Z3 2.8 0-60 figures – are these correct?

xavier999 · Post by **xavier999** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 09:56

Hi – am a new owner so apologies for lots of silly questions. I read in various reviews etc 0-60 figs for the 2.8 were about 6.5 and 6.8 (or thereabouts) for the manual and auto. However in the official owners handbook it quotes 7.1 and 7.4 respectively. Any ideas which is the more accurate? You would think it would be the official BMW numbers, but independent roadtests should also be eaqually accurate.

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 10:08

Mine felt like a mid/low 6 second car to me. Sometimes had fantastic acceleration off the line if you got it right. I think BMW 0-60 times in those days were pessimistic/based on two people and luggage or something. As a comparison at the time I had (and still have) a 205 Mi16 that was recorded by a magazine at 6.3 and it felt every bit as quick as that.

xavier999 · Post by **xavier999** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 12:46

c_w wrote:Mine felt like a mid/low 6 second car to me. Sometimes had fantastic acceleration off the line if you got it right. I think BMW 0-60 times in those days were pessimistic/based on two people and luggage or something. As a comparison at the time I had (and still have) a 205 Mi16 that was recorded by a magazine at 6.3 and it felt every bit as quick as that.

Yeah true. I used to have a Mondeo ST 24 before and that was supposed to be a 7.5 roughly 0-60 car. My 2.8 auto Z3 feels way quicker off the mark.

PhoenixCoupe · Post by **PhoenixCoupe** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 12:55

BMW's figures are normally 0-62, which will have a 0.1+ difference to 60.
Plus it's worth noting that 'feeling quicker' isn't always the best measure. A lower, less cosseting car will always feel quicker than a big saloon. When I had my 750, I had a friend in it one day that didn't think it was that quick until I outdragged a brand new E46 330i from the lights - all without any drama or noise...

SpunkyM · Post by **SpunkyM** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 13:24

..and of course gearing plays a huge role.

Mouldy · Post by **Mouldy** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 13:49

To be honest, I think that its all a bit academic anyway, because I can't see many normal owners driving their cars the way they are driven to achieve the publicised performance figures.

The cost of replacing the driveline components and tyres woud certainly make me think twice.

Malc

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 14:18

PhoenixCoupe wrote:BMW's figures are normally 0-62, which will have a 0.1+ difference to 60.
Plus it's worth noting that 'feeling quicker' isn't always the best measure. A lower, less cosseting car will always feel quicker than a big saloon. When I had my 750, I had a friend in it one day that didn't think it was that quick until I outdragged a brand new E46 330i from the lights - all without any drama or noise...

Yes but my example was completely the opposite (an 80s hot hatch that feels fast when you're doing 50 on a 60 road). If you got it right on take off the torque of the 2.8 is impressive in 1st and 2nd gear.

PhoenixCoupe · Post by **PhoenixCoupe** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 14:39

c_w wrote:
PhoenixCoupe wrote: Plus it's worth noting that 'feeling quicker' isn't always the best measure. A lower, less cosseting car will always feel quicker than a big saloon. When I had my 750, I had a friend in it one day that didn't think it was that quick until I outdragged a brand new E46 330i from the lights - all without any drama or noise...
Yes but my example was completely the opposite (an 80s hot hatch that feels fast when you're doing 50 on a 60 road).

Eh? No it's not.
205 = light, noisy tin box
750 = 2 ton, double glazed, sound deadened saloon.

Therefore, the 205 is less cosseting, and probably has a lower seating position too.

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 14:46

PhoenixCoupe wrote:
c_w wrote:
PhoenixCoupe wrote: Plus it's worth noting that 'feeling quicker' isn't always the best measure. A lower, less cosseting car will always feel quicker than a big saloon. When I had my 750, I had a friend in it one day that didn't think it was that quick until I outdragged a brand new E46 330i from the lights - all without any drama or noise...
Yes but my example was completely the opposite (an 80s hot hatch that feels fast when you're doing 50 on a 60 road).
Eh? No it's not.
205 = light, noisy tin box
750 = 2 ton, double glazed, sound deadened saloon.

Therefore, the 205 is less cosseting, and probably has a lower seating position too.

Yes and the Z3 felt as quick. Maybe we're confusing each other

.

I said that my 2.8 Z3 felt very quick, at least as quick as my 205 which had been timed officially at 6.3 seconds to 60. It FELT as quick as the 205 did, that by your logic should mean the Z3 was sub 6 seconds

I assumed you were referring to the mention of the Mondeo ST24 being more cosseting than the Z3, but my comparison was the going from the opposite direction (ie a noisey 80s hot hatch that feels quick all the time) where the far more refined Z3 still felt as quick.

PhoenixCoupe · Post by **PhoenixCoupe** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 15:12

I was comparing any sporty car in comparison to a saloon. The sporty car will always feel quicker, whether it actually is or not.
Noise and lower seating position make things seem faster.

c_w · Post by **c_w** » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 17:04

PhoenixCoupe wrote:I was comparing any sporty car in comparison to a saloon. The sporty car will always feel quicker, whether it actually is or not.
Noise and lower seating position make things seem faster.

Yes, and I was coming from the other side, or going one further; comparing the Z3 to the 205!!