because of the bing bling factor.

Just my thoughts. Flame away.

EBMCS03

Wow

Bimmer32

First, a car is manufactured independent of the driver. Unlike a penis where the driver has direct connection to it, the car is engineered by a group of engineers and scientist. Hence, the penis analogy doensn't impress me.

Vnod, I think you are trying to use scientific methodology/data to justify or at least prove that a particular statement (M5 is just more than acceleration) is false. I'd like to use the analogy of a pair of driving gloves.

The purpose of a pair of driving gloves is to allow the person the maximum comfort in driving, i.e, good grip, comfortable and fitting to the hand, and flexible. Hence, a good pair of driving gloves will please a person if it serves its purpose base on the fitting of the hands.

Now, a sport sedan is one the serves hauling passenger around and good performance. If it does that, then its a good sport sedan. If the responder says that the M5 is not as good in acceleration but handles better than a CLS55, then he is simply offering is personal opinion on the matter. Scientifically, the "relative facts" you offer may prove him wrong, but he's always right in his eyes. Why?

Let's go back to the driving gloves. If the responder tries on the BMW driving gloves and it was design perfectly for his driving habits (acceleration, handling, grip, flex, just the right "feel") and hand size, of course he will choose it and say it over the MB driving gloves which in this case may not be as good for his hands - assuming that he has tried on the MB driving gloves.

The point is, scientific data will not prove that something is right and has no place when it comes to transcendental (philosophy) matter such as as one's preference. This is science's limitation. Hence, I do not think you can prove that the responder is wrong with his statement. Note that I am not advocating individualism here. In short, the technologies of MB and BMW deliver different feels and experience for different people. The two driving gloves feels different on different hands regardless of what the "perfect" driving glove is.

rodybmw

Interesting subject vnod,

Here's my opinion. I think that you are giving too much weight to what you call "facts" or "figures" to support the superiority of one car over the other, while to most people (including me) the most important "fact" is the "FEEL" that we get while driving. Unfortunately the "feel" is not something that can be measured in numbers or units, but it is not any less important than the "facts and figures",..........if anything it is way MORE important. We had both MB's and BMW's in my family since I was 4 years old and I have been exposed to and driven both for decades. BMW's have always had the "feel" while MB's have not. The interesting thing is that as far as MB's have come in the past decade or so towards "sporty" cars (mainly VIA AMG), there is one thing that is still missing.......the "feel". Even the AMG models that are quicker than some standard (non-M) BMW's don't "feel" as sporty as those BMW's. It is sort of like the old American muscle cars that could go very fast in a straight line but were no fun otherwise (no.....of coarse I am not really comparing an AMG to old muscle cars that had poor handling, I'm just exaggerating to make a point ). When driving a BMW I always "feel" connected to the car and the road and therefore, it "feels" faster and quicker than many other cars, regardless of whether it actually is faster or not when comparing the "figures". To this day no MB (and for that matter no other sedan) that I have driven gives the same feel and confidence when driving. Heck, my wife's X5 feels more sporty and more connected to the road than an E class with sport suspension.

The times when I have really felt the difference between BMW's and "the competition" is when I have driven them back to back in an aggressive manner. The last time was when I drove the E90 330i, the Audi A4 3.2, and the Infiniti G35 back to back in the Ultimate Driving Experience. Even though the Infiniti had the horsepower edge by a good margin it still did not "feel" fast (even in srtaight line acceleration), certainly not as fast as the E90 felt. Driving the three cars fast in the curves and turns of the coarse really showed the difference between how fun a BMW feels to drive compared to the others.

The point that I am trying to make is that I (and I believe most others) could care less if a car is a fraction of a second, or even a whole second slower to 60 when comparing the "figures" as long as it feels more connected and fun to drive. In many cases cars that may be somewhat slower may still "feel" faster and more fun to drive, and that's more important to me. A good example of this was the comparison between the Audi A4 and Infiniti G35 in the UDE. Without a question the Infiniti was the faster car of the two, but the Audi "felt" a lot better and was more fun to drive.

So you were looking for facts and figures to "back up claims" and I am not giving any of that to you. What I am submitting is the "fact" that to most people a fraction of a second difference in acceleration is a big NON-issue, it's other things that will come into play in makeing the decision on which car to get (ie. feel, fun to drive, confidence, design, exclusivity, luxury, etc.). I am not trying to prove to others that "my car is faster than theirs", so I don't care whether the M5 (or any other BMW) is a fraction of a second slower to 60 (or in track times) than the competition. What I care about is the "feel" and the "joy of driving"...........Hmmm that sound an awful lot like the BMW tag line in Germany: "Freude Am Fahren".

znod

No flames ever from me. I think you are right about 0-60; it is a readily understandable and familiar message to the consumer. And, yes, it says something, but certainly not all, about a car's performance. And, 0-60 envy is important to manufacturers. I think the analogy is entertaining.

znod

Hi B32:

Thank you for sharing your ideas.

Vnod, I think you are trying to use scientific methodology/data to justify or at least prove that a particular statement (M5 is just more than acceleration) is false. I'd like to use the analogy of a pair of driving gloves.

Did you mean "[only] ... BMW is just more than acceleration?" But, regardless, I am trying to use the best data available to indicate that the assertion generally implicit in "yeah, but BMW's are about way more than just acceleration" is simply that--an assertion. The implicit assertion is that the car being compared to does not possess credible handling ability. In this regard, at least the data to the contrary appear to be ignored. And, it is highly likely that at least many of those making the statement have no comparative experiential basis for their opinions. The version of the "yeah, but" "argument" I am referring to is applied when someone notes a deficiency in a BMW's acceleration in comparison to a competing car. The reply is "yeah, but BMW's are about way more than just acceleration--"as though the other car definitely is not about also about way more than just acceleration.

The purpose of a pair of driving gloves is to allow the person the maximum comfort in driving, i.e, good grip, comfortable and fitting to the hand, and flexible. Hence, a good pair of driving gloves will please a person if it serves its purpose base on the fitting of the hands.

Agreed. Good analogy.

Now, a sport sedan is one the serves hauling passenger around and good performance. If it does that, then its a good sport sedan. If the responder says that the M5 is not as good in acceleration but handles better than a CLS55, then he is simply offering is personal opinion on the matter. Scientifically, the "relative facts" you offer may prove him wrong, but he's always right in his eyes. Why?

No doubt you are right; good point. If the responder is only offering a personal opinion, then it is his or her opinion, and, in this context, cannot be wrong. But as you indicate, I am interested in whether or not the opinion has a credible base. Opinions which have credible bases (i.e., they are based on comparative experiences and extant data) are especially non-problematic. But, opinions, without solid grounding, can be very jaded yielding things like racism and carism (e.g., anti-Merc-ism ).

Let's go back to the driving gloves. If the responder tries on the BMW driving gloves and it was design perfectly for his driving habits (acceleration, handling, grip, flex, just the right "feel") and hand size, of course he will choose it and say it over the MB driving gloves which in this case may not be as good for his hands - assuming that he has tried on the MB driving gloves. Important assumption.

Right, the problem is that those using the "yeah, but" "argument" give no indication that they have experience with the driving capabilities of MB's or are aware of the various tests of MB handling/track times. They act as though the "old days" are still here in the sense that MB's are "known," from actual tests, not to handle as well as BMW's. Note that I am not arguing that MB's actually handle as well as BMW's. I only arguing that they are credible handlers.

The point is, scientific data will not prove that something is right and has no place when it comes to transcendental (philosophy) matter such as as one's preference. This is science's limitation. Hence, I do not think you can prove that the responder is wrong with his statement. Note that I am not advocating individualism here. In short, the technologies of MB and BMW deliver different feels and experience for different people. The two driving gloves feels different on different hands regardless of what the "perfect" driving glove is.

Note that we have gone from opinions to preferences. I agree with most of what you say. The choice between competing BMW's and MB's often would come down simply to feel other things equal. What I don't agree with is the idea that I am trying to prove preferences to be right or wrong. In part, I am pointing out that the preferences may be heavily influenced by things other than actual test data and actual comparative driving experiences. And, I am pointing out that the way these preferences are stated seems to imply the assertion that the cars being compared to are lousy handlers/track-time getters.

People's preferences are what they are--as you say. However, preferences, like opinions, can change given data and experience. So, as indicated above:

"What I am interested in thinking about at this point is anything that comes to your mind when reading the following. But, I am also interested in comparisons of acceleration and handling times for cars that are major competitors with any roughly comparable 5-series cars you are interested in. To some extent, I have dealt with the M5 and some roughly comparable Mercs below. I encourage you to toss any biases out the window and have a sprited discussion based on the best "facts" that can be found."

Again, thank you for your thoughts. Everything that you have said has helped me to refine my thoughts more.


[/quote]