B6 vs. B7 Opinions please!
01-18-2006, 11:56 AM
#42
Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,789
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't pay much attention to the 3.2 since the first builds were Tiptronic only
Most numbers I've seen for the 2.0T put it around 15.5, which is signifigantly faster than the 1.8T.
The B7 2.0T is as heavy as the outgoing B6 3.0. The fastest time I've found for a 3.0 is 15.2 with it's 220HP.
The B7 2.0T is as heavy as the outgoing B6 3.0. The fastest time I've found for a 3.0 is 15.2 with it's 220HP.
01-18-2006, 12:26 PM
#43
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What specifically sucks about the Z4?...curious because a relative owns one...
I like the idea of this roadster, and the styling from the get go. Which is odd for me becasue I on't like any other Bangle hacjk jobs.
But close up inspection shows some cheapness in fit and finish, particularly paint. The interior is also overly plastic in pieces used.
Also, do you have the larger of the two engines in yours?
D-
But close up inspection shows some cheapness in fit and finish, particularly paint. The interior is also overly plastic in pieces used.
Also, do you have the larger of the two engines in yours?
D-
01-18-2006, 01:38 PM
#44
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Say what you want, but the engine is under-rated.
Audi's under no obligation to publish the engine's actual tested output. Nor do they ever characterize the 200hp engine as the result of some "test." Audi's only obligation is to guarantee that the engine produces at least as much power as claimed.
2.0T dyno results consistently point to an engine with a good bit more than 200hp at the crank.
2.0T dyno results consistently point to an engine with a good bit more than 200hp at the crank.
01-18-2006, 01:50 PM
#46
New Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THANK YOU for responding & what sucks about the Z4?
Dave is correct about the fit & finish in the interior not being up-to-par with Audi. I have noticed I generally tend not to like BMW interiors as much as Audis (Specifically the Seats which audi does an amazing job making them uber comfy!)... all in all, a friend has the boxster (not much more $$$) which I think is a much better vehicle for a small bump up in $$$. What it comes down to is this... I want a fun 4 door but wanted everyone's informed opinion about B6 vs. B7 and thx for the input.
other gripes about the Z4:
- bad tailight assembly on trunk, breaks very easily if you put your hand in the wrong place while washing car
- have decided I have trouble living with plastic painted silver (instead of actual metal) on steering wheel spokes/it just looks cheap
- can't stand the BMW dashboards, whatever pebbled material that is looks only decent but is a pain to clean!!
- Radio volume button is a weird soft plastic material that picks up scratches and looks funny
- not sure about the paint thing... does BMW use a different technology to coat the chassis?
other gripes about the Z4:
- bad tailight assembly on trunk, breaks very easily if you put your hand in the wrong place while washing car
- have decided I have trouble living with plastic painted silver (instead of actual metal) on steering wheel spokes/it just looks cheap
- can't stand the BMW dashboards, whatever pebbled material that is looks only decent but is a pain to clean!!
- Radio volume button is a weird soft plastic material that picks up scratches and looks funny
- not sure about the paint thing... does BMW use a different technology to coat the chassis?
01-18-2006, 02:28 PM
#47
New Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other Car Companies do this. Dodge SRT-4 is underated as well.
Dodge rates it a 220hp, but a dyno by Turbomag says, that the engine dynoed at 218Hp at the wheels.
Check the link below.<ul><li><a href="http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0407tur_srt/">http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0407tur_srt/</a</li></ul>
Check the link below.<ul><li><a href="http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0407tur_srt/">http://www.turbomagazine.com/tech/0407tur_srt/</a</li></ul>
01-18-2006, 02:42 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Say what you want, but the engine is under-rated.
Don't try and cover for anybody, it's all wrong.
The test is measured HP SAE(net) not on a chassis dyno somewhere, but at factory. It's the standard measure irregardless of what dyno testers may be pulling in a shop with typical loss(or variance) of accuracy from engine to axle. HP test results on a chassis dyno will not match the accepted method using an engine brake dyno. Didn't you see that referenced in my other post?
Otherwise, let's just throw out every mfgr's published(and accepted) HP ratings and all do our own.
They ARE under an obligation because wrongly claimed HP has resulted in fines and lawsuits against mfgrs in the past. Check that out.
Anyway, I agree with your right to disagree with me, but I just don't get this rabid defense of incorrect info.
D-
The test is measured HP SAE(net) not on a chassis dyno somewhere, but at factory. It's the standard measure irregardless of what dyno testers may be pulling in a shop with typical loss(or variance) of accuracy from engine to axle. HP test results on a chassis dyno will not match the accepted method using an engine brake dyno. Didn't you see that referenced in my other post?
Otherwise, let's just throw out every mfgr's published(and accepted) HP ratings and all do our own.
They ARE under an obligation because wrongly claimed HP has resulted in fines and lawsuits against mfgrs in the past. Check that out.
Anyway, I agree with your right to disagree with me, but I just don't get this rabid defense of incorrect info.
D-
01-18-2006, 02:50 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way 225 would cut into 255 of 3.2, and it's irrelevant...doesn't work that way...(more)...
They re-designed the 3.0 to 3.2 at the same time they designed the new 2.0T, right? For 2005.5, yes?
Okay, it would be inconceivable that they overshot on the 2.0T and got too close to the 3.2 so as to eliminate the HP difference between the two.
What do you think this is, hit and miss? They know what they're doing and exactly the numbers they're hoping to achieve on both the 3.2 and the 2.0T..while re-designing it. Not, oops what did we do here... afterwords.
And afraid of posting true HP because of insurance companies??? I hope you're kidding here, MB.
Let's get serious here or drop it.
D-
Okay, it would be inconceivable that they overshot on the 2.0T and got too close to the 3.2 so as to eliminate the HP difference between the two.
What do you think this is, hit and miss? They know what they're doing and exactly the numbers they're hoping to achieve on both the 3.2 and the 2.0T..while re-designing it. Not, oops what did we do here... afterwords.
And afraid of posting true HP because of insurance companies??? I hope you're kidding here, MB.
Let's get serious here or drop it.
D-