A fast & fun eco cruiser - A paradox?

[TW]Fox · 29 Oct 2016 at 09:40

Dis86 said:
That's not entirely true. My 328i did 0 to 60 in a measured 5.7 seconds. There are others online who show it at as little as 5.4.
That's about a second faster than the much lighter and very slightly more powerful focus st which is recored as around 6.5s.

To be fair the 328i was probably never just 245bhp.

NVP · 29 Oct 2016 at 09:43

Again, thanks for all the replies

233 said:
x35d or x40d in whatever car takes your fancy.

or if your budget stretches and you can live with 35mpg get a m50d, cracking motors

I think this is my option, the 640d gc most likely. I could live with 35mpg if it was worth it, but not with an X5.

SoliD said:
Early Hybrid Panamera is a hateful engine combination on noise alone. The V6 diesel is less offensive.

Oh really? That's a shame. What year were they revised?

Havana_UK said:
If you really want a nice petrol engine but don't want rubbish economy then you could look at the M135i, M235i or 335i, 435i option. Maybe they're all a bit small for your needs, but driven gently they are surprisingly frugal engines, yet have bags of power on tap when you want it.

I'm afraid I prefer the larger car due to size but also build and spec

Pyscho_Si said:
For a petrol option although I am first to admit it won't be as engaging as a BMW is the Lexus GS450h. 350bhp, 0-60 in 5.5 and 155mph. I can get mine to about 50mpg on a good run sticking to the speed limits and my weekly average on my 90 mile a day commute is about 43mpg.

Hmmm as a BMW lover I doubt I'd be happy but perhaps they are worth a test drive at least. Thank you. Is the GS the larger Lexus or is that the LS? I can never remember.

grudas said:
Alpina? Not sure if newer ones have suspension upgrades etc but something to look into

I've never been a fan of alpina I'm afraid, especially those wheels

do they do larger alpina still? I admit I don't know much about them anymore.

NVP · 29 Oct 2016 at 09:45

[TW]Fox;30155807 said:
It will be a combination of both the older engine and the gearbox with a bit of how you drive too.

Thanks

so taking an educated guess, if I average 34 in the older car could I reach over 40 in a 640d driving the same way?

Alibaba99 · 29 Oct 2016 at 09:54

Jez said:
It's he gearboxes and features like launch control, not the power, which make them look much quicker than they sort of actually are. The 0-60 times are not lies though, we just need to understand as "car guys" to combine the 0-60 with the gearbox tech, or to be honest just disregard it. You can easily tell how fast a car will be from the product of its power and mass...

Also the engine location, type of drive (front, rear, 4wd) and the gearing. The 118bhp Elise S1 would match the equivalent K series powered Caterham to 60 despite weighing around 200kg more, due to better traction.

Two identical cars, but 1 geared to 58 in 2nd and the other capable of 62 will have quite different 0-60 times but very similar 0-70. It's why cars are frequently supplied to magazines with the largest optional wheels as it raises the gearing slightly.

[TW]Fox;30155807 said:
It will be a combination of both the older engine and the gearbox with a bit of how you drive too.

Driving style can have a significant effect on fuel economy, a good 10%+ if one driver is aggressive compared to someone who anticipates the traffic.

Holst1981 · 29 Oct 2016 at 10:03

Im assuming that a tesla model s is out of budget.

pcoltrane · 29 Oct 2016 at 10:13

[TW]Fox;30155785 said:
It is also the only routinely published performance measure by manufacturers so there isn't much else for comparison.

It wasn't what I was thinking of abyway, however he thrn asked for the 'stats'. Fortunately I've driven a vRS which also helps me to form an opinion on performance.

Power output and weight are also routinely published.

It's simply not 'considerably quicker' by any objective measure whether you've driven both or not.

Joe T · 29 Oct 2016 at 10:36

Published weights can be an issue, as they methodology varies. Wet, dry, kerb, with driver, etc. And some manufacturer's dont publish anything at all. I wonder if it's time for a proper standard measurement?

Dis86 · 29 Oct 2016 at 10:53

[TW]Fox;30155808 said:
To be fair the 328i was probably never just 245bhp.

Yeah. I often wondered about that too. The power curve published by BMW is VERY interesting.

It hits 245 and stops dead. Something that in reality is impossible. It's almost like they were hiding something with it but I'm honestly not sure why.

[TW]Fox · 29 Oct 2016 at 13:08

pcoltrane said:
Power output and weight are also routinely published.

It's simply not 'considerably quicker' by any objective measure whether you've driven both or not.

You are not even referring to the correct car anyway (nobody has mentioned a 530i). Pop out and drive both and if you still feel the same way we can have an informed discussion on why we feel differently about it.

Peak power is only part of what dictates a cars performance. There are many other factors including the transmission, gearing, torque curve etc.

That said though the 530i is an interesting case in point. Slower than a 528i yet more powerful and exactly the same weight.

Lokken86 · 29 Oct 2016 at 13:36

[TW]Fox;30155240 said:
258bhp, 0-60 5.8, 155mph.

Is that for the 530i?

Joe T · 29 Oct 2016 at 14:02

Lokken86 said:
Is that for the 530i?

I'm pretty sure that's his 530d he's talking about there.

chaparral · 29 Oct 2016 at 14:35

Dis86 said:
That's not entirely true. My 328i did 0 to 60 in a measured 5.7 seconds. There are others online who show it at as little as 5.4.
That's about a second faster than the much lighter and very slightly more powerful focus st which is recored as around 6.5s.

Rear wheel drive vs front wheel drive will effect 0-60 time by a fair almount
As Front wheel drive cars can't get much power down the same as a rear wheel drive car can on take off with out lots of wheel spinning..

It the same as 600cc 125hp motorbikes have about the same 0-60 times as 1000cc 180hp motorbikes as they can't get that much power down at low speeds and take off there all around 3 seconds....

Reason why I replied with this post above

chaparral said:
I think they should stop showing the 0-60 times with the much more powerful engines available these days in so many cars and change to something like 0-100mph

Most important times are the ones when the car already moving IE 50 to 70mph

It like my RX8 0-60mph is rated at the exact same as my Focus ST

There no way can believe my RX8 would have the same 50 to 100mph times as my focus ST as the ST in gear acceleration feels far far faster ..

Dis86 · 29 Oct 2016 at 15:04

Aye, but that's because my that point your apex seals would melt and you'd fire a bearing out the exhaust!

chaparral · 29 Oct 2016 at 15:25

Dis86 said:
Aye, but that's because my that point your apex seals would melt and you'd fire a bearing out the exhaust!

I should have said "My Ex RX8" it went to the scrap yard 2+ months ago.....

pcoltrane · 29 Oct 2016 at 16:36

[TW]Fox;30156282 said:
You are not even referring to the correct car anyway (nobody has mentioned a 530i). Pop out and drive both and if you still feel the same way we can have an informed discussion on why we feel differently about it.

Peak power is only part of what dictates a cars performance. There are many other factors including the transmission, gearing, torque curve etc.

That said though the 530i is an interesting case in point. Slower than a 528i yet more powerful and exactly the same weight.

I have driven both the vRS Octavia and the 530d. A heavier car with all that low down torque will no doubt feel quicker on the road, but that doesn't actually make it quicker in reality.

I'm lucky enough to spend my weekends racing and testing and racing a wide variety of cars. What's always surprising is when you look at telemetry how that perception often isnt borne out in cold hard figures.
For example a recent comparison between a 65 mustang (400bhp, 1200kg) and a 69 escort twin cam (170bhp, 800kg) both in touring car spec, not only is the escort significantly quicker in terms of lap time, but when you check acceleration on the telemetry there is surprisingly little in it. Which feels quicker? The mustang massively so.

Thats not to say that the Octavia is better than the 530d (it isn't). The bmw may also be quicker I'm certain circumstances (0-60, in gear acceleration) but overall is it 'considerably quicker'? Almost certainly not. That's the extent of the point I was trying to make.

[TW]Fox · 29 Oct 2016 at 17:07

Alright, 'noticeably' then. These are subjective terms so I am not sure we are going to get anywhere. You even thought we were talking about a 530i for half the discussion

(And I would broadly agree ref the 530i)

Nasher · 29 Oct 2016 at 17:19

The diesels are "fast" in a straight line, but not very fun TBH. Yea you can have 300hp in one but they still don't feel lively, are heavy, don't rev very freely, or sound good compared to petrols.

If you want fun you will have to sacrifice some MPG.

Lokken86 · 29 Oct 2016 at 17:31

I can say from my experience that the car wants to go faster than the 0-60 in 6.6 would suggest. The conditions have to be bone dry and perfect and even so it wheel spins in 2nd a little bit. Once you're in 3rd its fine.

[TW]Fox · 29 Oct 2016 at 18:14

Nasher said:
The diesels are "fast" in a straight line, but not very fun TBH. Yea you can have 300hp in one but they still don't feel lively, are heavy, don't rev very freely, or sound good compared to petrols.

If you want fun you will have to sacrifice some MPG.

This depends entirely on how you derive fun from driving.

The very notion of a 'fast and fun eco cruiser' is that it is a compromise, or it would simply be a 'fast and fun' car. 'Eco' and 'Cruiser' brings with it compromise but you can still enjoy driving these cars.

I had brilliant fun driving my 530d around the Scottish highlands a few weeks ago. It wouldn't have been much, if at all, more fun if it was a petrol one.

Unless it said 'M5' on the back, obviously