RE: SOTW: BMW 318is

[ADM06]

TameRacingDriver said:

Ever occur to you the S4 wasn't trying hard, or was being driven by a muppet? I love my 328i, but come on now, lets be realistic...

Do the math, seriously.
(218 x .85)/1.4
(340 x .70)/1.85
The difference in whp/ton is similar to the one in the example above, actually. Except it is in my favour.

I also saw this guy more than once, on nice open dual carriageways. Yeah he was trying, unless S4's sound like that all the time.

Edited by ADM06 on Wednesday 8th June 19:35

[Kawasicki]

KM666 said:

clonmult said:

1. All things being equal, the 328 would have been considerably faster than the Clio RSI.


2. And are you confusing the standard 318 with the 318iS - very different cars.

Assuming its a good 328 with a driver that can match its on paper credentials.

Look at it subjectivly, a 318 IS with its 140bhp (at the flywheel), at the wheels this drops say 18% (20 year old drivetrain, RWD operate at a 10-18% drivetrain loss so we can assume its at the higher end of drivetrain loss due to age) so thats around 114whp, lugging around 1335kg (b)minimum(/b) kerb weight, going through 205 width std tyres. vs (from a previous comparison, the saxo VTR) with its 90bhp (say 10% loss for FWD, so 81whp) lugging around 920kg going through 185 profile width tyres. 86.76whp/ton (bmw) vs 89.45whp/ton (citroen), im certain 185 profile tyres with 380kg less to take around bends can achieve the same if not better mechanical grip as a 205 profile tyre with the higher weight. So how does this magically change because its a BMW?

as sad as this topic is, let's continue...

Let's get really juvenile;

a 20 year old e36 318is has a kerb weight of 1240kg (mine - basic spec, actually weighed 1252kg). So looking at your calculations...

clio 86.76 whp/ton
318is 91 whp/ton

And the bmw has better traction, rwd and wider tyres

And the bmw has more even loading on all four tyres
each (wider) tyre has a vertical load of 310kg

The clio is fwd and therefore has poor weight distribution.
each of the narrower front tyres has a vertical load of 300kg
each of the narrower rear tyres has a vertical load of 160kg....deary, deary me, watch out for lift off oversteer! And the clio will have no chance in constant lateral acceleration.

Finally the vtr has a top speed of 116mph, compared to a genuine 132mph in the bmw. Accelerating at higher speeds (which are obviously important in a juvenile race) the 318is would easily beat the vtr.

[Jonny_693]

The only time my 328i is tail happy is on damp, greasy roads. I sometimes wish it had an LSD so it was more fun in the dry but hey ho. There must be some D1 drifters on here to spin a 318 !

[vsonix]

johnpeat said:

Robmarriott said:

It is a 1.8, not the later 1.9

Will the extra 1 ft/lb and 0 hp really matter that much in a car under £1000?

the M44 returns about 20% better fuel economy than the M42 so if you're on a budget it's important, I suppose. Flip side is the M42 is more tuneable and it's easier to work with the ECU.

[KM666]

Kawasicki said:

as sad as this topic is, let's continue...

Let's get really juvenile;

a 20 year old e36 318is has a kerb weight of 1240kg (mine - basic spec, actually weighed 1252kg). So looking at your calculations...

clio 86.76 whp/ton
318is 91 whp/ton

And the bmw has better traction, rwd and wider tyres

And the bmw has more even loading on all four tyres
each (wider) tyre has a vertical load of 310kg

The clio is fwd and therefore has poor weight distribution.
each of the narrower front tyres has a vertical load of 300kg
each of the narrower rear tyres has a vertical load of 160kg....deary, deary me, watch out for lift off oversteer! And the clio will have no chance in constant lateral acceleration.

Finally the vtr has a top speed of 116mph, compared to a genuine 132mph in the bmw. Accelerating at higher speeds (which are obviously important in a juvenile race) the 318is would easily beat the vtr.

Top speed is irrelevant. The traffic light GP is the is the all important factor in a juvenile race. By constant lateral acceleration you mean a skid, well fantastic! Something to remember next time you skid is wow im getting more G's than a clio would skidding!

Nice use of carfolio, sadly for you however the weight they quote is wrong. Parkers confirms it to be 955kg, which in turn changes your calculation like so: Clio, 105.33whp/ton.

Try double checking any figures you lift off websites, saves face end of day, especially when your trying to show somebody up.

Edited by KM666 on Thursday 9th June 20:58

[Kawasicki]

KM666 said:

clonmult said:

1. All things being equal, the 328 would have been considerably faster than the Clio RSI.


2. And are you confusing the standard 318 with the 318iS - very different cars.

Assuming its a good 328 with a driver that can match its on paper credentials.

Look at it subjectivly, a 318 IS with its 140bhp (at the flywheel), at the wheels this drops say 18% (20 year old drivetrain, RWD operate at a 10-18% drivetrain loss so we can assume its at the higher end of drivetrain loss due to age) so thats around 114whp, lugging around 1335kg (b)minimum(/b) kerb weight, going through 205 width std tyres. vs (from a previous comparison, the saxo VTR) with its 90bhp (say 10% loss for FWD, so 81whp) lugging around 920kg going through 185 profile width tyres. 86.76whp/ton (bmw) vs 89.45whp/ton (citroen), im certain 185 profile tyres with 380kg less to take around bends can achieve the same if not better mechanical grip as a 205 profile tyre with the higher weight. So how does this magically change because its a BMW?

What is the kerb weight of a 20 year old 318is? It's 1240kg.

Going by your own logic the bmw has a high wheel power to weight than a citroen vtr, no?

[Boobonman]

I wouldn't waste your time. I wouldn't be suprised if KM666 was younger than most, and perhaps a Clio RSI 8-valve is the most potent car he has driven passengered in.

[Colonial]

Boobonman said:

I wouldn't waste your time. I wouldn't be suprised if KM666 was younger than most, and perhaps a Clio RSI 8-valve is the most potent car he has driven passengered in.

Well, his dad has one, and it is quick when he gets driven home from the local comprehensive!

[vsonix]

KM666 said:

clonmult said:

With all due respect, but thats complete and utter bks.

Expensive to run? Nope, just regular servicing, and it ran perfectly.

The "body kit" is very subtle on a standard iS.

Sure, some of those VTRs and TDI Golfs may be faster, but they won't grip or handle anything close as good.

And as for it swapping ends, I tried - damn hard - to make it let go in the dry, and it wouldn't. It just gripped. In the wet its another matter, but even then it was easily controlled.

Anything german is going to cost more to run than its british or french equivilent, is that not a given?

Yeah the body kit is so subtle its not the first thing you see and doesnt look at all like somebodys trying to make thier 316 look like a poor M rip off, the irony of course being it is a genuine M kit.

So a 900kg fwd hatchback is incapable of gripping and 'handling' with the grace and poise of a 1300kg+ saloon/coupe...

Well maybe your Nigel Mansell then because the majority of people you could expect to see in a 318 (cap, pumpng hardcore, 18" bbs's on budget semi bald tyres, FWD approach to throttle control in corners) are more than capable of spinning even a 316 out.

I think the clue may be in 'semi bald tyres' tbh.

I still haven't managed to get the back end to break away on my 318ti,even through some fairly spirited driving.

[bodhi]

The only way my '28i will break free is through some Scandinavian flick action in the dry, I have nailed it from rest out of a few junctions now, and it just grips and goes. Even now the Michs on are getting towards their wear indicators, its still utterly planted.

I suspect our young non-driving friends bought some tyres from the Chinese end of the market. Oh and can't drive for toffee....

[T16OLE]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

No way, I had a 182 and now have a 330ci (quicker than a 328) the clio would easily match the BMW upto about 110/120mph. An absolutely kill it in the twisties

Edited by T16OLE on Friday 10th June 12:43

[AV12]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yep, cmoose is correct here. The E36 is properly engineered underneath.

All this talk of unstable E36s - I had a 92,000 328i SE and it was very neutral (bit of a pudding though). Tail out action easily provoked and controlled. I think the slower rack was a key factor in it's stability. Decent handling car with much, much more feel than the E46, but ultimately the '46 handled a bit better on the limit. IMO

[AV12]

My old 328i SE:

[daveco]

As far as these arguments about BMW performance and power go, I've had each one of mine dyno'd (some more than once) and they've always put out more than the manufacturers hp ratings, so I'd advise taking the official figures with a pinch of salt.

And I would not be surprised if a 328 showed an S4 a clean pair of boots; the S4 and RS4 have a history of putting out far less than the company state. There was a thread on here a few years ago where several RS4 owners were getting up to 70hp less than official figures.

[AV12]

I had said 328i rated at 209bhp, 215lb/ft. Brilliant engine.

[GBB]

AV12 said:

I had said 328i rated at 209bhp, 215lb/ft. Brilliant engine.

Was that standard?

Mine's got 160K on the engine (new block fitted at 30K thanks to Nikasil) and still feels like the full complement of horses. I'd dyno it if it wasn't an Auto.

It's got a fully stamped service history up to the 190K today which I reckon must help.

[T16OLE]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not a chance, ive had had both, my current 330ci and past 182, at best the 330ci wouldnt start to be quicker until 100mph, let alone the 328 with 40ish bhp less.

The clio has only about 10bhp less, but weighs 200kg lighter,

BEHAVE stats speak for themselves

Renault Clio 182 Cup

0 to 60 6.3s
0 to 200 16.6s
60 to 100 10.3s
1/4 mile 14.8s
terminal speed 95mph


BMW 328i

0 to 60 7.2s
0 to 100 18.4s
60 to 100 11.2s
1/4 mile 15.8s
terminal speed 94mph


http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?pid=compariso...


I am not saying the 182 is a "better" car, because it isnt. But the 182 is quicker

Edited by T16OLE on Friday 10th June 15:43

[AV12]

GBB said:

Was that standard?

Mine's got 160K on the engine (new block fitted at 30K thanks to Nikasil) and still feels like the full complement of horses. I'd dyno it if it wasn't an Auto.

It's got a fully stamped service history up to the 190K today which I reckon must help.

It had excellent history, but otherwise, standard.

[clonmult]

vsonix said:

I think the clue may be in 'semi bald tyres' tbh.

I still haven't managed to get the back end to break away on my 318ti,even through some fairly spirited driving.

Pete (the owner of the old 325) was a little, er cavalier in his attitude to car maintenance. Still, it was a damn fun drive.

Similar to yourself, I never managed to get my old 318iS to break away. Plenty of reasonably sized roundabouts in Basingstoke, a few times I went around them repeatedly in second gear, just below 50mph, stomped the throttle wide open to try and provoke a slide - it just held on.

The only "problem" I had with the car from a design point was that the traction control was utterly useless. It would kick in when driving in a spirited fashion in the wet, but only after I'd started to correct the slide.

[AV12]

If we're talking performance numbers; the 328i rated at 0-60 6.6sec. I believe Autocar got 5.9 sec from a Touring back in the 90s. 100mph on my one was 16.8 sec, but the gearing was a factor in the comparatively slower 100mph time.