What is happening at EVO magazine?
Discussion
cerb4.5lee said:
A heavy kerbweight can kill performance I reckon(initially anyway).
That's where torque comes in - greater torque definitely FEELS like it gets a big car moving quicker, and a fatter torque curve almost certainly is in real life too.
...so for barges (& indeed modern "sports cars" - 1700kg BMW M2 take a step forwards), torque is now almost essential.
havoc said:
1) People are lazy?
Nat-asp petrols are very 'old school' - you have to work them more (vs a turbo diesel especially) and very few people outside our community understand rev limits and gearing - get them to drive a TDi and a n/a petrol back to back and they'll say the diesel is quicker because it shoves harder (rate of change of torque) and it picks up earlier in the rev range. Usually utter tosh (if you drive the cars properly), but that's the perception.
2) People care about visible spend - a n/a petrol costs more to run week-in / week-out. So a diesel also feels cheaper (despite usually costing more to buy). Until something goes wrong and needs fixing, but again most people have blind spots about that sort of thing. (For reference, on big miles a diesel IS cheaper, and on small miles it might be slightly cheaper if nothing goes wrong (:cough: DPF))
3) ...and most importantly, emissions regs. The way emissions regs are set favours lower-revving engines AND favours automated boxes over manuals. It's quite telling that a n/a petrol will have proportionately a much worse emissions figure but a much closer actual mpg figure. Emissions regs are what has killed n/a petrols, otherwise Ferrari, Porsche et. al. (Honda?!?) would all still be offering them.
I enjoy an appropriately sized petrol and wringing it's neck but mid sized (by which I mean 2.5 - maybe 3.5) litre engines in "ordinary" modern cars, by which I mean 1400 - 1900KG, offer a totally crap performance to economy/emissions/tax ratio, that's why they died. They're particularly unenjoyable with the inevitable cuckbox that gets fitted. A 3.0 six putting out 250bhp at 6500RPM in a 1.7 ton car? Nah I'm good thanks. Nat-asp petrols are very 'old school' - you have to work them more (vs a turbo diesel especially) and very few people outside our community understand rev limits and gearing - get them to drive a TDi and a n/a petrol back to back and they'll say the diesel is quicker because it shoves harder (rate of change of torque) and it picks up earlier in the rev range. Usually utter tosh (if you drive the cars properly), but that's the perception.
2) People care about visible spend - a n/a petrol costs more to run week-in / week-out. So a diesel also feels cheaper (despite usually costing more to buy). Until something goes wrong and needs fixing, but again most people have blind spots about that sort of thing. (For reference, on big miles a diesel IS cheaper, and on small miles it might be slightly cheaper if nothing goes wrong (:cough: DPF))
3) ...and most importantly, emissions regs. The way emissions regs are set favours lower-revving engines AND favours automated boxes over manuals. It's quite telling that a n/a petrol will have proportionately a much worse emissions figure but a much closer actual mpg figure. Emissions regs are what has killed n/a petrols, otherwise Ferrari, Porsche et. al. (Honda?!?) would all still be offering them.
Stick the same engine in a Z4 or SLK with a manual gearbox and I'm all ears though.
Time and vehicle weights just left them behind I think. If you're going to bend over for mid 20s MPG and £700 a year RFL you want something a bit more rewarding than the mid sized petrol engine, particularly as the six pot diesels have been so acceptable for ages.
I feel a bit sick for defending soot chuckers saying that now
GeniusOfLove said:
I enjoy an appropriately sized petrol and wringing it's neck but mid sized (by which I mean 2.5 - maybe 3.5) litre engines in "ordinary" modern cars, by which I mean 1400 - 1900KG, offer a totally crap performance to economy/emissions/tax ratio, that's why they died. They're particularly unenjoyable with the inevitable cuckbox that gets fitted. A 3.0 six putting out 250bhp at 6500RPM in a 1.7 ton car? Nah I'm good thanks.
Stick the same engine in a Z4 or SLK with a manual gearbox and I'm all ears though.
Time and vehicle weights just left them behind I think. If you're going to bend over for mid 20s MPG and £700 a year RFL you want something a bit more rewarding than the mid sized petrol engine, particularly as the six pot diesels have been so acceptable for ages.
I feel a bit sick for defending soot chuckers saying that now
See my post above - I don't disagree at all, except that a V6 turbo or I6 turbo petrol with 300+bhp and similar torque is now your friend. V8 or V8 turbo would still be preferable, but these tend to be "premium" products and come with too-stiff suspension*, aggressive bodykits, and oversized alloys designed to last all the way until you hit your first pothole.Stick the same engine in a Z4 or SLK with a manual gearbox and I'm all ears though.
Time and vehicle weights just left them behind I think. If you're going to bend over for mid 20s MPG and £700 a year RFL you want something a bit more rewarding than the mid sized petrol engine, particularly as the six pot diesels have been so acceptable for ages.
I feel a bit sick for defending soot chuckers saying that now
* A heavier, luxuriously-specced car is NOT a trackday toy or a B-road weapon. Don't try to kid us that it is and don't, please FFS don't, try chasing lap-times with it. Make it into a family-GT with continent crushing ability and a sensible ride/grip/composure compromise.
havoc said:
* A heavier, luxuriously-specced car is NOT a trackday toy or a B-road weapon. Don't try to kid us that it is and don't, please FFS don't, try chasing lap-times with it. Make it into a family-GT with continent crushing ability and a sensible ride/grip/composure compromise.
Are you talking new M2? I think it's pretty good on B roads. And as I said earlier, I like the engine characteristics except the short range between visits to the filling station. I know I'm older now, but I wouldn't go back to earlier generations of naturally aspirated M cars which I enjoyed at the time, lighter or not. Mine is manual to give a bit of driver engagement.waremark said:
Are you talking new M2? I think it's pretty good on B roads. And as I said earlier, I like the engine characteristics except the short range between visits to the filling station. I know I'm older now, but I wouldn't go back to earlier generations of naturally aspirated M cars which I enjoyed at the time, lighter or not. Mine is manual to give a bit of driver engagement.
I was more thinking Audi RS, M5 (& M4 maybe) - that sort of size.The M2 is an anomaly - it SHOULD be good on B-roads and track because of where it's pitched in the market, but near-1,700kg and the (size of the) chassis from the M4 count against it, and it's still got this horrible penchant for huge alloys and over-stiff suspension (the latter because of 1,700kg I'm sure).
(Can you imagine the consumables bill if you ran one on trackdays semi-regularly?!?
)[quote=daveco]
They did a 1 page review of E46 330d coupe - like the petrol counterpart it got 4.5 stars. They were very impressed with it.
Autocar also reviewed a remapped version of the same car (still covered by BMW's warranty at the time) and were also very impressed with it.
Autocar gave the E46 330ci 5 stars iirc
Thanks, can you recall any issue dates ?
One of my sons 2004 330d, scarce 6 speed car.
They did a 1 page review of E46 330d coupe - like the petrol counterpart it got 4.5 stars. They were very impressed with it.
Autocar also reviewed a remapped version of the same car (still covered by BMW's warranty at the time) and were also very impressed with it.
Autocar gave the E46 330ci 5 stars iirc
Thanks, can you recall any issue dates ?
One of my sons 2004 330d, scarce 6 speed car.
SS427 Camaro said:
daveco said:
They did a 1 page review of E46 330d coupe - like the petrol counterpart it got 4.5 stars. They were very impressed with it.
Autocar also reviewed a remapped version of the same car (still covered by BMW's warranty at the time) and were also very impressed with it.
Autocar gave the E46 330ci 5 stars iirc
Thanks, can you recall any issue dates ? Autocar also reviewed a remapped version of the same car (still covered by BMW's warranty at the time) and were also very impressed with it.
Autocar gave the E46 330ci 5 stars iirc
One of my sons 2004 330d, scarce 6 speed car.
The Autocar ones are further up thread
Edited by s m on Sunday 24th March 00:44
s m said:
If you did mean the diesel ( prompted by SOTW maybe ), here’s the Autocar test for the 184bhp version
As mentioned, they did a quick notes review of the 204bhp version and here’s the times for the remapped one
A remap takes it from 2.8 Capri acceleration to the ton to a much higher level
Thanks S M & all of the other replies, that DMS article is exactly what I’m looking for ! Our 330D is well down on power, turbo is new and the ( electric ) actuator is working, it needs looking at by a specialist in tuning diesels. As mentioned, they did a quick notes review of the 204bhp version and here’s the times for the remapped one
A remap takes it from 2.8 Capri acceleration to the ton to a much higher level
I used to buy EVO magazine, but got bored with the repetitive nature of the text. and to some extent the photography/images.
I picked one up recently, after a gap of years, between reading the last copy, I ever read.
Guess what? it was exactly the same, despite years of progress being made on the cars themselves that they were reviewing.
Now I regard it, as more or less a comic, where like a kid, I just look at the pictures, and ignore the text.
I picked one up recently, after a gap of years, between reading the last copy, I ever read.
Guess what? it was exactly the same, despite years of progress being made on the cars themselves that they were reviewing.
Now I regard it, as more or less a comic, where like a kid, I just look at the pictures, and ignore the text.
SS427 Camaro said:
s m said:
If you did mean the diesel ( prompted by SOTW maybe ), here’s the Autocar test for the 184bhp version
As mentioned, they did a quick notes review of the 204bhp version and here’s the times for the remapped one
A remap takes it from 2.8 Capri acceleration to the ton to a much higher level
Thanks S M & all of the other replies, that DMS article is exactly what I’m looking for ! Our 330D is well down on power, turbo is new and the ( electric ) actuator is working, it needs looking at by a specialist in tuning diesels. As mentioned, they did a quick notes review of the 204bhp version and here’s the times for the remapped one
A remap takes it from 2.8 Capri acceleration to the ton to a much higher level
Pan Pan Pan said:
I used to buy EVO magazine, but got bored with the repetitive nature of the text. and to some extent the photography/images.
I picked one up recently, after a gap of years, between reading the last copy, I ever read.
Guess what? it was exactly the same, despite years of progress being made on the cars themselves that they were reviewing.
Now I regard it, as more or less a comic, where like a kid, I just look at the pictures, and ignore the text.
I picked one up recently, after a gap of years, between reading the last copy, I ever read.
Guess what? it was exactly the same, despite years of progress being made on the cars themselves that they were reviewing.
Now I regard it, as more or less a comic, where like a kid, I just look at the pictures, and ignore the text.
In late 2019, someone on here very kindly gave me 5 odd boxes stuffed full of early EVO, I’ve only just started on some of them !
greenarrow said:
SS427 Camaro said:
s m said:
If you did mean the diesel ( prompted by SOTW maybe ), here’s the Autocar test for the 184bhp version
As mentioned, they did a quick notes review of the 204bhp version and here’s the times for the remapped one
A remap takes it from 2.8 Capri acceleration to the ton to a much higher level
Thanks S M & all of the other replies, that DMS article is exactly what I’m looking for ! Our 330D is well down on power, turbo is new and the ( electric ) actuator is working, it needs looking at by a specialist in tuning diesels. As mentioned, they did a quick notes review of the 204bhp version and here’s the times for the remapped one
A remap takes it from 2.8 Capri acceleration to the ton to a much higher level
Edited by s m on Tuesday 26th March 07:32
SS427 Camaro said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I used to buy EVO magazine, but got bored with the repetitive nature of the text. and to some extent the photography/images.
I picked one up recently, after a gap of years, between reading the last copy, I ever read.
Guess what? it was exactly the same, despite years of progress being made on the cars themselves that they were reviewing.
Now I regard it, as more or less a comic, where like a kid, I just look at the pictures, and ignore the text.
I picked one up recently, after a gap of years, between reading the last copy, I ever read.
Guess what? it was exactly the same, despite years of progress being made on the cars themselves that they were reviewing.
Now I regard it, as more or less a comic, where like a kid, I just look at the pictures, and ignore the text.
In late 2019, someone on here very kindly gave me 5 odd boxes stuffed full of early EVO, I’ve only just started on some of them !
greenarrow said:
Cool! I sold my collection in 2014, I had every issue back then, but am now suffering sellers remorse. I wish I had kept the first 2 years worth of production as 1) These for me were the greatest years of EVO and 2) they featured so many of the cars I love from that era which are now modern classics, ah well.
Agreed re the early issues ! Anything fast up to circa 2005 are mainly where my interest is, particularly the Clio RS182, early Cooper S, E46 M3, Maserati 4200GT ( had a long test drive in one in late 19, but the old boy in Devon was dreaming re his £ price, so we walked. 
SS427 Camaro said:
greenarrow said:
Cool! I sold my collection in 2014, I had every issue back then, but am now suffering sellers remorse. I wish I had kept the first 2 years worth of production as 1) These for me were the greatest years of EVO and 2) they featured so many of the cars I love from that era which are now modern classics, ah well.
Agreed re the early issues ! Anything fast up to circa 2005 are mainly where my interest is, particularly the Clio RS182, early Cooper S, E46 M3, Maserati 4200GT ( had a long test drive in one in late 19, but the old boy in Devon was dreaming re his £ price, so we walked. Pan Pan Pan said:
Evo is like trying to describe how good a steak is, using pictures and words, This in turn is nothing like tasting the real thing. There is also the fact that their writers get to test all the nice cars, and are probably better drivers than many of us could hope to be. but they nevertheless can still be subjective at times, and of course pictures, and words, still doesn't match the `taste' of the real thing!
So, just like all magazines have been forever.... yet it was better 'in the old days'.... 'twas ever thus 
trackdemon said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
Evo is like trying to describe how good a steak is, using pictures and words, This in turn is nothing like tasting the real thing. There is also the fact that their writers get to test all the nice cars, and are probably better drivers than many of us could hope to be. but they nevertheless can still be subjective at times, and of course pictures, and words, still doesn't match the `taste' of the real thing!
So, just like all magazines have been forever.... yet it was better 'in the old days'.... 'twas ever thus Hardly surprising really as we all like subtly different things in a car - I do enjoy reading them and find they are a useful guide as to which cars I might like to try
Always best to get in a car yourself ( if you can ) to try it……otherwise it’s someone else’s view
s m said:
I don’t think people pay much real attention to the majority of car journos …. Usually only a select few they prefer ….but even then they can be at odds or disagree with those opinions.
I used to listen to car journos quite a lot years ago, and I'd generally go with their opinions. Although I've changed my mind on that since though. I'm a big fan of Chris Harris for example, and he absolutely sung the praises of his E92 M3, and that pushed me into wanting/getting one. However I personally thought that it was pretty crap as a daily driver though, because it felt heavy at low speeds, lacked performance at low revs, and it got through fuel at the same rate whether you went fast or slow in it. Plus the brakes were garbage even just on the road for example for me.
Also, Chris Harris did nothing but absolutely slate the 370Z, whereas I'm 5 years in with mine and I still love it. So basically all that proves it that we're all individual, and we all like different things. Plus the only way to get to know a car is to live with it. So reading a review of a car, or listening to someones opinion is a waste of time really, because only "you" can make your own mind up about a car I think.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff