04WDPSeDaN

iTrader: (1)

This is true. I'm part of a big BMW enthusiast site, I see this discussed often in these "What did you pay for your xyz" On average most of them get 7-9% off MSRP. I've seen a few say 12% off as well. This is also the case for the Mercedes groups I was apart of when I had the ML Mercedes. Even building these vehicles the way they wanted them, still getting a discount. For myself, I prefer buying a vehicle used (a year old) with CPO warranty. I never cared about owning a vehicle new.

dzionny_dzionassi

Yep, bad tune can kill any engine in no time and injectors are failing on tuned engines due to ethanol. My main gripe is transmission and stupid steering. Other than that it is alot of car for a money.

russianDude

if MSRP goes to 57-60k, I am not sure why someone would not just buy M340i? They need to make it cheaper at least 5-7k than similar m340i to attract buyers.

csmeance

Yep, and it doesn't help when the cust tells the tech they were running a mix of premium and E85 it's a going to be a good car for the $$$, but enthusiasts always want to see success in large leaps and bounds and not in small increments. Hearing A.C.U.R.A Always Catching UP Rarely Ahead from fellow auto enthusiasts really stings when they are right.

fiatlux

Its not going to be $57k-$60k, it’ll be $47k-$50k. If the 2.0T Aspec is halfway between the 2.4 Aspec ($39k) and 3.5 shawd Aspec ($44k) then something like $41k would be fair for they car. Tack on an extra $6k-$8k or so for the type-s, and you’re looking at $47k-$49k.

BEAR-AvHistory

Got the Z4 M40i for 16% off MSRP once all the incentives were added up.

04WDPSeDaN

iTrader: (1)

WOW!

BEAR-AvHistory

Paid just over $59,000 against a $71,000 MSRP so figure someplace between 15% & 16%. Includes BMW loyalty money, BMWFS money, BMWCCA money all of which were rolled into the deal. Does not count a one day all comped hotel, meals, driving school worth about $1200.

Top tier 800 credit dropped the money factor to the base rate they had. Was actually very little haggling due to the virus drying up sales + they don't sell a lot of Z cars & they had this one in stock. First in stock BMW I ever bought. Car was built in late Jan 2020 & plant in Austria shutdown for annual model change 2/21/2020 so it was one of the last 2020's built

Most of the guys on the BMW sites are listing 2 digit discounts.

Legend2TL

IIRC, Honda never even spec'ed a engine for the F1 only Isuzu and BMW. Dennis and Murray wanted a prestigious motor manufacturer with racing pedigree and that wasn't Isuzi.
Murray had worked with Paul Rosche (BMW Motorsport) before when their Brabham/BMW F1 car became the first to win the WDC.
I think BMW already having V12's to use some componentry (VANOS, block) as a basis for the custom V12 also helped BMW.
The BMW solution was slightly overweight by 35lb but also had 627HP more than Murray had spec'ed at 550HP. So Murray felt that was a good compromise

The F1's racing roots didn't end there, the gearbox was a custom made Weissman 6speed transverse transaxle.
Murray had worked with Pete Weissman on many of his F1 racing cars for gearboxes and differentials.

BEAR-AvHistory

Poor mans racing gas. That said you need to be careful of the percentages & stay under 35/40% E85 into 93 octane. New guys can miss the fact that most premium gas can already have as much as 10% (depending on season & state) in their pump gas. Get into the 50%+ mix & above you need specific hardware mods to protect the engine.

My 2011 335 coupe was tuned, JB4/FMIC/Custom Software (410WHPvs319WHP) & 100 octane was available for $7.20 at the pump. Ran a 60/40 93/E85 when it wasn't. Both for track days. DD was a 50/50 mix 93/100 or 70/30 93/E85 running a street oriented program.

04WDPSeDaN

iTrader: (1)

Only one gas station two towns over has 100 octane available. $10 a gallon. Once in a while I get 3-4 gallons worth mixed with 93.

nist7

Here's another luxury sport sedan competitor from the 'Muricans:

2020 CT5-V (non Blackwing edition, obviously), turbo 6 with 360hp/405 torques, claimed 4.6sec 0-60 and MSRP of $48,690+ according to: https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2...ay-test-drive/

The M340i is truly astonishing: Incredibly impressive 0-60 in 3.8 as tested by CD and is only a bit lighter than the CT5-V (3975lbs) at 3800lbs :https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...y-the-numbers/

Even though the TLX-S is down in both hp and tq compared to the CT5-V and the M340i, it'll be interesting to see real world 0-60 times since it will have AWD which should help in this performance metric.

BEAR-AvHistory

I used to go to a station in Cary, NC about 15 miles one way from Raleigh for 100 at the pump. Not sure any of the local stations still carry E85, a lot are pushing 90 no alcohol now. Mine all run the normal 93 premium now & 87 in the truck.

A lot I guess a lot maybe most people are not aware that Turbo cars all run better with alcohol in the gas. Expect the first TLX TT DOHC V6 drivers will discover it when the tuners become available.

JackRydden224

C&D tested the S4 and came out with 4.2 0-60 and 12.8 quarter mile. I believe Acura was using the S4 as the bench mark for the Type S so if the Type S is just as fast but cheaper and more reliable I think they have a winner.

leomio85

Hm, makes me wonder if maybe Acura is underrating their numbers like the Germans because they don't want to put out real figures and not match the Germans. Even the S4, which weighs the same as the M340i, does 0-60 in 4.4s with a claimed 349HP (also underrated). I'm seeing the M340i (xDrive) doing 0-60 in 4.1-4.2s on most sources. C&D did it in 3.8s in the RWD version, surprising seeing as I'd think the AWD would be able to give it an advantage from a dig even with the added weight. C&D did the C43 0-60 in 4.1s. So, maybe after testing, Acura couldn't get the TLX-S to do faster than a 4.3s 0-60 and decided, "Hey, Ikeda-san, lets advertise the numbers at just a tick better than the B9 S4 since the Germans are pulling the same shenanigans and it doesn't make us look bad when we post 405HP and still get beat by the underrated German cars." It'll be interesting ...

As far as the Cadillac ... I do like them, but GM has lost me as a customer. I like domestic products, I really do ... all cars have issues, but the problem is with the dealership network. The domestics basically abandon their customer base after you drive off the lot. My latest issue, although not catastrophic, nearly leaves the car undrivable. Boils down to poor build quality of their ECUs. But the list goes on with issues I've had with them. I was raised to be a "GM guy" and wrenching on cars, I viewed them as better built and engineered compared to the other two domestic companies. I can forgive them for building a cheaper looking and feeling product (tho Cadillac has stepped it up IMO), but they've lost my trust, which I doubt will ever have me purchasing another GM product ever again. People talk about how you should never own a German car out of warranty, and while I generally agree with that sentiment, the Americans are just as guilty. Planned obsolescence is glaringly apparent in their products that go to absolute shit after a handful of years.

Edward'TLS

AWD is not necessary beneficial in accelerating performance in the dry. The additional AWD mechanics are extra dead weight and 2 more active wheels incur extra gearing loss in the form of reduced output hp. Many years back, the Audi A6 was available in FWD and AWD configuration, both with the exact same engine. The 2 cars were tested together, and it was shown that the lighter FWD car beat the heavier AWD car in all accelerating tests in the dry. AWD can only beat the FWD on wet roads.

So it is always an advantage with simple RWD cars with a high output engine, than a FWD/AWD car with comparable output hp, on dry roads.

BEAR-AvHistory

The magazines have stated they emulate a drag strip so guys will know how the car will compete when they do their test. This includes a 1 foot roll-out & a prepared surface. That's why they fine print "1 foot roll-out" on the test results. This does two main things to street cars.

For most street cars depending on horsepower it eliminates the AWD traction advantage so it just winds up carrying the extra weight. Second thing is the 1 foot roll-out will make the cars .2 to .3 quicker to 60mph then they are on the street.

Anyone using a "Dragy" device will get both 0-60MPH times with & without the rollout.

leomio85

Actually, on BMW's website, the M340i (RWD) does the 0-60 in 4.4s while the xDrive does it in 4.1s. Also, the higher up you go in power, the more beneficial AWD would be as opposed to FWD/RWD. For instance, the brute known as the Charger/Challenger Widebody does the 0-60 in 3.8s by C&D. The AWD Trackhawk, with the same engine and adding nearly 800lbs, does the 0-60 in 3.5s. And you'd run that 3.5s 0-60 all day consistently. A poor modulation of your right foot with that RWD and you easily blow your 0-60, 100ft, 1/8 and 1/4 time. I'm sure there are cars that don't see much of an advantage from AWD, if at all, but I think it's too broad to say AWD only beats RWD/FWD in inclement weather.

Edward'TLS

MotorTrend just did a back to back test of both the RWD and the AWD versions of the 2020 443hp Porsche 911 Carrera 4S.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/pors...4s-first-test/

It shows that even at 443hp, the heavier AWD car has no advantage whatsoever against the lighter RWD car, on dry roads. Both cars are tested under the same conditions, at the same time, and by the same driver(s).

fiatlux

If neither car is traction limited, then the AWD system provides no advantage and is just dead weight. The only situation when the AWD car will be faster is if the FWD or RWD car has so much power that it can't put it to the pavement without spinning the wheels. When we talk about acceleration from a standstill, traction is very much limited so yeah an AWD car typically has an advantage. However, that advantage disappears as soon as the FWD/RWD hook ups, and they'll start reel the AWD car in. For 0-60 sprints, there's not enough time for the FWD/RWD car to do so, but when you look at quarter mile times typically the AWD car will have a lower trap speed by virtue of 1) putting down less power to the pavement and 2) being heavier.

And if you look at the MT numbers, that's confirmed: The 4S traps at 121mph while the RWD S traps at 124mph. 0-100 in the 4S is slower than in the RWD S.

fiatlux

One final note: using 0-60 numbers to argue which car is faster is pointless in the real world. These numbers aren't representative of how "fast" the car actually is on a practical basis unless you're at the dragstrip or don't mind replacing the drivetrain and motor mounts ever couple of months. In the real world, the rolling start 5-60mph measurement is a much better indicator of how it'll perform out on the streets.

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/why-0-6...he-real-world/
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cul...60-tests-work/

Edward'TLS

While speaking of traction limited, high-power RWD cars can overcome that easily by slapping on super-wide tires on the 2 drive wheels, while leaving the front wheels with narrower tires for reduced rolling resistance.

Unfortunately, can't do that to high-power FWD cars, since a "super-wide front tires and skinny rear tires" setup will give the FWD car very poor handling, and a "super-wide front and rear tires" setup will bog down the FWD car in accelerating performance.

dmski

Holy molly guys, you have gone down the never ending rabbit hole. It's pretty simple and yes the numbers do matter, otherwise, WTH was the point of developing an exclusive powertrain and bringing back the Type S.

I want to know where this car sits, so yes, 0 to 60 and quarter mile times are important to me even though most likely I will never take the car to a local drag strip. If Im spending $50k plus, I want to know if the car can keep up with its competition or whether it will get dusted. If the latter this is a FAILURE. Stop making excuses.
​​​​​

​​

BEAR-AvHistory

Some stuff you can't mix. 0-60 etc is a time to speed number. A drag race is a time to distance number. You can easily have at better time but a lower speed.

fiatlux

Why care about 0-60 when 5-60 is a much better metric? I'd rather know that my car is faster than the competition in the real world when I mash the gas pedal, regardless of what it's able to do in the perfect optimal situation. In the time it takes for Mr. BMW to engage launch control and go through all the motions to set it up, I'm already halfway down the block, and Mr. Mercedes is two blocks behind still picking up pieces of his differential that exploded after his umpteenth launch.

JackRydden224

This is exactly what I'm at as well. I will never take the car to the drag strip or race anyone but I want to know that the car is capable of keeping up with its rivals. Acura has made a big deal of the Type S combing back with an all new turbocharged engine and it would be kind of pointless if it's going to be slower than the competition. The Q50 Red Sport, Kia Stinger and Genesis G70 all run the mid 4's zero to 60 and low 13's quarter mile and I think it will need to be faster than those 3 to start.

Mak P

Interesting

russianDude

you have logical thinking, numbers by itself dont mean much. BUT, majority of people purchasing “sports” car will be looking at numbers and they will be important to them. You cant argue with numbers, unless the measurement is flawed.

leomio85

That's more the exception than the rule. When you're talking RWD, rear-engine sports cars costing over $100k with tons of traction and launch control features, yes, the system will work very well. Revert back to the real world of most layman's cars that are front engine and the same doesn't hold true. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible for a 2WD vehicle to be just as quick in a 0-60 sprint compared to AWD, but its also inaccurate to say that it doesn't give any advantage in anything but inclement weather.

leomio85

Very interesting read, thank you for posting it.

MGP99999

Even more interesting based on C&D 5-60 numbers:

2018 Honda Accord 2.0T Sport (long-term): 5.9s
2010 Acura TL Manual: 5.8s
2021 Audi S4: 5.7s
2018 Acura RLX Sport Hybrid: 5.7s
2019 Genesis g70 3.3T: 5.2s
2016 Infiniti Q50 Red Sport 400: 5.0s
2018 Kia Stinger GT rwd: 5.0s
2020 BMW M340i: 5.0s
2016 Lexus GS F: 4.7s

Very disappointed in the S4, the Type S hopefully will be at least what the Infiniti is showing and nowhere near the S4.


​​​​​​

fiatlux

The M340i is a perfect example of when a car doesn't feel as fast as the 0-60 would suggest. Don't get me wrong, it's still very very fast and the fastest of the bunch, but if you eliminate launch control from the equation and remove the perfect conditions required to get that number, the gap becomes much smaller. And most importantly, when you drive it, you definitely get a sense that the gap isn't as large as the numbers would suggest. The BMW has my Volvo beat hands down when it comes to 0-60 times, but when I drove it, it actually felt like it accelerated about the same. And wouldn't you know, the 5-60 number tells the same tale: 4.7s for the BMW and 4.8s for the Volvo. Admittedly, the dealer wouldn't let me use launch control on a test drive, but how many times would I be willing to subject my own car to that kind of drivetrain abuse? Probably not many, whereas I wouldn't have any qualms about going WOT on a fairly regular basis. Hence, 5-60 matters more to me than a perfect 0-60 run.

BEAR-AvHistory

Thing you are missing is many of these cars are quicker without LC being engaged. Would be more than happy to demonstrate that if anyone would like to try. That said step on the brake & floor the throttle let go of the brake. No different than power braking in any AT car. Not rocket science nor time consuming.

BEAR-AvHistory

Just looked this up:

C&D says my car will do 5-60 in 4.5 seconds so am not grinding an ax. Don't know where the 5.0 for the M340 came from but this is the most recent C&D test

December 2019 issue of Car and Driver.
C/D TEST RESULTS
BMW M340
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
60 mph: 3.8 sec
100 mph: 9.4 sec
150 mph: 24.6 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.7 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.4 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.9 sec
¼-mile: 12.3 sec @ 114 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 156 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 156 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.96 g

September 2019 issue of Car and Driver
C/D TEST RESULTS
Z M40i
Rollout, 1 ft: 0.3 sec
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.1 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 15.9 sec
Rolling start, 5–60 mph: 4.5 sec
Top gear, 30–50 mph: 2.6 sec
Top gear, 50–70 mph: 2.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.3 sec @ 116 mph
Top speed (governor limited, C/D est): 165 mph
Braking, 70–0 mph: 148 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.02 g

My "Dragy" matches the C&D numbers very closely being 1/10 quicker to 60 & 1/4 mile with the same 1/4 mile speed. Will take C&D numbers as good.

BTW nobody does a rolling start from a traffic light, most are done from 40mph.

fiatlux

Even better then. For 40mph rolling starts, the 0-60 times are even less relevant because unless you're driving something like a Hellcat, traction shouldn't be a factor and it really becomes a matter of trans responsiveness, power-to-weight, and gearing.

Here's a fun little exercise; if you can find a flat freeway onramp when you can safely do 30-70mph pulls and you have an OBD2 monitor, you can compile a pretty interesting list of how fast certain cars are with you behind the wheel. I do it for all my cars because 1) I'm not breaking any speed laws, 2) these aren't times any magazines ever report, 3) this makes up the majority of my WOT situations, and 4) why not? The rolling start means that there's little to no variability between drivers, road conditions, reaction time, etc. It takes all those variables out of the equation and leaves you with a pretty repeatable and driver-agnostic time to compare against. I'd love to know just how fast the Z4 M40i does it to compare it against other cars I'm familiar with. My Z4M did it in about 4.3 seconds.

pyrodan007

I agree for the road conditions, but for driver and reaction time isn't it calculated based on GPS coordinates based on when the car starts moving? As long as you floor it (in the day of very few MT) and road is in good condition with decent weather, shouldn't take away too much from it. That's why averages also count. Rolling start in Denver versus rolling start in LA is not entirely comparable either. I see the 0-60 time as total package efficiency to get things moving.

fiatlux

Of course, elevation, humidity, temperature, etc. all affect performance. That's actually why I also don't like the magazine 0-60 numbers because they apply SAE corrections based on temperature, humidity, altitude, etc. What it all boils down to is the optimal performance under optimal circumstances, but in the real world we never see those conditions.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/motor-trend-testing/

BEAR-AvHistory

You are correct. Average person will have some difficulty maintaining a steady 5 mph till the car stabilizes. I could goose the throttle to spin up the turbo hold 5 MPH & punch it. This would give a different number then if I slowly approach 5 mph with the turbo idling before I hit the gas. A third way would be to drag the brakes so I had to feed in more throttle to maintain 5 mph which would also spin up the turbo. Lots of uncountable variables.

Same holds true on the drag strip where the clocks are supposed to give an even start. Never happens. My Corvette was an 4MT a bit more to manage off the line than an AT with a trans brake or line lock. The car like to hook the backend to the left on a hard start.

Plan for a good launch without red lighting was the setup at the stage lights. I would stage as shallow as I could just turning the light on. I would also stage with the nose of the car pointing to the left as much as the starter would let me get away with. This did two things. It effectively lengthened the shadow my tires would cast over the photocell that started the clock & controlled the red light. Also as the car hooked left it cause the car to straighten relative to the track as I came off the start. I launched as the last yellow light started to color which is a bit more than .5 seconds before the green turns on.

So effectively my car was moving before the green light but did not uncover the foul light beam before the green turned on.

Back to the street & the standing start. The 5-60 thing also eliminates all the engineering that makes some cars quicker out of the hole than others which I think is an important part of a cars performance envelope. The C8 base $60,000 Corvette is an example. There are very few cars that totally out power it that can actually beat it to 60MPH. They will eventually blow by it but a quick short traffic light go its very hard to beat unless you are driving something like a BMW M8 at $170,000.

The 30/50MPH thing would be interesting but it will rain here for a few days due to the storm off the coast & will not be able to get to it for awhile. Also my Draggy does not cover 30 to 70mph so will have to figure some way to clock it.

Last thing is I remember in the brackets always changing the engine setup between the morning time trials & the afternoon eliminations. The cars always slowed down in the heat of the day & need jet & timing changes.

fiatlux

It may not be the most scientific, but you can hold a phone and record a video of the gauge cluster, and then time it after the fact.

Edward'TLS

This is exactly the reason why it is best to run all vehicles together in the same test event, rather than each vehicle tested separately. Under this circumstance, variations in results due to elevation, humidity, atmospheric pressure, ambient temp, driver skills, etc. can be minimized, especially for force-induction-engine-powered vehicles, which are ultra-sensitive to such variations in skewing test results.