G-TECH/G Meter
- Thread starter Peerzy
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It isn't an Automatic. The only verified time I have is 6.7 seconds, in the wet, from Autocar when they road tested the car with a Racelogic Vbox as part of its original road test. I suspect the real time is about there.
I think the standing quarter had a trap speed of 99mph or something. I'll see if its saved the results.
Because your Saab is Turbocharged, the quicker rate in the change of acceleration makes it feel faster. The BMW is far, far more linear in its power delivery.
It's not, though. Mine actually weighs closer to 1550kg as (Yes, yes, I know
) I've weighed it. There isn't much in it at all.
An auto will be even slower, fact.
Lol, so even though my Saab has the same peak power but at lower revs and much more torque across a wider range the BMW is 'more linear' pull the other one fox. Also the BMW is rear wheel drive so will have more transmission loss, therefore the Saab has more whp.
[TW]Fox;17045536 said:
Lol, so even though my Saab has the same peak power but at lower revs and much more torque across a wider range the BMW is 'more linear' pull the other one fox. Also the BMW is rear wheel drive so will have more transmission loss, therefore the Saab has more whp.
Last edited:
Yes, linear = straight. The BMW will have a straighter torque/power curve because of the way the engine delivers its power.
[TW]Fox;17045536 said:It's not, though. Mine actually weighs closer to 1550kg as (Yes, yes, I know
Did you weigh a 330 useing the same process? I ask because I just want to check your not comparing your own figures with that of the official figures (if that is where you are getting the 330's from?) for the 330 but disregarding them for the 5 series.
An auto will be even slower, fact.
Lol, so even though my Saab has the same peak power but at lower revs and much more torque across a wider range the BMW is 'more linear' pull the other one fox. Also the BMW is rear wheel drive so will have more transmission loss, therefore the Saab has more whp.
Maybe go and look up linear in the dictionary
[TW]Fox;17045835 said:Maybe go and look up linear in the dictionary
Maybe you should go look at the power graphs for both and see the shape of the curves is pretty much the same except the Saab is lower.
Also in gear acceleration times such as 40-70 not much will touch a Saab.
I was about the same question. It seems most people cater for either Android or the iPhone, doesn't appear to be much around for WinMo.
I too rate a car on artificial parameters. A cars 54-71 in 5th is the up most important characteristic in any car I judge.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,683
I have tried a couple of these apps using the weight from a weigh bridge and they said my car could do 0-60 in 6.1-6.3 seconds which isn't going to happen unless I do it down a hill.
I have also used a Racelogic GPS Drift Box and it gave a 0-60 time of 6.5 the same time the magazine reviews give which should be the case as most use the Racelogic Drift Box to do the timing.
A difference of 0.2-0.4 isn't bad in the grand scheme of things considering the price difference. I have also used Vagcom to do a timed run which has access to the ECUs speed datablock which is within 1mph of GPS and it gave a time of 6.6 seconds I suspect this is slightly slower as the refresh rate isn't as high as GPS.
I have also used a Racelogic GPS Drift Box and it gave a 0-60 time of 6.5 the same time the magazine reviews give which should be the case as most use the Racelogic Drift Box to do the timing.
A difference of 0.2-0.4 isn't bad in the grand scheme of things considering the price difference. I have also used Vagcom to do a timed run which has access to the ECUs speed datablock which is within 1mph of GPS and it gave a time of 6.6 seconds I suspect this is slightly slower as the refresh rate isn't as high as GPS.
You sound like someone who is constantly beaten away from the lights
"yeah but I would have had him from 54-71"
I have owned both, I know which is quicker.
I suspect what you actually know is which felt quickest. Unless you took them both out and timed them, obviously. Thats the thing with turbocharged cars, the style of power delivery is such that you get a real kick which you wont get from a normally aspirated car. This is what makes them seem often much faster than cars which in reality they are not hugely quicker than.
It's also why people in Golf diesels think they have a fast car.
The mind judges the rate of change in acceleration - which is very quick - to be actual acceleration.
I've no idea which is quicker, the Saab is 20bhp more powerful so I'd not be shocked if it was slightly quicker but that isnt what you said, you said it made your 330 'seem' gutless.
Whilst it might make it 'seem' gutless, it absolutely isn't. Compared to a Porsche 911 perhaps but not a Saab 9-5.
The BMW needed to be revved to make it go, it only really started to pull after 4500rpm, the Saab will pull from below 2000 rpm. Also it's not just the quick sensation, the Saab has kept up with a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo 3 and a few Subaru Impreza's, obviously not from standing starts.
I also have an Integra to use, and even though it doesn't feel that quick I know it would beat the BMW and probably about match the Saab.
I also have an Integra to use, and even though it doesn't feel that quick I know it would beat the BMW and probably about match the Saab.
If it only really pulled above 4500rpm then the vanos oil seals were excessively worn. This therefore explains why it felt so gutless. It should pull cleanly and hard from much much lower.
Sadly almost all older 330s are affected by this to some degree but most owners don't even realise and assume that's just what the car is like.
Sadly almost all older 330s are affected by this to some degree but most owners don't even realise and assume that's just what the car is like.