1985 vs 2001 BMW 5-series performance comparison

[eljefino]

Are those 1985 specs from a magazine review of a new car? If so, it would be riding on 1985 tires. Could probably stop shorter on modern rubber-- nothing exciting, as that would be an unfair upgrade, but whatever BMW would likely choose today.

If this is a debate about history, I guess you should ignore me. Like blaming an engine maker for early failure back in the day when modern fluids would have helped.

Enjoyed my 67 hp 1983 240d stick shift. Enjoying my 1991 volvo 940 turbo wagon.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: cchase
That misses the point Overkill is trying to make - mainly that the larger brakes and tires on new cars results in better braking performance.


I agree; I was just needling the pro-1985 poster a little.

As for performance of the 1985, if one compares it to other 1985s, it's pretty stellar. But, that was the era of 160 hp V8 "musclecars" and where brakes and tires were an afterthought. Then again, the way to obtain lower rolling resistance back then was to use a nice narrow tire.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
Are those 1985 specs from a magazine review of a new car? If so, it would be riding on 1985 tires. Could probably stop shorter on modern rubber-- nothing exciting, as that would be an unfair upgrade, but whatever BMW would likely choose today.

If this is a debate about history, I guess you should ignore me. Like blaming an engine maker for early failure back in the day when modern fluids would have helped.

Enjoyed my 67 hp 1983 240d stick shift. Enjoying my 1991 volvo 940 turbo wagon.


Yes, those are a variety of magazine spec's from when the car was new. Would have been riding on Michelin TRX's if I remember correctly from the article.

It isn't a debate about history. Just about wheel size, big brakes and how modern performance cars actually DO stop shorter, even with more "girth".

 

[rjundi]

I owned a 1987 VW Jetta GLI 16V(GTI with a trunk) in the early 1990's. It was a hoot to drive and very connected to the road with amazing road feel. It had very short gearing making the most of its 125HP.

I then had a chance to drive an early 2000's VW Jetta GLI with its 1.8T motor that was superior in powerband and comfort. However it gave up fun to drive.

I also drove a 2007 GLI and its a really nice car and comfortable/fun to drive for modern vehicle. However it does not illicit the same fun to drive feeling for me in my 1987 VW GLI.

 

[antonmnster]

It seems pointless to have a debate about cars that are generations apart from each other. It's very apples and oranges.

I've owned two e30s, an e36, and an e46. They are very different from each other but one can can clearly sense a base character, the 3-series DNA if you will, that has evolved over time.

It's very interesting to drive each car, but I wouldn't go comparing them head-to-head with each other; that just seems to miss the point.

I will say that over time the cars become more and more isolated and the driver is farther removed from what's happening on the road. At the same time the cars become more and more competent and capable.

So there it is: if you want feel and a sense of nostalgia, go old. If you want objective handling (and safety), go new.

My 318is was by far the most fun BMW I've owned. I loved working the 5 speed to find every one of the 134 horses, and I loved that the light engine and M-Technic suspension gave the car a ton of grip (almost .9G IIRC). But I certainly prefer my e46 when going inter-state and I like all those airbags in case I get in a collision.

 

[SteveSRT8]

There's always someone trying to tell the tale of how their older car is just as good as your newer one.

Normal human nature. Envy.

Back on topic, my 4 door luxury barge will outbrake Overkill's car! With HUGE factory wheels and tires.

Sheesh, could be just the tires are so much better now.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
There's always someone trying to tell the tale of how their older car is just as good as your newer one.

Normal human nature. Envy.

Back on topic, my 4 door luxury barge will outbrake Overkill's car! With HUGE factory wheels and tires.

Sheesh, could be just the tires are so much better now.


But Steve, that's IMPOSSIBLE

 

[SteveSRT8]

Glad you got it. You know I love your ride!

I remember the day I bought it. I couldn't believe they were the factory rims. Wasn't even sure I liked them at all.

But they do work.

 

[Scott_Tucker]

Having driven both cars extensively, both stock and modified (I was an engineer at Dinan Engineering for 4 years), I can say that neither of you are right (or both of you are right). Driving enjoyment is completely subjective and depends entirely on the person driving the car. I personally prefer the E39 M5 and ultimately it is faster and handles better in stock form and should the two cars be raced against either, it would win. However, the 1985 5 series was a very good car and an example in good condition is still fun to drive today.

I had the opportunity to tune a 1985 535i which we had put a turbocharger kit on in about 1986 (it was our prototype). I had to re-tune the car 20 years later and some 200k miles (older cars needed this occasionally). It put out about 370 Hp. It was very civilized to drive and it's 200k miles attests to it's durability. Although it handling and drive dynamics were good, the E39 was superior.

In the end, IT IS COMPLETELY UP TO THE GUY DRIVING WHICH ON HE THINKS IS BETTER.

I'm glad you guys are having a civilized conversation.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
Having driven both cars extensively, both stock and modified (I was an engineer at Dinan Engineering for 4 years), I can say that neither of you are right (or both of you are right). Driving enjoyment is completely subjective and depends entirely on the person driving the car. I personally prefer the E39 M5 and ultimately it is faster and handles better in stock form and should the two cars be raced against either, it would win. However, the 1985 5 series was a very good car and an example in good condition is still fun to drive today.

I had the opportunity to tune a 1985 535i which we had put a turbocharger kit on in about 1986 (it was our prototype). I had to re-tune the car 20 years later and some 200k miles (older cars needed this occasionally). It put out about 370 Hp. It was very civilized to drive and it's 200k miles attests to it's durability. Although it handling and drive dynamics were good, the E39 was superior.

In the end, IT IS COMPLETELY UP TO THE GUY DRIVING WHICH ON HE THINKS IS BETTER.

I'm glad you guys are having a civilized conversation.


Thank you Scott for your very insightful post, and my line of reasoning is right in-line with your own. That driver "experience" is a subjective topic for sure. As is driver enjoyment. The initial point of contention was about the older car handling and stopping better. We've established this is not true.

However, that doesn't detract from the fact that I'm sure it really was a blast to drive and performed very well for the time. In Dinan trim, it would have been NUTS!

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Garak

If not that, perhaps something a 1985 535i was actually competing against in the 1984/5 market in the first place.

The best handling American car back in '85 outside of the Corvette was the Camaro. It pulled about .85-.88 G on the skip pad, had 215 HP, 0-60 mph ~7 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.2@90 mph, top speed 140 mph, and was $11k-15. Not too bad at all and it compared well to other sports car like the Porsche 944 and BMWs close in price range. But the Camaro wasn't light at 3400 lbs and didn't get great gas milage 15-20 mpg or so, and had limited back seat room.

http://www.thirdgen.org/cd_oct_1984_iroc_camaro_z28
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/arc...o_iroc-z_page_4
http://www.thirdgen.org/rt_october1986_mustang_vs_camaro_irocz

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Garak

If not that, perhaps something a 1985 535i was actually competing against in the 1984/5 market in the first place.

The best handling American car back in '85 outside of the Corvette was the Camaro. It pulled about .85-.88 G on the skip pad, had 215 HP, 0-60 mph ~7 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.2@90 mph, top speed 140 mph, and was $11k-15. Not too bad at all and it compared well to other sports car like the Porsche 944 and BMWs close in price range. But the Camaro wasn't light at 3400 lbs and didn't get great gas milage 15-20 mpg or so, and had limited back seat room.


Unfortunately, '85 was the only year for the 215 hp 305 Camaro. The TPI 305 dropped to 190 after that.

The Mustang SVO eventually made 205hp and was better balanced than the nose heavy Z/28-IROC-Z. It had a faster steering rack and pinion than it's GT/LX5.0 brethren and Koni shocks and struts, rear disc brakes and bigger tires. It matched a Ferrari Testarossa on the skidpad. The downside? turbo lag was present but mostly it was the price. It was quite a bit more expensive than an LX 5.0. More than the Mustang GT IIRC.

The Merkur XR4Ti might have handled better but I think it had 195/14s on it

 

[urchin]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog


The Merkur XR4Ti might have handled better but I think it had 195/14s on it


The European Ford Sierra XR4i is what the Merker version SHOULD have been.

I was able to drive the Euro Ford Sierra XR4i and it was a fantastic car, it really showed just how TERRIBLE US Ford car products were back during the mid 80s.

 

[hattaresguy]

Old cars are a lot of fun and have a lot of charm. (I don't really consider 80's vintage cars that old) But the fact of the matter is a new vehicle will run rings around it.

Its really amazing what manufactures can pull off with modern brakes and tires, and traction control programs. They can make most ham fisted drivers into heroes. Real old cars used to make a sport out of trying to kill you when you driver really fast. a 70's or 60's vintage 911 is quite interesting around a corner. The car was like "you make mistake I kill." With a modern Porsche its just like, meh went a little to fast, here you go back on the road, don't do it again.


Modern cars are quite nice, you know when you wined an 80's Ferrari, Lambo, BMW or Mercedes up to about 140 or a bit more and you get a lot of wind noise, and they kind of feel like they going a bit quick?

On a new Ferrari, or M5 or whatever its like just off idle and [censored] near perfectly silent.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Old cars are a lot of fun and have a lot of charm. (I don't really consider 80's vintage cars that old) But the fact of the matter is a new vehicle will run rings around it.

Its really amazing what manufactures can pull off with modern brakes and tires, and traction control programs. They can make most ham fisted drivers into heroes. Real old cars used to make a sport out of trying to kill you when you driver really fast. a 70's or 60's vintage 911 is quite interesting around a corner. The car was like "you make mistake I kill." With a modern Porsche its just like, meh went a little to fast, here you go back on the road, don't do it again.


Modern cars are quite nice, you know when you wined an 80's Ferrari, Lambo, BMW or Mercedes up to about 140 or a bit more and you get a lot of wind noise, and they kind of feel like they going a bit quick?

On a new Ferrari, or M5 or whatever its like just off idle and [censored] near perfectly silent.


Ahhhh...the infamous off throttle oversteer...I've experienced it many times. An early 911 without the huge rear tires can turn itself around quicker than you can say Boo. You gotta pick your line and pick your speed and DON'T let up...not even a little.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Garak

If not that, perhaps something a 1985 535i was actually competing against in the 1984/5 market in the first place.

The best handling American car back in '85 outside of the Corvette was the Camaro. It pulled about .85-.88 G on the skip pad, had 215 HP, 0-60 mph ~7 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.2@90 mph, top speed 140 mph, and was $11k-15. Not too bad at all and it compared well to other sports car like the Porsche 944 and BMWs close in price range. But the Camaro wasn't light at 3400 lbs and didn't get great gas milage 15-20 mpg or so, and had limited back seat room.


Unfortunately, '85 was the only year for the 215 hp 305 Camaro. The TPI 305 dropped to 190 after that.

The Mustang SVO eventually made 205hp and was better balanced than the nose heavy Z/28-IROC-Z. It had a faster steering rack and pinion than it's GT/LX5.0 brethren and Koni shocks and struts, rear disc brakes and bigger tires. It matched a Ferrari Testarossa on the skidpad. The downside? turbo lag was present but mostly it was the price. It was quite a bit more expensive than an LX 5.0. More than the Mustang GT IIRC.



Well not exactly. I think the base 305 TPI wasn't downrated to 190 hp until '87 when they switched it to a roller cam that was less agressive than the flat cam (strange). But it didn't matter because by then they had the TPI 350 available (automatic only though). And by '89 or so the 305 TPI was available with 225-230 HP with a manual. The Camaro was not really very nose heavy and had its handling, suspension and brakes pretty sorted out by '85 with the IROC models that was a readily available option package. The reciculating ball steering was fast and felt about as good as they were going to get it but a rack&pinion would've been better.

 

[urchin]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Old cars are a lot of fun and have a lot of charm. (I don't really consider 80's vintage cars that old) But the fact of the matter is a new vehicle will run rings around it.



But these "new" "better" cars of today are NOT generally a fun drive, the controls remove the driver from the feedback to a huge degree.

I was "there" at least of driving age, during the mid 80s, and I drove many new sporty cars of the day...VWs BMWs, MBs, ect, and I can tell you with little exception the newer models may be better on paper and in stats but they are NOT better cars to drive. That is IF you are interested in good handling, and good driver feedback from the controls, and chassis balance.

The only ones that keep pushing the safety aspect are the insurance companies because it really benefits them the most, and the total idiot drivers that are never going to be responsible not matter what. It penalizes the diligent and responsible motorist.

There is no contest .If you "like" driving and being involved with your car the newer BMWs pale astonishingly compared to models from at least 20-25 or more years ago.

The newer models are outrageously expensive, overly complicated, not very reliable, loaded with gadgets that don't contribute to the driving experience, bloated and not well balanced, and expensive to maintain too.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: Garak

If not that, perhaps something a 1985 535i was actually competing against in the 1984/5 market in the first place.

The best handling American car back in '85 outside of the Corvette was the Camaro. It pulled about .85-.88 G on the skip pad, had 215 HP, 0-60 mph ~7 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.2@90 mph, top speed 140 mph, and was $11k-15. Not too bad at all and it compared well to other sports car like the Porsche 944 and BMWs close in price range. But the Camaro wasn't light at 3400 lbs and didn't get great gas milage 15-20 mpg or so, and had limited back seat room.


Unfortunately, '85 was the only year for the 215 hp 305 Camaro. The TPI 305 dropped to 190 after that.

The Mustang SVO eventually made 205hp and was better balanced than the nose heavy Z/28-IROC-Z. It had a faster steering rack and pinion than it's GT/LX5.0 brethren and Koni shocks and struts, rear disc brakes and bigger tires. It matched a Ferrari Testarossa on the skidpad. The downside? turbo lag was present but mostly it was the price. It was quite a bit more expensive than an LX 5.0. More than the Mustang GT IIRC.



Well not exactly. I think the base 305 TPI wasn't downrated to 190 hp until '87 when they switched it to a roller cam that was less agressive than the flat cam (strange). But it didn't matter because by then they had the TPI 350 available (automatic only though). And by '89 or so the 305 TPI was available with 225-230 HP with a manual. The Camaro was not really very nose heavy and had its handling, suspension and brakes pretty sorted out by '85 with the IROC models that was a readily available option package. The reciculating ball steering was fast and felt about as good as they were going to get it but a rack&pinion would've been better.


The F-body of the time was indeed a decent handling car. It shared the T-5 transmission with the Mustang, which is a fun gearbox IMHO. The MPH you quoted really does show the weight difference between the Camaro and the Mustang. My '87 would routinely trap 99Mph stock, and that is about par for the course for most of the 5.0L cars. They were however, less balanced in my opinion, and much lighter in the rear-end than the F-body, making them a lot less predictable and a lot less forgiving.

 

[Scott_Tucker]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The initial point of contention was about the older car handling and stopping better. We've established this is not true.


If you are just looking for numbers with no emotional input from the driver, then yes, the E39 is far superior.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The initial point of contention was about the older car handling and stopping better. We've established this is not true.


If you are just looking for numbers with no emotional input from the driver, then yes, the E39 is far superior.


At the time of the discussion, yes, this was the case. I think the rest of it is, as you and I have both stated, subjective. A car doesn't have to be the fastest, best handling or best stopping to be more fun.