1985 vs 2001 BMW 5-series performance comparison

[sciphi]

Today we're seeing a renaissance of the "fun to drive" car. There are a lot of choices out now that offer a decent dose of fun along with the commuter duties. Mazda2 and Mazda3, Mini Cooper, Honda Fit and the little cars now coming out from the Detroit 3 like the Cruze, Fiesta, Focus, and Fiat 500. It depends on the trim, of course. One can spec a fun to drive smaller car with a manual and big, sticky tires from the showroom floor. And have all the safety/NVH benefits of getting a modern car.

Most of those cars would compare well with that 1985 535i objectively. While they might be a touch less "fun to drive", they're still available and at a lower price point.

 

[Spazdog]

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.


In 1986 the LB9 was downrated to 190 hp and the F-body got a CHMSL.

I had an LG4 powered '84 Firebird. The back end was definitely light. Not nearly as much as my '85 Mustang LX 5.0 notch, but it was definitely nose heavy. I don't think trashing the feedback 4bbl and adding long runner port injection significantly changed the imbalance of the F-body.
I didn't have an SVO but I did have a turbocharged Mustang....briefly. It seemed better balanced than either of my V8 powered Mustang and Firebird, you know, when it wasn't blowing oil all over the windshield. My friend's turbo Fairmont was definitely better balanced than either of the previously mentioned cars but I think it has a longer wheelbase. It definitely had a lot more overhang on the back end.

 

[mechanicx]

But still we are only talking 1 year or maybe even a half a year of production in '86 when the 305 transitioned to a roller cam, one-piece main seal and center-bolt valve covers. The very next year the 305 TPI's power was back up with the manual at least. Plus the 5.7 was available.

The F-body was not really that nose heavy. Depending on model it varied but the V8 had a F/R weight balance of about 55/45 with driver, not 50/50 or idea but not too bad and as good or better than the 4th generation Camaro. The live axle unsprung weight and the tendency to be able to spin the rear tires without the IROC tire and suspension package only gave the feeling of being overly front heavy. The IROCs didn't feel nose heavy.

 

[ffracer]

They are both great cars. The M5 is really a superfast car.

One thing that it has (including my 97 m3) is too much weight like most cars today.

I have never subscribed to the mindset that weight = good. I'm not interested in a crusier car like some are. I want handling. People use cars for different reasons.

To me, a light car that handles trumps power. Of course, a light car with power is even better.

The m5 is really amazing given the size & weight what it does can do. Enjoy it.

Going back to positives today, I don't like the weight, nor all electronic stuff like ESC and TC, but you get a pretty fast small car for cheap today for what they do.

 

[cadfaeltex]

Definitely have to agree with the MINI Cooper being fun to drive. Had an '05 S convertible that was a blast.

Don't mean to be rude, but I didn't realize that the Cruze or Fit had any fun to drive variants (at least not like some of the Mazdas or Mini's).

 

[GMBoy]

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.



These are the same people holding on to their memories of that Big Block Chevelle, Hemi-Cuda etc. The cannot accept that in modern times today's cars clearly outrun the old Muscle cars. Case in point...back in 1987 when I first got my 87 Grand National I spent more time "proving" that the car was faster than the old 454's etc. I think I was challenged at every light until I just stopped because I wasn't gonna race it anymore. I still have that car (mint and only 50k miles) and now people either know what it is and are still amazed at it or the young kids have no clue, LOL.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: cadfaeltex
Definitely have to agree with the MINI Cooper being fun to drive. Had an '05 S convertible that was a blast.

Don't mean to be rude, but I didn't realize that the Cruze or Fit had any fun to drive variants (at least not like some of the Mazdas or Mini's).


Our Fit Sport fitted with the 205/50-16 size tire that came on the optional Mugen wheels (we did the +0 sizing when it needed new tires) is a lot of fun on onramps and twisty roads. The lighter weight, willing engine, and fantastic steering help make it a fun car to drive. My Cruze Eco 6MT has lots of ingredients for a sportier car including fairly aggressive gearing for the first 3 gears, all the torque coming on at 2200 RPM and leaving at 5500 RPM, lightweight wheels, a lower ride height compared to other Cruzes, and 200 lbs less weight. An Eco MT Cruze weighs just over 3000 lbs compared to 3200 for other Cruzes. It's capable and composed through the twisty stuff thanks to all that.

Neither car will be mistaken for a sports car, since they're not. They do put driver input onto the road fairly directly compared to a Corolla, Elantra, or newer Civic (not the Si). By that metric of responding well to driver input, they are fun to drive.

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Yeah they are a blast though, my friend has a restored 67 and an old 356.

Very easy to end up in the ditch backwards!

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: 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.


I don't know I disagree to a point. The new M5 is annoying, but I really prefer the newer 7 series, and AMG models. The 1 series is a very driver orientated car.

The old Ferrari's were a blast, but a new 458 is still a blast to drive. If you haven't I recommend driving one.

I'd say from my experience its a mixed bag, you can't paint with a broad brush.

For example anything Lambo has made since the Diablo is 100 times better put together and actually runs.

911's are still just as die hard, I mean a GTS Cup car will kill you just as fast as my friends 67, but its a bit more user friendly.

GM certainly has gotten a lot better after essentially 40 years of building junk.

A 2011 Mustang is built many times better than a 1964, heck the old ones are a bit scary in some areas. Ford built them cheap that's for sure!

Its a mixed bag. In terms of raw performance though their is no contest.

 

[SteveSRT8]

I noted the comments regarding weight. Too bad it's so expensive to make a lighter car, as I believe this is the area where most drivers would appreciate the difference.

I just recently learned of a friend who backed his Z06 into the wall at a track day. A lot of cars go into oversteer at high speeds in the hands of an unskilled driver. At my first track event I even saw an idjit take his SRT10 Ram pickup into the wall backwards at 100 mph because he made a sloppy downshift at the entrance to the corner.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: GMBoy
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.



These are the same people holding on to their memories of that Big Block Chevelle, Hemi-Cuda etc. The cannot accept that in modern times today's cars clearly outrun the old Muscle cars. Case in point...back in 1987 when I first got my 87 Grand National I spent more time "proving" that the car was faster than the old 454's etc. I think I was challenged at every light until I just stopped because I wasn't gonna race it anymore. I still have that car (mint and only 50k miles) and now people either know what it is and are still amazed at it or the young kids have no clue, LOL.


So true. I had a 70 Chevelle SS454, and it wasn't really that quick at all in stock trim.

 

[rslifkin]

There's definitely a lot more to how fun to drive a car is than numbers. My dad's 05 V6 Camry is just as quick as my Jeep and handles better, but it'll bore you to death driving it, the steering is very numb, etc. There's just nothing there to excite you.

The Jeep won't win any races (particularly when corners are involved), but it keeps you entertained (especially in snow/rain in 2wd if you have a heavy foot), has some road feel in the steering, and is generally not boring to drive. You can hop in, drive 8 hours on the highway, and instead of being bored/tired when you arrive, you get out feeling refreshed and awake. Yet, you can still drive it like an appliance when you want to.

 

[Scott_Tucker]

Although it isn't everything, a lot of the performance increases are in the tires.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
Although it isn't everything, a lot of the performance increases are in the tires.


I can agree with that. I have Toyo T1's on the rear and they are JUNK. The T1R's on the front are much better. I intend on replacing them with the new Pilot Super Sport tires from Michelin.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I have Toyo T1's on the rear and they are JUNK. The T1R's on the front are much better.

Not claiming that's right or wrong, but how did you objectively determine this? The demands on tires in the rear are much different than in the front, especially in a car like yours.

 

[hattaresguy]

You need some DOT cheater slicks to get that M5 to hook up!

That's the problem with big power RWD cars, 600ish is about the limit. More than that and you start to have traction problems.

That's why a Veyron is AWD, only reliable way to put 1k hp down.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I noted the comments regarding weight. Too bad it's so expensive to make a lighter car, as I believe this is the area where most drivers would appreciate the difference.

I just recently learned of a friend who backed his Z06 into the wall at a track day. A lot of cars go into oversteer at high speeds in the hands of an unskilled driver. At my first track event I even saw an idjit take his SRT10 Ram pickup into the wall backwards at 100 mph because he made a sloppy downshift at the entrance to the corner.


Yes, a lot of modern cars will go into oversteer, but almost all of them demonstrate a progressive nature in doing so. And almost none of them will do a snap oversteer move if you simply let off the throttle if you are entering a corner a little too hot. Older 911's on the other hand will go into oversteer like you turned on a light switch if you let off the throttle in a high speed turn. Nothing progressive at all about it...its around and done.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I have Toyo T1's on the rear and they are JUNK. The T1R's on the front are much better.

Not claiming that's right or wrong, but how did you objectively determine this? The demands on tires in the rear are much different than in the front, especially in a car like yours.

The car will break loose in 3rd gear when on it at over 100Km/h...... It shouldn't.

But no, I haven't been able to compare different tires on the rears; these are the tires that came on it. However, the mix of tires front and back puzzles me. Why it doesn't have the T1R's on all four corners.....

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I noted the comments regarding weight. Too bad it's so expensive to make a lighter car, as I believe this is the area where most drivers would appreciate the difference.


Making a lightweight, powerful, and affordable car that meets today's safety standards is pretty difficult. We could all be driving Lotuses, but they're $45k and have no trunk space.

It's the same difference driving a go-kart vs. an ATV. The ATV is faster, but the kart is far more direct in its driving experience thanks to lighter weight and lighter components.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I noted the comments regarding weight. Too bad it's so expensive to make a lighter car, as I believe this is the area where most drivers would appreciate the difference.


Making a lightweight, powerful, and affordable car that meets today's safety standards is pretty difficult. We could all be driving Lotuses, but they're $45k and have no trunk space.

It's the same difference driving a go-kart vs. an ATV. The ATV is faster, but the kart is far more direct in its driving experience thanks to lighter weight and lighter components.


My buddies Elise is a fun track car but its probably got worse NVH than my Neon. Not that he minds one bit! Light and very refined is still very hard to do I guess.
Anyways I always like to look at solo 1 results as they usually show that light weight and some HP is usually faster than alot of weight and alot of HP.
A Cobalt SS with a downpipe, a tune, and springs/shocks, front suspension bushings replaced with bearings, "street tires" and presumably a better driver, beats all sorts of big V8 cars on R-compounds around Mosport. The car is for sale for $18K too, so for the price of a new Corolla you can go beat on Z06's on almost any track if you've got the skills.