Performance stats BMW 850?

[MarshPhantom]

Anyone have any facts and figures about these? Only because I came across a video on Youtube naming it as one of the worst performance cars of all time, I can no longer find the video but...

5 Litre V12 - 300bhp - true.
Weight - not that far off 2 tons - true
0-60 - not far off 9 seconds.

Online stats claim 0-60 in 6 seconds - hard to believe such an underpowered lard arse would be capable of that.

Any know the truth?

[MarshPhantom]

Fair enough, but they're still claiming an unlikely 0-60 even for the less powerful, equally as heavy 840. 6.6 seconds.

And 300bhp from a 5 litre V12 is also underwhelming.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Wednesday 18th January 22:42

[MarshPhantom]

No, that's fair enough. It just still seems rather unlikely given the power to weight ratio.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Wednesday 18th January 23:17

Another review I've found states the V12 is 7.5secs to 60.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Wednesday 18th January 23:28

[MarshPhantom]

M1C said:

Lovely looking cars. So sleek.

Yes, saw one this evening for the first time in ages.

[MarshPhantom]

Could be worse, it they were launched today I guess they would mostly be diesels.

[MarshPhantom]

CRA1G said:

MarshPhantom said:

M1C said:

Lovely looking cars. So sleek.

Yes, saw one this evening for the first time in ages.

This is my 840 sport individual which I've owned for years as part of my small Dakar collection,totally original spec,low miles with FSH,as already been said at 286 BHP makes it a very comfortable tourer but no traffic light racer,but i love them....

Very nice.

[MarshPhantom]

Devil2575 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Anyone have any facts and figures about these? Only because I came across a video on Youtube naming it as one of the worst performance cars of all time, I can no longer find the video but...

5 Litre V12 - 300bhp - true.
Weight - not that far off 2 tons - true
0-60 - not far off 9 seconds.

Online stats claim 0-60 in 6 seconds - hard to believe such an underpowered lard arse would be capable of that.

Any know the truth?

This video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbxy5iKNmxM

Watched it the other night.

The state 0-60 in over 7 seconds I think.

Oh, well done.

[MarshPhantom]

RobM77 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Devil2575 said:

MarshPhantom said:

Anyone have any facts and figures about these? Only because I came across a video on Youtube naming it as one of the worst performance cars of all time, I can no longer find the video but...

5 Litre V12 - 300bhp - true.
Weight - not that far off 2 tons - true
0-60 - not far off 9 seconds.

Online stats claim 0-60 in 6 seconds - hard to believe such an underpowered lard arse would be capable of that.

Any know the truth?

This video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbxy5iKNmxM

Watched it the other night.

The state 0-60 in over 7 seconds I think.

Oh, well done.

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 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.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 15:47

[MarshPhantom]

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.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 15:47

Gearing?


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.

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.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 22:22

[MarshPhantom]

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.

Agree about the looks, it's as though the front end doesn't really suit the rest of the car.

[MarshPhantom]

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.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 22:22

And I doubt any rice pudding skins were hurt in the process....

The 0-60 isn't great because it's a bit slow off the mark. The way it builds speed at higher speeds is still genuinely pretty impressive.

[MarshPhantom]

dme123 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.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 22:22

Look at him showing off with his fancy FOUR speed gearbox

Mine is only 4 speeds if you nail it away from the line, it is pretty much a three speed.

[MarshPhantom]

MarshPhantom said:

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.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Friday 20th January 22:22

And I doubt any rice pudding skins were hurt in the process....

The 0-60 isn't great because it's a bit slow off the mark. The way it builds speed at higher speeds is still genuinely pretty impressive.

Well, I did burn off an new M120d at the lights yesterday, he was definitely trying. Site online says 0-60 of 7.1s for that , 7.3s for the 850.

[MarshPhantom]

E24man said:

That's not really comparing like for like imho.

The 5.0 litre 24 valve V12 BMW engine was introduced in 1987 with 300bhp
The 6.0 litre 48 valve V12 Benz engine was introduced in 1992 with 394bhp

The 5.0 BMW engine made 350bhp from Alpina in 1988.
By 1992 BMW enlarged it to 5.7 litres with with 380bhp, with the Alpina 5.7 version making 416bhp.

When Alpina eventually made it up to 6.0 litres it made 430bhp, but as above, still only with 24 valves. By this time Mercedes were using the lighter, smaller and more reliable M137 6.0 V12 36 valve engine with 367 bhp.

When Paul Rosche of BMW made it into a 6.0 litre 48 valve V12 engine it made quite a lot more power.

I agree the 300bhp might seem underwhelming

Mercedes where getting 240 bhp from their 3.0 N/A Six-pot.

[MarshPhantom]

E24man said:

MarshPhantom said:

E24man said:

That's not really comparing like for like imho.

The 5.0 litre 24 valve V12 BMW engine was introduced in 1987 with 300bhp
The 6.0 litre 48 valve V12 Benz engine was introduced in 1992 with 394bhp

The 5.0 BMW engine made 350bhp from Alpina in 1988.
By 1992 BMW enlarged it to 5.7 litres with with 380bhp, with the Alpina 5.7 version making 416bhp.

When Alpina eventually made it up to 6.0 litres it made 430bhp, but as above, still only with 24 valves. By this time Mercedes were using the lighter, smaller and more reliable M137 6.0 V12 36 valve engine with 367 bhp.

When Paul Rosche of BMW made it into a 6.0 litre 48 valve V12 engine it made quite a lot more power.

Mercedes where getting 240 bhp from their 3.0 N/A Six-pot.

And BMW were getting 235bhp from their 2.5 N/A 4 -pot, but I fail to see your point.

Devil2575 said:

How much power it made relative to other contemporary V12s isn't the point though,the problem was it only made 10 bhp more than the 840i.

There was a comparison made against the contemporary V12's so I tried to address it but you chose not to quote it. In terms of your point about the 850 engine in comparison to the 840 engine it was 14bhp difference to start with and 30bhp later but regardless of that the V12 E31's still outsold the V8 E31's by a factor of 3 to 1 so perhaps back then BMW did know their customers rather better than you do retrospectively?

The point is the power output of the 3 Litre 6 pot Mercedes engine is far more respectable than the 5.0 V12 BMW.
.

[MarshPhantom]

dbdb said:

The 1990s was a time of very rapidly rising engine power outputs over that decade. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, 300 bhp was big power. There were very few cars which produced more than 300 bhp. A glance through my 1991 What Car listings shows no Mercedes with more; the 560SEL/SEC matched it, also developing 300 bhp. The 911 Turbo is listed at 320 Bhp. It would be fair to say they were regarded as a very powerful car indeed at that time. The 911 Carrera 2 and Carrera 4 is listed at 250bhp. Of course they are much faster since they are much lighter - but the BMW was a GT and never a sports car. And a very powerful one.

But cars were generally a fair bit more lightweight back in those days. The 850 wasn't. Even the 560SEC weighs more than 200kg less, with a larger engine.

Edited by MarshPhantom on Wednesday 25th January 16:46

[MarshPhantom]

E24man said:

The Mercedes 500E was introduced 3 years after the E31 V12, a 32-valve 5 litre V8 and bonkers expensive for its 22bhp more. It might have seemed a high power output but within a year or two Alpina had got 340bhp from the same valves and layout but 400cc's less.

There is no doubting it is a lovely thing but it was already largely eclipsed in its class by the turbo-era 1989 Alpina B10 Bi-Turbo and the ubiquitous Lotus Carlton of 1990.

You seem to keep choosing to ignore the big problem with the 850, it's weight. Rather than the (still rather lame for a 5 litre V12) power output.

The contemporary AMG W124 was pushing out 380bhp from a 5.9 V8.

[MarshPhantom]

E24man said:

MarshPhantom said:

You seem to keep choosing to ignore the big problem with the 850, it's weight. Rather than the (still rather lame for a 5 litre V12) power output.

Oh dear, you seem unable to read because...

yesterday E24man said:

I agree the 300bhp might seem underwhelming now and the E31 chassis and body was far too heavy for that power but year by year and like for like with valves it stands in good stead with the Mercedes M120 and M137 V12 engines.

MarshPhantom said:

The contemporary AMG W124 was pushing out 380bhp from a 5.9 V8.

...and it was very rare car with almost single figure numbers made whereas its contemporary, the Alpina B10 Bi-Turbo was pushing out 360bhp from a 3.5litre straight six, was made in the hundreds, and was quicker, perhaps due to it's lighter weight #oh the irony ....

Just give up.

The E31 850Ci wasn't quick for its time but that wasn't due to it's mid-1980's developed engine; BMW and Mercedes have always slugged it out and at the pointy end (BMW ///M, Alpina and AMG) they are too close to call. I have said the E31 was too heavy but you are unable to read properly and missed it so you continue to slate the engine despite the fact the car was very popular across the world.

The rest of the BMW and Mercedes engines matched each other shot for shot but again, you won't ever see it, perhaps because you don't read properly.

You should give up. You've gone from comparing 5.0V8s with 5.0v12s, now your comparing twin turbo engines with N/A ones.

[MarshPhantom]

helix402 said:

I think maybe someone read this poor article:


https://www.google.co.uk/amp/jalopnik.com/the-8-se...


I was once a passenger in an E31 at an indicated 162mph. Not bad for an underpowered overweight car.

And my own car is capable of 150mph +, not bad for a 27 year old 3 litre N/A Sixpot.

[MarshPhantom]

Yes, you clearly don't take criticism of the 850 very well.