Acceleration comparison videos: 135i vs. 370z vs. CaymanS vs. S2000

[Driver72]

It surely wasn't the new Cayman S as that would take the stock 135 easily, especially if it was the PDK.

I also concur what others have said, the testing results/times in these vids are always inconsistent. That's why you take the best time you can get in 5-6 runs to see what each car is capable of.
Or you do rolling runs where the terrible launches are removed from the equation.

[nlpamg]

damn! those are some awesome results! BMW FTW!

I love the 135i. 135i > 335i any day.

[Quick1 TO BE]

dude this video is crap.. doesnot prove anything... althou i do drive a 135i i dont think it was legit.. with my dumbass noob driving i was able to get 13.4 1/4 mile (consistant) car is stock with 6MT.. and i know for a fact that the 370z can do 13.3 1/4 mile

Ash

[Year's_End]

wow, terrible races.

wtf...DOUBLE CLUTCHING...why...

[SpeedballTrix]

He wasn't double clutching, he missed the shift like a scrub.

14 seconds? Really?
I run low 13s in mine (ALL stock 6mt) all day long (best run 13.26 and I can definitely do better) and i'm TERRIBLE at drag racing. And that's with ZERO track prep.
Not only did he miss at least one shift but his launches were mostly terrible.
He got one good one but that was the race he missed a shift. Not only that but missing a gear he still hit a 13.5, so without that huge mistake he should've been 13.3.

Oh well, cars racing is cool anyway =P

PS: I REALLY wanna run against a 370, but the only person I know that has one is my friends girl who really isn't a performance driver, nor will she let him race me in it.
I was offered a run against a G37 and I lol'ed.

[hammerhead]

How does the Z4M stack up vs. the 135i?

[hammerhead]

Originally Posted by SpeedballTrix

He wasn't double clutching, he missed the shift like a scrub.

14 seconds? Really?
I run low 13s in mine (ALL stock 6mt) all day long (best run 13.26 and I can definitely do better) and i'm TERRIBLE at drag racing. And that's with ZERO track prep.
Not only did he miss at least one shift but his launches were mostly terrible.
He got one good one but that was the race he missed a shift. Not only that but missing a gear he still hit a 13.5, so without that huge mistake he should've been 13.3.

Oh well, cars racing is cool anyway =P

PS: I REALLY wanna run against a 370, but the only person I know that has one is my friends girl who really isn't a performance driver, nor will she let him race me in it.
I was offered a run against a G37 and I lol'ed.

400m is a longer distance than 1/4 mile... barely!

[a burrito]

As always, these bestmotoring videos are complete garbage.

[Jaguar66]

If you look, and consider the cars are running against the clock, and not each other, the Caymans time beat the BMWs times on 2 out of the 3 of the BMWs runs. Including both the 0-400 M, and 0-500 M. If you average the BMWs runs the Caymans time beats it. And this is even counting that the Cayman S stumbled off the line on its only run, so other runs would likely have been even faster. I would say the Cayman S won this contest.

BMW runs
1st. 0-400 14.054 sec 0-500 16.202 sec
2nd. 0-400 13.676 sec 0-500 15.808 sec
3rd. 0-400 13.900 sec 0-500 16.049 sec
--------------------------------------------------
Ave. 0-400 13.877 sec 0-500 16.020 sec

Cayman S run
1. 0-400 13.758 sec 0-500 15.838sec

[domobrown]

Originally Posted by e82vette

what's so surprise v6 TT wins v4 s2000?

What's more surprising, your grammar or your knowledge? JK common mistake

[jlstyle]

As an ex-s2k owner, it's funny how they still put 10 years old s2000s in the reviews...
Why even bother with 10 years old engine vs 09s????
I mean they received sliiiiiiiiight torque increase on ap2 but still it's nothing compare to other cars.

[SpeedballTrix]

Originally Posted by hammerhead

400m is a longer distance than 1/4 mile... barely!

LOL nice ninja edit.
You should've deleted.
The difference is actually less than 8 feet, as I'm sure you saw when you did the math yourself AFTER making your post =P

Originally Posted by e82vette

what's so surprise v6 TT wins v4 s2000?

You win the internet.

[hammerhead]

[QUOTE=SpeedballTrix;5796163]LOL nice ninja edit.
You should've deleted.
The difference is actually less than 8 feet, as I'm sure you saw when you did the math yourself AFTER making your post =P



Damn, you're exactly right - gotta hand it to ya Speedball! Funny part is, I studied mechanical engineering and I have many basic conversion factors memorized... but after years and years it's getting rusty!

[forestjump]

luckily they had their race suits on..

[blklacker]

LOL @ THE Z

The Z got the Jump early... and still lost by mucho.... LOL Z fails

[blklacker]

Originally Posted by NFexec

This is entertaining if not informative. However, I like my sports cars to have superior handling ratings too. I'd like to see those comparisons on a bunch of twisties - wouldn't you?

Doug

LOL don't hate on the 135i... just becuase it out preforms 3series all day...

[blklacker]

Originally Posted by bimmerboy

never put any credibility in those best motoring vids.... i mean look how different the times were for the 135i in just those three runs

It reminds me of street racing... Its good to know in variable situations... starts/stop scenario 1er kicks butt..

[Jaguar66]

Originally Posted by RobMason

If you look, and consider the cars are running against the clock, and not each other, the Caymans time beat the BMWs times on 2 out of the 3 of the BMWs runs. Including both the 0-400 M, and 0-500 M. If you average the BMWs runs the Caymans time beats it. And this is even counting that the Cayman S stumbled off the line on its only run, so other runs would likely have been even faster. I would say the Cayman S won this contest.

BMW runs
1st. 0-400 14.054 sec 0-500 16.202 sec
2nd. 0-400 13.676 sec 0-500 15.808 sec
3rd. 0-400 13.900 sec 0-500 16.049 sec
--------------------------------------------------
Ave. 0-400 13.877 sec 0-500 16.020 sec

Cayman S run
1. 0-400 13.758 sec 0-500 15.838sec

Interesting to note the Caymans time would have beat the BMW 2 out of its 3 runs. (The only time it ran slower, the driver stumbled on take off) lol

[mshahidz]

Originally Posted by jlstyle

As an ex-s2k owner, it's funny how they still put 10 years old s2000s in the reviews...
Why even bother with 10 years old engine vs 09s????
I mean they received sliiiiiiiiight torque increase on ap2 but still it's nothing compare to other cars.

as an ex-s2k owner, you should know that the engine in the s2000 was ahead of its time. The car is engineered as a light weight car, which is why it is still considered a bench-mark in terms of roadsters. That is like saying the NSX should not be compared to newer cars, however it was over-engineered per-say.

This video basically showed the power of the turboes.

The most imporant information given out in the video is the pwr to weight ratios. All cars ranged between 4.46kg to 5.20 kg (the 1er is at 5.00). Therefore TECHNICALLY, all cars should be even right?No. It was a battle of engine technology compared to weight. The s2k is light, but much differently geared that the competing cars. It lost, but not my much considering its a inline-4.
The cayman came the closest thanks to its pwr/w ratio, and the its excellent gearing. The 370 clearly shows the difference in the power-bands of the cars. Despite having the best pwr/wht ratio, it lost.


Regardless these guys suck