D
Deleted member 22276
Guest
Hopefully the S3 will prevail! I think the 135 is quicker out of the box than the S3 though isn't it?
Like you say, out the box power I would think the BMW would be top trumps-3.0 turbo`d against 2.0 turbo...hopefully the S3 will win overall though!!! All nice cars, I really like the 135 coupe...
Just looked it up. 306bhp stock, 0-62 in 5.2 - that is pretty quick! I wonder what a remap would give it!
Just looked it up. 306bhp stock, 0-62 in 5.2 - that is pretty quick! I wonder what a remap would give it!
306 bhp stock? Through the back wheels in a 'small' hatchback? Thats got to be one hell of a car. BMW or not....I mean seriously
Yeah, credit where credit is due, that does look like a stonking car on paper. Most BMW styling makes me vomit, but the 135 looks quite nice IMO (Z4 hard top looks the dogs too!)
I know it's stupid but the BMW badge would put me off buying one with my own money.
This was in the magazine at the end of 2006 I think.
I believe the S3 won it, with the BMW 2nd then the R32 - just tried searching it and found the following info:
Lap times round the track (wet conditions - hence poorer BMW performance):
S3 1.33
R32 1.35.4
BMW 1.36.9
I seem to recall the article was very complimentary to the S3
Take this site with a pinch of salt it's just a " ball park "
http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php?page_id=compare&car1=459a7e3125a10&car2=473d6e85e5770
The S3 has a slight edge round a track , while the 135i has the edge at 0-60 and 1/4 of a mile.
Where the 135i really lays it down is 100-150mph the extra power leaves the S3 for dead!
p
& what about a mapped S3?
We are talking about a 4 Cyl 2.0 against a V6 3.5 so even though I said its not how big the engine is, when its nearly twice the size & 6 cylinder it will make a little difference, bet the mapped one would leave it for dust or am I wrong?
You would think a remapped S3 would be quicker than a Std 135i , remap the 135i and it's game over.
p
3.0 not 3.5
you are still comparing 2 different sized engines, its not a fair comparison, 3ltre v6 against a 4 cyl 2ltre, come on common sense & maths prevails, get a 2ltre tuned 1 series same as s3 then come back to the table, top gear IMHO compared the wrong car, maybe they should have chosen something more sensible, no?? Anyone else??
you are still comparing 2 different sized engines, its not a fair comparison, 3ltre v6 against a 4 cyl 2ltre, come on common sense & maths prevails, get a 2ltre tuned 1 series same as s3 then come back to the table, top gear IMHO compared the wrong car, maybe they should have chosen something more sensible, no?? Anyone else??
A 120i is a 170hp 4 cylinder normally aspirated engine. It would sure take some work to get it up to S3 power levels, so that is an even worse comparison.Not neccessarily, cause the bmw isnt 4wd so doesnt have the control & power to all 4 no & with a few changes to the S3 like change the haldex so power better distributed, I would hedge my bets on the s3, but we are comparing 2 cars with completely different sized engines aswell, I mean ok get a 120i tuned similar to the S3 & see if that comes close, unlikely IMHO, but 2.0 compared to a V6 3.0, gotta be a level playing field, IMHO again its a stupid comparison, but I'm no maclaren technician thats for sure, lol.
Anyway whats the bhp/torque of the 2 to compare standard?
Well they could always compare it to the A3 3.2 V6...
That would be an embarrassment. I've never understood why BMW can get 333 HP out of a 3.2l 6-cylinder engine(M3) and Audi/VW gets 250 HP out of a 3.2l VR6(3.2 A3/R32). Sometimes Audis seem anemic and underpowered.