Utilising the power on a VERY powerful car...
Discussion
Yesterday I, again (admittedly for the first time in a while!) drove a new shape BMW M6 and having driven it, it got me wondering whether you can really use the power of anything much faster. It was devastatingly fast and you really, really need to think quite far ahead before you can say "yes, I can now put my foot down" and before you know it, you're at rather silly speeds.
This got me wondering....what on earth something like a full-on hypercar/supercar is like....I mean, it must be absolutely mental. How many of you have cars getting on for that kind of performance and can use it?
Having said all of that, I spent a lot of time driving an E92 M3 before and thought "bloody hell this is quick" but the M6 changed my perspectives on that a little, as it feels noticeably faster. Even on the motorway in 6th or 7th gear is still just PULLS like a train. God knows what something like a McLaren P1 is like on the public road!!
I suppose you get used to it, mind.
My 745i feels absolutely glacial in comparison now
This got me wondering....what on earth something like a full-on hypercar/supercar is like....I mean, it must be absolutely mental. How many of you have cars getting on for that kind of performance and can use it?
Having said all of that, I spent a lot of time driving an E92 M3 before and thought "bloody hell this is quick" but the M6 changed my perspectives on that a little, as it feels noticeably faster. Even on the motorway in 6th or 7th gear is still just PULLS like a train. God knows what something like a McLaren P1 is like on the public road!!
I suppose you get used to it, mind.My 745i feels absolutely glacial in comparison now
I have also found that having more power does make for a more relaxing drive. Overtakes are easier, you don't need to change gear as often (less of an issue with an automatic, mind).
My 745i is not what many would call a slow car... 6 dead to 60, it's been delimited and has seen 164 gps) but it's so slow compared to the M6.
My question was more about just how infrequently you'd be able to use full power and revs in something seriously quick. I guess you can, but not too often. Worth it when you can though
My 745i is not what many would call a slow car... 6 dead to 60, it's been delimited and has seen 164 gps) but it's so slow compared to the M6.
My question was more about just how infrequently you'd be able to use full power and revs in something seriously quick. I guess you can, but not too often. Worth it when you can though
dcb said:
+1
Provided a car is reasonably comfortable and sound proofed, then
something about two litres size is about all you need for almost
all countries in Europe for any long distance.
There are such things as speed limits, road works and traffic.
Once you've got something that will cruise easily all day every day
at 90 mph, you are pretty much sorted for power.
Of course, for those who like to live in the fast lane of the
German autobahn, something capable of a little more is quite useful.
Even so, going beyond about three litres is pointless. You won't
be driving any faster and you'll be visiting the fuel station more
often anyway.
Those folks that buy 4 or more litre cars and then never use most
of the performance make me laugh. Ok they have bragging rights down
the pub, but what a waste !
What tosh. Of course, there is a law of diminishing returns, but it's not just about how quickly you get there, or the destination, but enjoying it along the way. I've never had a particularly enthralling drive in a 2 litre diesel. I have in a 6.0 V12, however.Provided a car is reasonably comfortable and sound proofed, then
something about two litres size is about all you need for almost
all countries in Europe for any long distance.
There are such things as speed limits, road works and traffic.
Once you've got something that will cruise easily all day every day
at 90 mph, you are pretty much sorted for power.
Of course, for those who like to live in the fast lane of the
German autobahn, something capable of a little more is quite useful.
Even so, going beyond about three litres is pointless. You won't
be driving any faster and you'll be visiting the fuel station more
often anyway.
Those folks that buy 4 or more litre cars and then never use most
of the performance make me laugh. Ok they have bragging rights down
the pub, but what a waste !
mikerons88 said:
E65Ross said:
What tosh. Of course, there is a law of diminishing returns, but it's not just about how quickly you get there, or the destination, but enjoying it along the way. I've never had a particularly enthralling drive in a 2 litre diesel. I have in a 6.0 V12, however.
He is trying to justify being poor.It helps massively with overtakes, for example. It's also fun. Dare I use that word?
MC Bodge said:
Randomthoughts said:
This, one million billion times over. Driving a diesel four-banger around is a chore. I had the pleasure of driving an exotic V8 recently, and even at legal speeds - f
k, even in traffic, it was glorious. I could sit nose-to-tail for hours listening to a V8 rumble forwards.
A chore? No it isn't, really. Cars are good./1k, even in traffic, it was glorious. I could sit nose-to-tail for hours listening to a V8 rumble forwards.The context of "not needing a 6.0litre V12 GT" was about somebody's comment about needing POWER for trans-continental driving, when a 2.0d can be driven across Europe at a 100mph cruise and need few refills.
Of course people like having big engines, but that is not a NEED.
MC Bodge said:
E65Ross said:
He wasn't quoting you to be fair, he quoted me who, in turn, quoted someone who said that a big engine was pointless. That'd a big difference to NEEDING something.
I the context of long distance motorway driving, a big, thirsty engine is fairly pointless, though!If anything, having a bigger engine makes more sense on long trips! Much more relaxing, easier for overtakes, far less stressful when getting back up to speed after slower traffic has moved out of your way.... The list goes on.
The only reason, in reality, you'd ever choose to have a smaller engine is the save money. Because one is more expensive, doesn't make it pointless. Longer range, you say? On a long trip, I'd usually stop every 200-250 miles (I've done 300 without stopping, but never more) and often I need to empty my bladder before the car needs filling.
I recall doing a trip from Southampton to Plymouth, going a route which involves very little motorway. It's a nice drive, but get stuck behind one caravan and you can be stuffed, which just annoys me. Something with a big engine means it's easier to get past.... Makes it more fun and less stressful!
MC Bodge said:
I understand what you are saying, and I like decent performance, especially for overtaking, but driving a modern 2.0 TD is hardly stressful. My memory of a long trip to Austria is cruising along the Autobahn at 120mph with the air con on, whilst my wife was reading a magazine and my daughter was watching a DVD. Only a 2.0, but Hardly stressful for any of us. I quite enjoyed it and was rarely
Passed in 100s of Kms.
Ok, so It wasn't as quick over the passes as other cars I've had, but my family wouldn't have appreciated it as much as I would have anyway, and it wasn't bad downhill.
Despite riding a fairly fun bike with exuberance and driving faster cars, It's rare that the 2.0TD Mondeo feels lacking ...and never a chore. I've had some great cross-country drives in it.
Would I like to have a drive in a super car? Yes, of course.
True. But I'd bet my bottom dollar that if it got the same mpg and cost the same to run etc then you'd have rather done the same trip in something with a bigger engine. Passed in 100s of Kms.
Ok, so It wasn't as quick over the passes as other cars I've had, but my family wouldn't have appreciated it as much as I would have anyway, and it wasn't bad downhill.
Despite riding a fairly fun bike with exuberance and driving faster cars, It's rare that the 2.0TD Mondeo feels lacking ...and never a chore. I've had some great cross-country drives in it.
Would I like to have a drive in a super car? Yes, of course.
You may not have got there any faster, but I'd be pretty confident that at SOME POINT you'd have had that little bit more fun in something with a sodding great V12. And for that little bit of fun, it so makes it worth it in my opinion, and because of that little bit of fun, it's not pointless. But 100% agree that you don't NEED a big engine.
But then, I don't NEED a HD TV, but I quite like it compared to one with poorer quality.
StottyEvo said:
A women I work with sold her M5 for this specific reason, whenever pulling out of junctions in the wet the TC was kicking in and it annoyed her greatly. Shes always had high powered cars so drives quickly, but shes 50, not exactly a yobbo... She traded the M5 in for an M3!
In this case it really is a case of just not pressing the throttle as much. On 295 section rubber and partial throttle there shouldn't be any more wheelspin than in any other rwd car. If you can get away without spinning in a car with 150bhp, you can do the same in something with more power if you are a bit more gentle with the throttle. I found with the E92 M3 and the F13 M6 the more gentle throttle map settings are superb for this. On the aggressive settings it can be a bit too much, just feather the throttle and it gives a noticeable amount of poke.
braddo said:
E65Ross said:
MC Bodge said:
I the context of long distance motorway driving, a big, thirsty engine is fairly pointless, though!
Except it isn't though. I recently did 500 miles in a day in my 745i......
Especially in Europe where the motorways are often less busy and the distances greater, big thirsty engines can be a bit pointless.
Needing to put fuel in the car at every rest stop gets annoying. It makes the rest stop less restful and slows your average journey speed. The time, hassle and expense all add up significantly on big trips (e.g. south of France, Alps, Italy etc) so I absolutely agree with people that say a 2.0 diesel can do the job admirably.
Personally, I've done such journeys in a 300hp 4.3L V8 that averages about 25mpg on the motorway.
For me, it's worth it for the extra performance and noise and the fun when I get to my destination. If I were doing such trips more than once or twice a year, however, i'd consider changing to something a bit more efficient.The additional fuel stops (I manage 4-500+ miles on a tank....fine by me) from a bigger engine doesn't bother me, yet having more power etc for overtaking, and the more relaxed nature of the drive means it certainly isn't pointless.
Frankly, I find anything much slower than my 745i can get a little frustrating at times. I guess you get used to power quite quickly....and my 745i is brisk, it's not rapid.
You can look at these things very logically, and in a very boring way and say "well a 1.9 tdi will get you there just as quick as you won't need to stop for fuel as often, it'll be cheaper and it'll do the job well." But for me, a car is so much more than just a tool. It's something I can derive pleasure from, and having a sodding big engine up front purely so I can have a smile on my face from time to time means it's certainly not pointless. Pointless from a logical point of view, perhaps, yes. But since when was being 100% logical fun.
Whilst I totally understand the reasoning behind someone thinking they are pointless, for them to say they ARE pointless as if it were a fact, it wrong.
Max_Torque said:
It's worth noting that powerful RWD cars need progressive throttle inputs to "find" all the traction they can develop. If you just jump on the throttle hard, when there is no rearwards weight transfer (because the car is not accelerating) they will immediately spin the wheels (or flash the DSC light). But feed the throttle in over the period of about a second, the car sits back on the drive wheels and will take pretty much full throttle even in the wet (potholes/whitelines/diesel/leaves/smalldogs permitting of course!)
Most people who i drive with, in powerful cars who complain of a "lack of traction" are there own undoing............
Exactly; said M5 with 295 section Michelin PSS will have more traction than a 180bhp 520d on thinner rubber....Most people who i drive with, in powerful cars who complain of a "lack of traction" are there own undoing............
MC Bodge said:
E65Ross said:
Frankly, I find anything much slower than my 745i can get a little frustrating at times. I guess you get used to power quite quickly....and my 745i is brisk, it's not rapid.
I would say that is a pretty fast car, especially for such a big one. Would you not prefer a smaller, lighter car?
I don't believe that a 2.0 diesel is the last word in performance motoring, and have owned and driven faster cars but the view from some that 4 cylinder cars are all awful or that a 2.0 diesel is a chore to drive (especially on a motorway) strike me as somewhat odd, and untrue.
I speak as somebody who does like driving ( and rides a bike that is fairly quick up to an alleged ton-20) and to get a move on, but drove my entertaining-in-places route to work in a 64bhp hatchback this morning and may well ride the motorbike tomorrow.
Lighter..... Yes, but I wouldn't want to compromise on what makes the E65 so good.... Just how quiet and comfortable it is. Compared to something like a 3 series, it really is in another league.
I didn't think twice about 4 cylinder diesels, I thought they were good. Until you get used to regularly driving a petrol with 6 or more cylinders you realise that they really are quite crude things. For some people, the things that I think make them crude (noise, vibrations especially at low rpm, power delivery etc) matter not one jot compared to the benefits.... But I don't think it can be denied that their only benefits are for saving money. That's absolutely fine, but to claim something bigger is pointless (which wasn't you, I appreciate) is utterly absurd.
xRIEx said:
It's a point that comes from fantasy land - the primary benefit of diesel to consumers and much of its current popularity is due to its (perhaps perceived) cost benefits. If a Hummer H1 was the most affordable vehicle, all the cost-conscious purchasers would have one; if a LaF or P1 was the most affordable vehicle, all the cost-conscious purchasers would have one; if an S63 was the most affordable vehicle, all the cost-conscious purchasers would have one - we can go on and on and it adds absolutely zero to the discussion.
If alcohol didn't cause intoxication, we'd all drink and drive.
If cancer wasn't painful and fatal, we wouldn't be scared of it.
Etc. etc.
Take away the prime characteristic of a thing and it ceases to be, it becomes something else.
The point being made was that all those saying that high performance cars are "pointless" etc are saying that for reasons which largely relate to cost, not because they are actually pointless.If alcohol didn't cause intoxication, we'd all drink and drive.
If cancer wasn't painful and fatal, we wouldn't be scared of it.
Etc. etc.
Take away the prime characteristic of a thing and it ceases to be, it becomes something else.
I'll hold my hands up and say I'd love an M5 but I can't afford one. Because I can't afford one, it doesn't make the car pointless.
Output Flange said:
9mm said:
Anyone who says that they would choose something like a Passat diesel over an M5/M6/F-type/SLS if money was no object or there wasn't a specific need (like going to the tip) is either lying or not remotely interested in cars.
I'd chose a 530d or 535d over an M5 of the current generation. And I like cars A LOT.Before going for the M6 my dad test drove a 640d, which is basically as economical as the 30/35d variants yet more powerful, and he still ended up with the M6.
The M5 has a very decent range, it's faster, sounds nicer, and rides every bit as good as a normal 5er due to no run flats....I can't think of any reason why you'd rather the slower, less refined and more industrial engine over the M5; other than the save money?
Is it because the diesel can go further without stopping? Guessing the M5 is going to be all but identical but my old can can easily top 400+ miles to a tank, which seems perfectly fine. on a long drive you could nudge 500 miles. So why else would you prefer a less refined diesel to the V8 petrol, other than to save money?
MC Bodge said:
The "less-refined" thing is all relative. The relative refinement of 4/5/6/8/12 cylinders and even of petrol or diesel (for 99% of driving) is over-emphasised by some. Ok, so the crank is balanced better by some configurations and a 1 cylinder can be a bit lumpy, but there are few cars with single cylinder engines.
The NVH of most modern mid-size upwards cars is very good. It is rarely intrusive and rarely an issue worth commenting on, despite some people declaring that some numbers of cylinders are a chore...
Really, I recently drove a 2010 Audi A6 3.0 TDI and thought the engine was rather unrefined to be honest. At very slow speed and town especially. 4 cylinder diesels are all hideous, from my experience. I've been in a 520d and it was just an awful engine. Perhaps I've been spoilt with having been in some nice cars over the years as I have some friends with some nice stuff.... But to say the difference these days is minimal simply isn't true. A modern 4 cylinder diesel doesn't even come close to a V12 of just about any age for refinement and smoothness. The NVH of most modern mid-size upwards cars is very good. It is rarely intrusive and rarely an issue worth commenting on, despite some people declaring that some numbers of cylinders are a chore...
A chore.... No. I could live with a 4 cylinder diesel. But I'd be outright lying if I said I'd prefer it to a V12 petrol.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff