Performance stats BMW 850?
Discussion
RobM77 said:
It's important to remember that in 1989 an M3 took over 7 seconds to get to 60, a Golf GTi 8v was 9.3s and the 16V 7.5. Even the Ferrari 328 GTS took 6.6s. (I used http://www.top0-60times.com for all of those - sorry for any inaccuracies). Times have changed - as another poster said, we're all obsessed with straight line performance now. Sure, the 850 never was a supercar, but it wasn't supposed to be - it was a GT car with a lovely big naturally aspirated engine for wafting around Europe (and picking up girls, according to Will Smith 
).
Agreed not sure what the OP is or isn't trying to say, I can't see much wrong with a 300hp V12 in that lovely body shape. ).Whether it does 60 in just over or just under 7 seconds is neither here nor there.
MarshPhantom said:
I just find it rather unlikely as my own car has a (slighly) better (240bhp/1500kg) and wouldn't do anywhere near 6 seconds to sixty. Nor would my BX 16v (160bhp/1050kg), both are pretty much bang on 7.5s to 60.
Gearing? Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 15:47
An early 320i E30 with the 3.45 final drive would hit 60 in second gear just before the rev limiter, later one with the 4.1 diff would not and needed 3rd gear - hence 'on paper' it was slower.
carl_w said:
Not in the least because at one time it was the same list price as a Ferrari 348. And it appeared in a Prince video.
The 850i was a dead end really. It was nearly twice the price of the outgoing 635CSi Highline, yet was slower than the M635CSi (that was still 15 grand cheaper). It was heavy, cumbersome, did 15 mpg if you were lucky and in most of the dismal colours (Calypso red etc) on 16 inch wheels it looked like a giant Ford Probe. Performance Car took one and a Calibra to the East End and did a survey - the Calibra was considered the more desirable car. The E31 shape is also odd - viewed side on it is very unbalanced with huge overhangs front and rear. I went through an E31 phase 15 years ago with an 840Ci, Orient blue on throwing stars. It was okay but in retrospect I can see why so few were sold because it's a car that doesn't do anything amazingly well.Apart from generating big invoices, of course. Not a car I'd want to own again tbh - you'd be better off with a low mileage 650i these days.
iSore said:
MarshPhantom said:
I just find it rather unlikely as my own car has a (slighly) better (240bhp/1500kg) and wouldn't do anywhere near 6 seconds to sixty. Nor would my BX 16v (160bhp/1050kg), both are pretty much bang on 7.5s to 60.
Gearing? Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 15:47
An early 320i E30 with the 3.45 final drive would hit 60 in second gear just before the rev limiter, later one with the 4.1 diff would not and needed 3rd gear - hence 'on paper' it was slower.
And it will do 150 in 4th.
Possibly because it's a 4 speed gearbox.
Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 22:22
iSore said:
carl_w said:
Not in the least because at one time it was the same list price as a Ferrari 348. And it appeared in a Prince video.
The 850i was a dead end really. It was nearly twice the price of the outgoing 635CSi Highline, yet was slower than the M635CSi (that was still 15 grand cheaper). It was heavy, cumbersome, did 15 mpg if you were lucky and in most of the dismal colours (Calypso red etc) on 16 inch wheels it looked like a giant Ford Probe. Performance Car took one and a Calibra to the East End and did a survey - the Calibra was considered the more desirable car. The E31 shape is also odd - viewed side on it is very unbalanced with huge overhangs front and rear. I went through an E31 phase 15 years ago with an 840Ci, Orient blue on throwing stars. It was okay but in retrospect I can see why so few were sold because it's a car that doesn't do anything amazingly well.Apart from generating big invoices, of course. Not a car I'd want to own again tbh - you'd be better off with a low mileage 650i these days.
My 6.0 XJR-S is the same as this; the 0-60 stats and other top trump figures were impressive in 1992 but very ordinary now, however they really do not tell you much at all about the driving experience. It's 6.5 seconds to 60 for my XJR-S, which is diesel repbomile territory these days, but I can tell you without hesitation than no boosted little engine feels even remotely like a big V12. If anything this thread shows the dangers of trying to judge cars entirely by 0-60 times!
Edited by dme123 on Friday 20th January 22:33
RobM77 said:
Regarding an underpowered lard arse being capable of that, 2 tonnes and 300bhp is 150bhp/tonne, which is roughly what a 330ci has, so it's not too far fetched is it? BMW quote 7 seconds for those, but I recorded 6 dead in mine a couple of times - BMW quote with passengers, luggage, full tank of fuel etc, whereas most subsequent aftermarket tests will be how most of us drive - half a tank, ourselves a wallet and a mobile phone and that's it.
I think the bit in bold may be the cause of the difference in 0-60 times, the weight of a 1989 mobile would add at least a second or two to the time 
tejr said:
I was on the hunt for an 850i manual (how cool would it be to own a manual V12 in this day and age) until I heard one.. They just don't sound all that. :
Unless you've got an early one with a stainless system...and no cats.My neighbour used to say their crockery rattled when I started the car up.
MarshPhantom said:
But I've also seen tests online saying the 850 is around 7.5s. My Mercedes will do 60 in 2nd.
And it will do 150 in 4th.
Possibly because it's a 4 speed gearbox.
And I doubt any rice pudding skins were hurt in the process....And it will do 150 in 4th.
Possibly because it's a 4 speed gearbox.
Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 22:22
Wills2 said:
MarshPhantom said:
But I've also seen tests online saying the 850 is around 7.5s. My Mercedes will do 60 in 2nd.
And it will do 150 in 4th.
Possibly because it's a 4 speed gearbox.
And I doubt any rice pudding skins were hurt in the process....And it will do 150 in 4th.
Possibly because it's a 4 speed gearbox.
Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 22:22
I think the whole point of the v12 engines is the power keeps coming as the speed increases I watched Harry's garage the other day where he talks about his sl600 and tries to demonstrate the point of the sl600 over the sl500 - and in the vid he shows that the acceleration above 100mph is just as smooth and impressive as the acceleration up to 100 - me? Having heard my friends 840ci I'd take one of those over the 850 - nicer noise in my opinion
POORCARDEALER said:
I have a 840 sport 4.4....its not quick, but its a bit of an event to drive and does feel special even though its worth very little...
I think The E31 is sat in waiting for a next future classic... a ńice stock 840 sport with sensible miles and FSH are already creeping up...!But i might be a little biased ...
MarshPhantom said:
But I've also seen tests online saying the 850 is around 7.5s. My Mercedes will do 60 in 2nd.
And it will do 150 in 4th.
Possibly because it's a 4 speed gearbox.
Look at him showing off with his fancy FOUR speed gearbox And it will do 150 in 4th.
Possibly because it's a 4 speed gearbox.
Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 22:22
iSore said:
Darker colours hide the styling miss mash - but this to me looks bloody horrible.
I agree, that looks pretty horrid, but you can do that to pretty much any car.A sportier one with the bigger wheels still looks really cool in my eyes.
My issue is that a 'classic' or weekend car would have to be a real driver's car. This clearly isn't one, but a manual V12 with straight pipes might make you think twice i imagine.
To be a geek, the 8 Series engine was not the 'base' for the Mclaren F1 engine despite sharing the S70 name. The McLaren's engine was more closely related to (two of) the M3 S50 engine.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff