M Roadster 0-60 and 1/4 mile times

[Kram71]

I was looking at some websites on these 0-60mph times. They are not always the most accurate. I was expecting to see a big jump in time when the engine got more horsepower but it only shows a jump in 2002 not 2001. In fact they show the 1999 as faster than the 2001. Any explanations?

0-60.jpg

[BimmerBreaker]

To start with, those sites are never really accurate. What happened between 01 and 02 to shave .8 seconds off the 0-60? Nothing. You need to take all the info on these sites with a grain of salt...

The diff really hurt the S54's straight line performance, especially from a dig but the S54's are faster than the S52's - though certainly not by the margin they should be.

[khammack]

Also, was the same person driving all of the cars and were they all tested at the same altitude, etc, etc? Lots of variables not being shown in that chart.

[Kram71]

To start with, those sites are never really accurate. What happened between 01 and 02 to shave .8 seconds off the 0-60? Nothing. You need to take all the info on these sites with a grain of salt...

The diff really hurt the S54's straight line performance, especially from a dig but the S54's are faster than the S52's - though certainly not by the margin they should be.

I agree that these sites have some issues but I'm still curious why the bigger HP M Roadsters are not much faster than the 240HP versions. Are you saying the differentials made up most of the reason?

Also, was the same person driving all of the cars and were they all tested at the same altitude, etc, etc? Lots of variables not being shown in that chart.

I think most the sites accumulate the information from various car magazines. I do not think they drive the cars themselves. I would say they are about 75% accurate with some occasional mistakes.

[golden.eye]

From what I've come to understand through research, though I'm not that mechanically proficient as a lot of these guys, is that the 0-60 time difference between an s52/54 is negligible to some, .4 - .8 seconds, to others that matters considerably in the right circumstance. The difference is when and how that power is distributed. I prefer the s52 because it feels more torque-y, more primitive, for lower end fun. As where the s54 kills on the freeway. I compare them like a chopper to a Ducati. I think they are just geared differently, among many other things I haven't learned yet. However I will say for the small difference in 0-60 time you speak of in relation to the dramatic difference in horsepower, think of a car, any car, having a few hundred more than an s54 and only clocking another second faster. You can only do so much, the closer to the event horizon you get. Haha.

[Kram71]

From what I've come to understand through research, though I'm not that mechanically proficient as a lot of these guys, is that the 0-60 time difference between an s52/54 is negligible to some, .4 - .8 seconds, to others that matters considerably in the right circumstance. The difference is when and how that power is distributed. I prefer the s52 because it feels more torque-y, more primitive, for lower end fun. As where the s54 kills on the freeway. I compare them like a chopper to a Ducati. I think they are just geared differently, among many other things I haven't learned yet. However I will say for the small difference in 0-60 time you speak of in relation to the dramatic difference in horsepower, think of a car, any car, having a few hundred more than an s54 and only clocking another second faster. You can only do so much, the closer to the event horizon you get. Haha.

That is a interesting take. Anything 5 seconds or faster 0-60 MPH is fast IMO. I might want to drop down to 4.4 seconds but anything under that would probably be too fast for me.

[rf900rkw]

I agree that these sites have some issues but I'm still curious why the bigger HP M Roadsters are not much faster than the 240HP versions. Are you saying the differentials made up most of the reason?

Why do you think there would be a big difference? Peak horsepower does not tell the story. And no, the difference between a 3.23 and 3.15 is not significant.

[BimmerBreaker]

Why do you think there would be a big difference? Peak horsepower does not tell the story. And no, the difference between a 3.23 and 3.15 is not significant.

Then what is the difference? Everything else in the drivetrain is the same and the S54 makes more power everywhere in the rev range.

[rf900rkw]

The S54 doesn't make very much more power through most of the rev range. The only advantage the S54 has is less than 100ccs extra displacement until the S52 hits the breathing limitations.

[Mr Bingley]

...The only advantage the S54 has is less than 100ccs extra displacement until the S52 hits the breathing limitations.

Well, it has individual throttle bodies, dual vanos and a higher redline too--just saying.

[bluptgm3]

And that is the deal. The S52 was faster than the Euro S50B32 Evo II.
Which isn't that much different than the S54. The S54 does has a huge long-lasting torque curve all the way to redline of 8,000 rpm (?).

The E46 got heavier. The Z3 S54 got de-Tuned so that it was not faster than the E46 M3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rf900rkw]

Well, it has individual throttle bodies, dual vanos and a higher redline too--just saying.

Yeah, so?


just like big bore throttles, and M52 manifolds, and 4" exhausts, and all the other kiddie crap. All of it is naught, and maybe a hindrance, until the original becomes a restriction. All that stuff makes the S54 breathe at 8K, where the S52 is done at 7K. But at 3-5K? The two are about equal, despite the S54 having a 100ccs advantage.

[MartyBtoo]

I've only seen one truly independent performance test of an S54 Coupe (I've got a copy of it somewhere, just haven't looked at it lately). It basically confirmed the notion that BMW tends to be a little conservative on performance figures. They got a 0-60 in 4.7 seconds, a quarter mile in around mid 13's (don't remember the exact numbers), and a top speed of 160.

I've never driven an S52 car, so I can't do a valid comparison, but I've always been impressed by the fact that if you stand on it at low RPM it does okay until it reaches 1800 RPM, when suddenly the exhaust note changes and it takes off. Plus on an onramp in third gear it goes from 30 to 80 real fast. I don't track my car; in fact it's my daily driver, and I've put over 65K miles on it since I bought it. Yes, the maintenance is pricey due to the valve adjustments, and I just spent a small fortune putting on some 50-state Magnaflow headers to get it to pass the next smog check, but the beasty is a hoot to drive.

Marty

[Luftwaffe1O1]

My understanding is, a more aggressive diff does magic for the s54. Given its higher redline, had those cars come with a 3.46 or 3.64 and a 6 speed from the factory, it would be an even quicker car.

[doclip]

Here are the tables from Wikipedia for all models

Roadster	Years	Weight	Engine	0-60
1.8l	1996-2000	1160 kg (2557 lbs)	M43B18	10.1s
1.9l	1996-2002	1185 kg (2612 lbs)	M44B19	9.1s
2.8l	1996-1998	1260 kg (2778 lbs)	M52B28	6.6s
2.8l	1998-1999	1285 kg (2833 lbs)	M52TUB28	6.6s
Z3M (US)	1997-2000	1350 kg (2976 lbs)	S52B32	5.2s
Z3M (EU)	1997-2000	1350 kg (2976 lbs)	S50B32	5.1s

Facelift Roadster	Years	Weight	Engine	0-60
1.9l	1996-2002	1220 kg (2690 lbs)	M43B19	10.0s
2.0l	1999-2000	1270 kg (2800 lbs)	M52TUB20	8.5s
2.2l	2000-2002	1280 kg (2822 lbs)	M54B22	7.6s
2.8l	1999-2000	1285 kg (2833 lbs)	M52TUB28	6.6s
3.0l	2000-2002	1315 kg (2899 lbs)	M54B30	5.8s
Z3M	2000-2002	1350 kg (2976 lbs)	S54B32	5.1s

Pre-Facelift Coupe	Years	Weight	Engine	0-60
2.8l	1998-1998	1300 kg (2866 lbs)	M52B28	6.6s
2.8l	1998-2000	1300 kg (2866 lbs)	M52TUB28	6.6s
Z3M (US)	1999-2000	1390 kg (3064 lbs)	S52B32	5.2s
Z3M (EU)	1997-2000	1390 kg (2976 lbs)	S50B32	5.1s

Facelift Coupe	Years	Weight	Engine	0-60
3.0l	2001-2002	1330 kg (2932 lbs)	M54B30	5.8s
Z3M	2001-2002	1375 kg (3031 lbs)	S54B32	5.1s

[BimmerBreaker]

The S52 was faster than the Euro S50B32 Evo II.

The S52 is faster than the euro S50 AND the S54. Wow, you really do learn something new every day!

[bluptgm3]

Should have quantified that a bit. It was 60 to 80 times that I was referring to....though that seems to be refuted also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk