The RE: AC Schnitzer creates even hotter M135i
Discussion
The Spruce goose said:
Urban Sports said:
I doubt the 'crowd' have driven it.
never stopped people from commenting on cars.the point was the car is ugly and most agree. it is hard to make one look nicer.
Thing is, most of the 'crowd' dont have the same freakish 'image' issues. The 'crowd' are not just obsessing on the roundel and by that alone deciding 'its in the club' and therefore amazing.
Because its not.
This horror is so ugly it even offends people with their backs to it.
Pistonwot said:
Setting it on fire would be the best place to start.
Thing is, most of the 'crowd' dont have the same freakish 'image' issues. The 'crowd' are not just obsessing on the roundel and by that alone deciding 'its in the club' and therefore amazing.
Because its not.
This horror is so ugly it even offends people with their backs to it.
it is the old adage, blonde but stupid or ulgy but a personality.Thing is, most of the 'crowd' dont have the same freakish 'image' issues. The 'crowd' are not just obsessing on the roundel and by that alone deciding 'its in the club' and therefore amazing.
Because its not.
This horror is so ugly it even offends people with their backs to it.
The Spruce goose said:
Pistonwot said:
Setting it on fire would be the best place to start.
Thing is, most of the 'crowd' dont have the same freakish 'image' issues. The 'crowd' are not just obsessing on the roundel and by that alone deciding 'its in the club' and therefore amazing.
Because its not.
This horror is so ugly it even offends people with their backs to it.
it is the old adage, blonde but stupid or ulgy but a personality.Thing is, most of the 'crowd' dont have the same freakish 'image' issues. The 'crowd' are not just obsessing on the roundel and by that alone deciding 'its in the club' and therefore amazing.
Because its not.
This horror is so ugly it even offends people with their backs to it.
te.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that, but seriously, I really like the look of these (the standard car, not this version). I was sat across from a BMW dealership having lunch watching the sales reps heading in and out in various colours/guises and the cars looked great. From a distance the front can be mistaken for an F10 series, which isn't a bad thing IMO. I think cars that really divide opinion when they are launched can only get better looking over time, as people become used to seeing them. A car that is instantly great looking will only get less interesting and begin to look dated.
Standard M135 in estoril blue with a set of satin black BBS CH for me.
Standard M135 in estoril blue with a set of satin black BBS CH for me.
Pistonwot said:
Setting it on fire would be the best place to start.
Thing is, most of the 'crowd' dont have the same freakish 'image' issues. The 'crowd' are not just obsessing on the roundel and by that alone deciding 'its in the club' and therefore amazing.
Because its not.
This horror is so ugly it even offends people with their backs to it.
Mine does not offend me, whether I have my back to it or not. It's not a very pretty car, but it is not offensive and it is fantastic at what it does.Thing is, most of the 'crowd' dont have the same freakish 'image' issues. The 'crowd' are not just obsessing on the roundel and by that alone deciding 'its in the club' and therefore amazing.
Because its not.
This horror is so ugly it even offends people with their backs to it.
Sorry but I am going to have to go with "the crowd" here and say this thing is as ugly as sin but it's not really Schnitzer's fault tbh. The 1 series must be one of the ugliest cars to be released in the past decade. BMW had a chance to make it better with the recent facelift and they still haven't, why this even got approval from the design committee is beyond me. Shame as the engine\drivetrain is superb, which is why I drive a 335i 
Baaahhhhhhhh!
Baaahhhhhhhh!
Guvernator said:
Sorry but I am going to have to go with "the crowd" here and say this thing is as ugly as sin but it's not really Schnitzer's fault tbh. The 1 series must be one of the ugliest cars to be released in the past decade. BMW had a chance to make it better with the recent facelift and they still haven't, why this even got approval from the design committee is beyond me. Shame as the engine\drivetrain is superb, which is why I drive a 335i
Baaahhhhhhhh!
The worst thing is they made the new one even more ugly...Baaahhhhhhhh!
Bladedancer said:
"The firm reckons that its power hike hasn't affected the amazingly low 188g/km CO2 figure (equating to 35mpg)."
Ok, I'm having problems processing this. How does CO2 figure "equate" to fuel consumption?
well, CO2 is a direct product of burning petrol... and if you are not runnning really rich mixtures (giving you excessive ammounts of CO instead of CO2) then there is a direct link between CO2 g/km and l/km (mpg).. the more fuel you burn, more CO2 you produce.. Ok, I'm having problems processing this. How does CO2 figure "equate" to fuel consumption?
kikiturbo said:
well, CO2 is a direct product of burning petrol... and if you are not runnning really rich mixtures (giving you excessive ammounts of CO instead of CO2) then there is a direct link between CO2 g/km and l/km (mpg).. the more fuel you burn, more CO2 you produce..
If one was to look at it this way, all CO2 figures are meaningless as they would only work for manufacturer-provided MPG figures, which assume certain driving conditions, fuel quality etc etc.In this case your CO2 figure would depend on your driving style and someone driving a 1.2 litre round 4k RPM should pay more car tax than me cruising at 2k RPM in my 3 litre.
CO2 values are not provided in a range but fixed figure. It is no doubt averaged in some magic way (to make it totally irrelevant and meaningless) but I always wondered how they arrive at that number.
Take this:
A car does 8 litres per 100km (35MPG).
If 8 litres = 100 km then 1 km = 0,08 litre
Gasoline density is 0,75 kg/l = 750g/l
If 750g = 1 litre then 0,08 litre = 60g
Therefore, 1 km = 60g of fuel.
So according to this 60g of fuel turns into round 200 or so g of CO2?
CO2 isn't the only product of burning fuel...
Bladedancer said:
So according to this 60g of fuel turns into round 200 or so g of CO2?
CO2 isn't the only product of burning fuel...
you are forgetting that it is not fuel alone that is burning inside the engine, but air/fuel mixture... and at stochiometric ratio, that most engines try to run as much as possible (due to cat efficiency), you have 14.7 times more air (by mass) then fuel in the mix.. CO2 isn't the only product of burning fuel...
also, as far as I see... official CO2 figure is always related to mixed fuel consumption... but I can check if you like..
kikiturbo said:
you are forgetting that it is not fuel alone that is burning inside the engine, but air/fuel mixture... and at stochiometric ratio, that most engines try to run as much as possible (due to cat efficiency), you have 14.7 times more air (by mass) then fuel in the mix..
also, as far as I see... official CO2 figure is always related to mixed fuel consumption... but I can check if you like..
I'm not forgetting anything.also, as far as I see... official CO2 figure is always related to mixed fuel consumption... but I can check if you like..
You take oxygen from the air and burn carbohydrates in the fuel. You get energy, CO2, water and various nitrus oxides.
Unless you're counting CO2 that gets into the engine in the air, you can only get CO2 only by burning carbs in the fuel, so in those 60 grams.
Furthermore, combustion is not 100% effective, so instead of getting just CO2 you get CO and other things (like Acetaldehyde, depending on fuel used)
If (mass wise) carbon is about 27% of mass of CO2, so 60 grams of pure carbon would give you over 220 grams of CO2 in perfect combustion. But those 60 grams are not pure carbon but something more like C8H18 or CH4.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff