[sflgator]

Originally Posted by andrew 330i

my 330 wasn't purchased for speed... not at all what i look for in a 4 door car. rarely do i even floor it.

i had an '02 M3 that ran 13.0s ... this was the car of choice for quickness for me.

i'm not trying to upset you ... i would just love to see some real testing... that's all.

cheers~

As I said b4, someone with an Xede-equipped 335i will get "official" times at a track; it may not be me, and it may not happen in the next couple weeks, but someone will do it soon.

[BavarianRocket]

Originally Posted by ALPINE6SPD

I dont own one and I am not a doubter. I say 12-7-12.9 realistically. I think 335i try to start more wars with 330i owners also. This makes no sense at all to me. We own the same type of car and one is faster in a straight line than the other who cares? I luv my 330i and am happy a 335i came out because I will lease one when my lease is up. Thats the best thing about leasing.

My intent was not to flame... I too love the 330i....but trust me once you get in a 335, you will understand.... Break your lease and get on with the fun!

[jayjay]

That trap speed is probably off by atleast 10mph. Gtech times cant be compared to track actual track times since they are calculated differently even if the gtech is used correctly (judging by the results - it wasn't).

[Garissimo]

I'm not a doubter by any means, but I'd *love* to see some XEDE 335i footage - vs. a stock 335i or E46 M3 or Z4 M or E60 M5 or E39 M5, or in the 1/4 mile. Anything! There are enough of them out in the wild now that someone should be able to catch one on tape with something else to compare it against.

[sunchild]

Originally Posted by Maestro

Not to pick on your ages here, but what do think it was like driving cars with 350 to 400 Horses under the hood and non of these modern day technology to help you keep the wheels on the ground. Driving these cars with DSC and DTC makes it so easy to keep the car on the road. Before you have to know exactly what you car would do and how to keep the wheels from spinning and keep the car on the path you want it to be on. You need to know how much gas to give it went and how to dump the clutch to rocket the car down the road.

I think all this stuff they do to control the car is robbing power and making people poor drivers.

There is truth to this.

[LSs1Power]

The old Gtech timer was way off... At least .2-.3 faster in the 1/4mile and 6mph extra. Try taking it to the track or get a Calibrated Tazzo to test with.... I think the fastest you will see is 12.8 at 110-112mph.

I have tried the old Gtech, Tazzo and Gtech Pro all together at the track... The Tazzo was dead on while the Gtech Pro ET was dead on, but it showed 1 mph extra and the old Gtech was .2-.3 and 5-6mph faster.

[Jonn335]

My money is on 12.7 at 113mph at the strip.

[OpenFlash]

We might get a chance to have our car tested our car at Fontana soon. It's pretty slow (high elevation and traction-limited) track from what I hear but it's a good start

cheers,
shiv

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by Jonn335

My money is on 12.7 at 113mph at the strip.

This could be more accurate; however I still think that ppl are forgetting that I had an extra ~ 210+ lbs. in the car (my brother and all my work stuff in the trunk). So, you have to wonder if I didn't have the extra load in my car that day, would the G-Tech timer have shown ~ 12.2 sec. in the 1/4 mi.??? Then, if that happened and we add the 0.2 - 0.3 sec. for the inaccuracy of my bro's old G-Tech, then I'm still at 12.4 - 12.5 sec. in the 1/4 mi. Anyway...there is hope!

Again, I'm sorry for the whole controversy here; just tried to share what we got. I guess we really won't know for sure until someone goes to the track and posts up "official" track times. I also have a feeling we might begin seeing posts on Xede-equipped 335i 'kills,' and that should also be a good testament of just how fast this car is. Either way though, everyone should know that an Xede-equipped 335i is still much faster than stock! :rocks:

[DLSJ5]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

We might get a chance to have our car tested our car at Fontana soon. It's pretty slow (high elevation and traction-limited) track from what I hear but it's a good start

cheers,
shiv

Looking forward to the results Shiv!! FYI Fontana is not that bad for FI cars. I ran a 12.9 at 106 in my M3 with just 3.91 gears and DR's, in these current temps. A few of my Big Turbo A4 buddies ran better times at Fontana then they did at Sea Level, Sacramento, same traps though, best was 12.6 at 108MPH at Fontana!!! (CEA 3) Charlie.

However that was on the old track, the new one seems to be a bit slower from what people are saying. Either way I think 12.5-12.7 @ 112-113MPH is totally doable with some traction, good luck with it!!!

[teknochild]

Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu

We might get a chance to have our car tested our car at Fontana soon. It's pretty slow (high elevation and traction-limited) track from what I hear but it's a good start

cheers,
shiv

alttitude doesnt have as great an effect on FI cars as it does NA cars though right? i meen 10 psi of air is the same anywhere, its "thin" at high altitude because the pressure is lower, less oxygen because because of less pressure

although i sure the turbos will have to spool faster to get the same PSI so there will be some drop in performance

[elmaki]

Originally Posted by teknochild

alttitude doesnt have as great an effect on FI cars as it does NA cars though right? i meen 10 psi of air is the same anywhere, its "thin" at high altitude because the pressure is lower, less oxygen because because of less pressure

although i sure the turbos will have to spool faster to get the same PSI so there will be some drop in performance

nice assessment

[Insider]

Originally Posted by teknochild

alttitude doesnt have as great an effect on FI cars as it does NA cars though right? i meen 10 psi of air is the same anywhere, its "thin" at high altitude because the pressure is lower, less oxygen because because of less pressure

although i sure the turbos will have to spool faster to get the same PSI so there will be some drop in performance

Well it depends. If you take 10 PSI and add it to 14.7 PSI sea level atmospheric pressure you get 24.7. At 4,500 feet where I live it would be 10 psi + 12.5 psi = 22.5psi for a loss of 8.9%. Fortunately, the 335i allows up to 11.7psi manifold pressure for altitude compensation. So up to about 6,000 feet you would lose no power with the 335i. No sure what would happen with Shiv's Exede, though. With the additional boost from the Xede eventually the turbo's won't be able to provide enough boost to make up for the loss of air pressure.

[teknochild]

oh so thats just how much psi their adding, not the final output

or i should say rather the output isnt only determined by the turbo

[scottwww]

Still nobody in FL with an Exede equipped 1/4 mile ET from the drag strip?

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by scottwww

Still nobody in FL with an Exede equipped 1/4 mile ET from the drag strip?

Guess not, sorry.

[OpenFlash]

Originally Posted by DLSJ5

Looking forward to the results Shiv!! FYI Fontana is not that bad for FI cars. I ran a 12.9 at 106 in my M3 with just 3.91 gears and DR's, in these current temps. A few of my Big Turbo A4 buddies ran better times at Fontana then they did at Sea Level, Sacramento, same traps though, best was 12.6 at 108MPH at Fontana!!! (CEA 3) Charlie.

However that was on the old track, the new one seems to be a bit slower from what people are saying. Either way I think 12.5-12.7 @ 112-113MPH is totally doable with some traction, good luck with it!!!

Yeah.. the new track is pretty slow. Especially when you run it backwards/uphill (like edmunds does). The best they could manage as a ~13.1 at 110.5mph. Without any VHT on the ground, the car would wheelspin all through 1st and 2nd gear, doing 0-60 in a reasonably poor 4.6s. Still 5-6mph faster traps than the ringer press car they tested so clearly it is much quicker once it gets traction. By comparison, the SL65 AMG ran a 12.0 @119 and the M6 conv. ran a 13.0@113.

I took it to sea level sac raceway (fontana is at 1200' above seal level) yesterday and had similiar problems with launching (60' time of 2.3s!). Still managed a 13.1 at 111.2mph which is 6-9mph faster than other 335s tested there. But I ended up doing that run with the TC on and by rolling on to 1/2 throttle gently in both 1st and 2nd gear. Basically a casual street start-- not what you usually expect to see on a drag strip. I know the car is capable of 112-113mph traps if I actually drove it as aggressively as I can on the street but traction was proving to be the limiting factor. I'm going back there next week when I can get more runs in so I can play with tire pressures, practice launching, and perhaps do burnouts to get the water off my tires from that waterbox. Or maybe just have someone who knows what they are doing drive it. God, I hate dragracing.

To make my bafoonery official, I sent the timeslip to http://www.dragtimes.com/BMW--335i-Drag-Racing.html. The results should show up in the next day or so.

-shiv

[bnj]

Losing by 0.1s in quarter mile for M6 convertible is not quite equal to a "slow poke" in my books

[Jonn335]

if you go anywhere near the water box you are really going to strggle with road tyres. the water gets into the tread and takes ages to get rid of. even doing a big burnout doesnt help it stlll runs out of the tread and covers the tyre. drive around the waterbox and dont bother with any burnouts. with street tyres burnouts slow you down, the tread breaks off in little marbles which the tyre slides on.
Heating the tyres up some other way helps (drive to the track with slightly lowered pressure), and run the lowest pressure you can and still be stable at the top end (only you can decide what this pressure is by experiment)
and you will get the best out of them. Also runflats are probably the worst drag racing tyres ever...

[radgator1]

Nice numbers shiv. I am sure we will see some better ones like you said considering your 60' time. Looking forward to the numbers from your next run.

And just in case anyone is keeping score, 110 trap speed and working to break the sub 13 sec ET is exactly what I predicted in this thread from the first drag results from an xede equipped 335. We''ll see even better times soon.

And Sflagator, now maybe you see why people were simply telling you what you could expect in the real world vs your gtech numbers, and why they were way off and not just the trap speed. You folks who labled people haters, newbies, 335 wanabe's etc might want to wait before you slam folks next time.

BTW with the 110 plus trap speed there is no question we will see 12.x's very soon. I think 12.6@113 is possible with the right launch on the right track.

Thanks again Shiv, Kevin

[sflgator]

Originally Posted by radgator1

Nice numbers shiv. I am sure we will see some better ones like you said considering your 60' time. Looking forward to the numbers from your next run.

And just in case anyone is keeping score, 110 trap speed and working to break the sub 13 sec ET is exactly what I predicted in this thread from the first drag results from an xede equipped 335. We''ll see even better times soon.

And Sflagator, now maybe you see why people were simply telling you what you could expect in the real world vs your gtech numbers, and why they were way off and not just the trap speed. You folks who labled people haters, newbies, 335 wanabe's etc might want to wait before you slam folks next time.

BTW with the 110 plus trap speed there is no question we will see 12.x's very soon. I think 12.6@113 is possible with the right launch on the right track.

Thanks again Shiv, Kevin

Maybe, but my launches didn't encounter as much wheel spin as Shiv encountered (and I launched in 1st gear as well); also, Shiv has a 6MT and I have the 6AT, AND he's running on 91 octane and I'm running on 93 octane! Maybe my 1/4 mi. time of 12.44 sec. was accurate or close to accurate b/c my tires gripped better (and/or the AT is easier to launch) and I got a better launch????

I guess there's no doubt that my trap speed was off, but I still have hope for my 1/4 mi. time. I don't know...my car certainly "feels" A LOT faster with the Xede; I don't know how it couldn't do the 1/4 mi. in ~ 12.5 sec.!!! I bet we'll see much better times (1/4 mi. sub 13 sec.) in the near future from Xede-equipped cars with trap speeds approaching 115mph.

[radgator1]

Originally Posted by sflgator

Maybe, but my launches didn't encounter as much wheel spin as Shiv encountered; maybe my 1/4 mi. time of 12.44 sec. was accurate or close to accurate b/c my tires gripped better and I got a better launch???? I guess there's no doubt that the trap speed was off, but I still have hope for my 1/4 mi. time. I don't know...my car certainly "feels" A LOT faster with the Xede; I don't know how it couldn't do the 1/4 mi. in ~ 12.5 sec.!!! I bet we'll see much better times (1/4 mi. sub 13 sec.) in the near future from Xede-equipped cars.

Dude, you ran it with all the the stability control features on, with a passenger and a trunk full of tools, you dont have a freeflowing exhaust, you dont have the new Xede updates which is making more power and much more torque and you still think your time of 7/10's of a second faster than the best run on shivs car so far on 2 different track is accurate?

You are hopeless bro. Okay you're right, that Gtech time with an extra 400 lbs in your car is completely accurate. I'm glad I finally saw the light, you're the greatest drag racer ever