Fuel Consumption.
- Thread starter wolfgang
- Start date
wadia-miester
Mighty Rearranger
you need the 30-90 really. IMHO
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,508
- Reaction score
- 0
wadia-miester said:
for sure,but thanks to the internet its a small world and reputations are won and lost a lot more easily nowadays
I know a well know tuner who played with the fueling maps and made increased claims of power for Scoobs,and he took the cars just to close with inevitable consequences
Tuning boxes are great though for just getting a quick 20bhp on a diesel
greg
Its a G thing
The current 3.2 A4 will reach 62mph in 6.4 which whips the 330i. But the S4 is competitive with the M3 - taking the M3 coupe vs the S4 Saloon - BHP (S4 344 vs M3 341) and torque (S4 404 Nm @ 3,500rpm vs M3 365 Nm @ 4,900 rpm) so the V8 delivers considerably greater torque lower down, though 0-60 (S4 5.5 vs BMW 5.2) suggests the M3 is indeed lighter.
A friend of mine was the dealer principal at the local BMW dealer prior to moving to the Ferrari dealership - he had the chance to use most of their models over an extended period - his pick of their entire range, including the M cars, was/is the 330D sport coupe - tells a tale.
Personally I'd take an RS4 over an M3, but an M3 over a S4, but back on subject - I'd never own either as their fuel "economy" is an oxymoron
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Messages
- 877
- Reaction score
- 1
wadia-miester said:You really need to get out more I, and maybe a female possibly, no need to spend all those nites in by the PC.
Get her to talk dirty into your scope see how the analyisis of her voice pattern when she's horny compares against 'First got up in the morning mode'
:lol:
greg said:
I don't want to get into an argument over performance figures but firstly 6.4 secs vs 6.5 secs is pretty close, especially given the A4 3.2 is a quattro so will have more traction off the line. Secondly, it's worth noting that when EVO magazine road tested the 330i Sport saloon it timed at 5.9 secs to 60, which may well have been down to the extra traction available from the Sport model's huge rear tyres.
Anyway, unless I'm mistaken the new shape 330i will be using a more powerful straight six (something like 256bhp instead of 231) so no doubt the honours will be back in BMWs hands.
Oh, and isn't the handling of the A4 still on the wooden side compared to the 3 series?
Matt.
greg
Its a G thing
Interesting. 5.9 seconds sounds a lot more like what I would hope from the 330i. Certainly begs the question why one would need to consider the M3 (naturally 0-60 is only a little part of the story, but still useful I think).Matt F said:
Dont get me wrong, I'd prefer the 330i to the 3.2 A4, but the newest A4 is supposed to have cured some of the handling demons that dogged the previous iterations. I'd add though I'd rather have 4x4 than rear wheel drive, so it is a close call.
But I do like their newest 4.2 litre lightweight V8. It holds more appeal for (only just) than the defacto, current 3.0 litre straight six BMW power plant - which is a classic engine as far as I'm concerned.
I think our Munchen buddies have made a good decision raising the output to 256 BHP for the newest version. Otherwise the Jap EVO cars would continue to ask difficult questions regards performance.
What saddens me is what I've heard about the new 5 series having a poor ride. The newest A6 now actually seems to be the pick of the bunch between the German saloons, which is a little odd considering how good the last 5 series was.
My Clio certainly causes 330i drivers anxieties both off the mark and most definitely on the curvy bits. Mind you our Grand Espace gets to 60 quicker than a MkIV Golf GTI (2.0) so what does that say about VAG sporty cars?
michaelab
desafinado
Only on those silly runflat tyres with hard as steel sidewalls they insist on sticking on itgreg said:
. Bin the runflats and stick on some proper tyres and the car rides beautifully 
Michael.
me old chap gets probably at best 22mpg on the motorway, and i darent think how low it gets at times, 16mpg wouldnt surprise me, from his Audi RS6, which is pretty appaling but what do you expect. it does have an 81 ltr fuel tank though.
The RS6 is awsome, i love the proper V8 rumble that you get, and the practicality. Its ideal as you can take the family out etc, a good all rounder.
The E46 M3 he had before was very economical considering what it was, he could get upto 30mpg on the motorway and in the 20's for normal driving, and only less when really booting it. The M3 was great, but round the greasy roads around here it was difficult to get the power down, the rs6 has amazing traction and the handling is pretty amazing for such a large car too. On a dry road, in the right gear, id take the M3, but for evryday the RS6 is great!
I had a smirk on my face when one of his friends told him he'd bought a new car, a toyota prius, which was just around the same time he bought the RS6, not quite as economical then
Oh and i get about 32MPg out of my 1.8 focus on a good run, 50 ltr tank, do about 350 to a tank, do mostly short journeys so sometimes mostly in the 20s.
The RS6 is awsome, i love the proper V8 rumble that you get, and the practicality. Its ideal as you can take the family out etc, a good all rounder.
The E46 M3 he had before was very economical considering what it was, he could get upto 30mpg on the motorway and in the 20's for normal driving, and only less when really booting it. The M3 was great, but round the greasy roads around here it was difficult to get the power down, the rs6 has amazing traction and the handling is pretty amazing for such a large car too. On a dry road, in the right gear, id take the M3, but for evryday the RS6 is great!
I had a smirk on my face when one of his friends told him he'd bought a new car, a toyota prius, which was just around the same time he bought the RS6, not quite as economical then
Oh and i get about 32MPg out of my 1.8 focus on a good run, 50 ltr tank, do about 350 to a tank, do mostly short journeys so sometimes mostly in the 20s.
Last edited by a moderator:
greg
Its a G thing
I love that motor!angi73 said:
greg
Its a G thing
I'm not immune to the differences regards an M powered 3 series with over 100 BHP per litre, but then you bloody well pay a price above that of the 330i.Saab said:
My point is for many the 330i would be more than enough and the M3 0-60 is only low end of 5 secs, if the 330 is upper end, then not that much difference in that comparison.
greg
Its a G thing
Unfortunately these days the M3 is definitely no where near the last word in production car performance. My view is it endevours to offer solid sports coupe performance with a good level of practicality - in context of the sportier 4/5 seaters out there. Nothing more.Saab said:
Having had fun in both a 330i sport and an M3, I think the 330 isnt too far behind. I was always concerned that its official stats seemed off the pace considering the engine.
The RS4 is a bit more of a serious sports saloon IMO, but then the current M3 has been around a while.
Saab said:
I'm only worried about undetectability for warranty purposes, I would most likely pay that little extra so I was still insured with it - some insurers are mod friendly
]
unfortunately round here most m3 drivers now seem to conform to a stereotype, and there are also a lot about these days.
Most are cabriolets with 19" wheels in something digusting like phoenix yellow (vomit coulored) and are bough by male skin heads in their 30/40s and exceptionally bad taste. Many of them just seem to be bought for posing, or just being the ultimate BMW sortof thing.
In my opinion the best spec is 18" wheels, coupe with a manual, maybe smg if you do lots of miles, a good compromise. cabs are slower, uglier, not as stiff, and pricier. Mind you, it would be great to drive around hearing that fantastic straight six all the more
I have been in both, and trust me, there is a night an day difference in the performance of the 330i and the M3, it not just the speed but also its highly strung savage delivery and the chassis, looks and completeness too. There is no competition really, apart from price of course.
Still the 330i is a quick car and tractable car and i personally would kill for one.
Most are cabriolets with 19" wheels in something digusting like phoenix yellow (vomit coulored) and are bough by male skin heads in their 30/40s and exceptionally bad taste. Many of them just seem to be bought for posing, or just being the ultimate BMW sortof thing.
In my opinion the best spec is 18" wheels, coupe with a manual, maybe smg if you do lots of miles, a good compromise. cabs are slower, uglier, not as stiff, and pricier. Mind you, it would be great to drive around hearing that fantastic straight six all the more
I have been in both, and trust me, there is a night an day difference in the performance of the 330i and the M3, it not just the speed but also its highly strung savage delivery and the chassis, looks and completeness too. There is no competition really, apart from price of course.
Still the 330i is a quick car and tractable car and i personally would kill for one.
I think a comparison of M3 versus 330i in (Autocar) figures tells the tale, especially the 0-100 and 30-70 times.
M3 - 4.8-60, 11.5-100, 4.1 30-70
330i - 6.7-60, 16.5-100, 5.8 30-70
For what it's worth the S4 Quattro Avant was:
5.2-60, 13.3-100, 5.5 30-70
And I couldn't help noticing the Merc C32 V6 AMG's astonishing figures (and it's auto only)
4.6-60, 10.9-100, 3.9 30-70
If we take the 30-70 through the gears as a good indication of real world acceleration then it's interesting to note that the S4 quattro is a lot nearer to the 330i than the M3!
As to why would anyone choose an M3 over a 330i, I think the above figures tell there own tale.
I would however ask why anyone would choose a 231bhp 330i over a 204bhp 330D these days - both are capable of 150mph, petrol hits 60 in 6.5, diesel in 7.2 but the diesel mpg is 42 combined against the petrol's 31mpg.
Matt
M3 - 4.8-60, 11.5-100, 4.1 30-70
330i - 6.7-60, 16.5-100, 5.8 30-70
For what it's worth the S4 Quattro Avant was:
5.2-60, 13.3-100, 5.5 30-70
And I couldn't help noticing the Merc C32 V6 AMG's astonishing figures (and it's auto only)
4.6-60, 10.9-100, 3.9 30-70
If we take the 30-70 through the gears as a good indication of real world acceleration then it's interesting to note that the S4 quattro is a lot nearer to the 330i than the M3!
As to why would anyone choose an M3 over a 330i, I think the above figures tell there own tale.
I would however ask why anyone would choose a 231bhp 330i over a 204bhp 330D these days - both are capable of 150mph, petrol hits 60 in 6.5, diesel in 7.2 but the diesel mpg is 42 combined against the petrol's 31mpg.
Matt
Refinement?
greg
Its a G thing
So is the 330i 5.9 or 6.7? Autocar timed the Clio 182 at 6.3 0-60, no wonder!Matt F said:
Not sure its fair to compare to the estate version. So what are the stats for the RS4 - the real deal and M3 muncher?
Should we consider the S4 as a quicker equivalent 330i and the RS4 as a quicker equivalent M3?
The stats that caught my attention were those of the 530D compared to the 530i. The diesel 5 seemed more of a no brainer than the diesel 3.
I'm still sceptical about oil burners though.
