[SpawneyGet]

Hi guys.

Not being really bothered with 0-60, since the acquisition some 9 months ago I hadn't really done it but rather late last night, on the way back from a party my son asked me what the 0-60 was on my F10 535D 8 speed auto M Sport. I said, "supposed to be 5.7 secs but let's find out, shall we?". So we did it, like two naughty little boys. On public roads! (There. I said it!)

1st attempt - Straightish road, on Sport+, on my son's 3, 2, 1, go!, I floored it from complete rest. 6.3 seconds. WTF! That's 0.6 secs slower that the claimed 5.7! Unacceptable! Try again!

2nd attempt - Straight dual carriageway this time. Rest the same. 6.2 secs. Still no good!

I thought good and hard overnight. Alright, there were 2 guys in the car, both weighing 85kgs, full tank of diesel but empty boot, road slightly wet, little wind but it should still be 6.0 or less! I mean, 0.5 sec is like eternity!

Have you guys tried it? What did you get?

[SomeRandomer123]

Launch in second (M2) and use the manual paddles in Sport+. The temperature will also be a major traction affecting factor, as will any slight imperfections in the road. 2 people is also a significant weight along with optional extras you may have such as heated rear seats. I bet it flew though!!! Great car, fabulous engine! Your rev-limiter is at 5000rpm and I think your peak power is at 4500rpm but there isn't a dramatic drop-off like the 35i after 6000rpm. Chuck your son out?

[raleedy]

If you eject the lad rearward during the test, it should improve the result.

[FadeToBlack]

Wet + Weight doesn't equate to the best times.
Also, you might want to rev to 2000 RPM before releasing the brake and flooring it.

How did you measure the time?

[clarence]

AFAIK the official figures were recorded using a German spec car with no options fitted. The kerb weight of the car for the test incl 90% full tank plus 78kg for driver + luggage.
I think 0.5s margin is acceptable in ur case, of course how u launch the car will also make a difference.

[SpawneyGet]

Even considering all those additional (I did mention myself about the weights and road condition) things you guys mentioned, 0.5 was more than I expected. Perhaps I am not used to 0-60 in an automatic and try what SomeRandomer123 suggests on Millbrook Proving Ground on a hot summer day.

Anyway, as I asked, has anyone tried it?

[vdubturbo]

How are you timing it? You could pick up substantial error in the start/stop of the clock relative to your foot and speedometer if you're using a stopwatch.

If you're using a g-tech type device I would also be annoyed at the slower performance. I haven't tried timing anything yet, but I can tell you my old car was supposed to run 0-60 in 5.6 and this one in 5.7, and the Bimmer doesn't feel nearly as fast... but that's just the butt dyno talking.

[delvek]

0-60mph/100kmh is sort of an outdated measurement anyway, being able to reach 100 kmh in 4.5 to 5.5 from a standstill pretty much puts many cars in a pack since normal joe driver error will account for more then 1 second difference.

Times I am more concerned with are 0-100mph/200 kmh or even more so, 50mph/80kmh - 150mph/240kmh. Those times to me are more revealing of a cars performance potential and one that is more relavant.

[davesf]

If you watch car reviews do 0-60 times, they typically do them either with pre-rev or pre-roll. One might say this distorts the measurements, because that's not how we drive everyday. However, they are trying to report the max potential of the car.

Therefore, if you want to get BMW advertised 0-60 times, I personally think you will either have to pre-rev to 2k, or do it on a manual transmission.

The BMW turbo is really really good, but it can't defy physics. It does have some turbo lag from a standstill. It's probably exaggerated by an automatic transmission that's designed to be more smooth and efficient than fast. Some of the reviews (and my own test drives) have shown that from a "foot off the gas" standstill, there is a little more urgency out of the A6 3.0T (supercharged) or MB NA engines. Personally I prefer the passing authority of BMW's setup, and find that tiny bit of standstill 'turbo lag' arguably helps everyday comfort.

[vdubturbo]

Originally Posted by davesf

there is a little more urgency out of the A6 3.0T (supercharged) or MB NA engines. Personally I prefer the passing authority of BMW's setup, and find that tiny bit of standstill 'turbo lag' arguably helps everyday comfort.

I agree mostly. The supercharger setup on the new S4/A6/A7 is a little more linear. However, I believe the auto trans can be beneficial in a 0-60 run because it gives you the ability to put load on the engine (thus boost) before the vehicle moves. With factory tuning, that is very difficult to do with a manual, if not impossible.

I'm headed to the dealer today with the 5... I'll see if my butt dyno likes a 2k hold from a stop. You guys have me curious now.

[kave]

Skip the manual mode etc. You need good summer tires, dry tarmac etc.
Put foot on brake and on accelerator as hard as you can without the car starting to burn out. Probably arround 1500 rpm on your 535D. Time it from when you release the brake.
And hope you dont burn up the tires I dont think you will ever get the exact time bmw says, same as mpg figures etc

[kaishang]

It was wet. That is the end of the argument.

[lindros2]

If you want to drag-race, get a Nissan GT-R.

A turbocharged diesel family sedan with two people on a wet road does not constitute "optimal conditions."

What does it matter, anyhow?

[kave]

Buy yourself the new 535DX instead, then you get great 0-60 times even in the wet

[yreiser]

6,2s seems just ok for the conditions.

A stock 535d has a mass of 1800 kg. (car + 75kg driver + 90% fuel).
So the 5,7s (accelaration equal to a=100/3,6/5,7=4,873 m/s^2) are assigned to a 535d that has to accelerate a mass of 1800 kg.

Now let's use Newton : F=m*a=1800*4,873=8771 N. That's the average acceleration force that pulls the car away.

Mass without fuel and driver : 1800-75-52,5=1672,5 kg (90% tank of Diesel have a mass of 52 kg).

The car in your conditions had a mass of : 1672,5+2*85+58=1901,5 kg (without considering any special equipment !!!)

You're car should therfore have a theoretical average acceleration of : a=F/m=8771/1901,5=4,61 m/s^2, which equals to a time for 0-100 of : t=v/a=100/3,6/4,61=6,03 s (as I said, without one single special equipment like the heavy comfort seats etc).

Now of course, the actual values will slightly differ since the average acceleration and delivered force are not linear, but then you add comfort seats, navi.... add some unperfect road conditions, atmospheric air pressure, ... and you'll come very close to your measured 6,2s.

So, where's the problem ???

[vdubturbo]

Originally Posted by yreiser

So, where's the problem ???

**Deleted Response**

I don't want to argue on the internet.

[SpawneyGet]

I hear you all. And I ask again;

"Have you guys tried it? What did you get?"

[yreiser]

Yes. I tried but with my 530d (245). Reached the 6,3s without any problem (alone in the car, 67kg):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOuZrM4EGso

[Wanna_F10]

Even weight distribution is critical, for accurate test, your son needs to be in trunk in opposite corner from you.

[kave]

I would say it is best if both where in the trunk
I will try my 520D to see if I can get down to 8.3 seconds.

[SpawneyGet]

Originally Posted by kave

I would say it is best if both where in the trunk

[jeroguz]

Press the auto H button.
Sport
Floor it in auto transmission.
Don't let the gas go at all
Watch my video on the next link
550i dinan stage 2 in 4.4 sec
Same technique as mentioned
Hope this helps