BMW Z4 3,0si Acceleration 0-200 km/h with 265 HP

[Noname2354]

how many miles u get from a tank when you drive like in the video? or whats the avarage?

[styuk]

@Noname2354 around 20 liters for 100 miles dude

[ShadowAMD777]

it's not a 3,0si............

[hgortermarof]

LOOOL my Fiat Tipo 2.0 16v is just as fast hahaha and I got 160 horses lol

[weberstahlherz]

aren't we're talkin bout pure z4 3.0 si coupe 265 bmw power, aren't we're? and please i'm beggin on my kneez, someone let me inform about the fuckin opc. who the fuckin hell is opc?

thank you!

[flommoh]

not even the opc with 240 hp can do the same:D

265hp on 1,3 tons;)

[autodelta1988]

bmw sucks

[cooperonline]

@autodelta1988 You suck.

[verysexysexyguy]

lol... 265 sucks

[rherold9]

0-100 km/h which is 0-60 is about 6 seconds, that is quick.

[Grodinz]

@rherold9

No.

Many 80 sports cars, and most 90s did it in 4.x

So its not quick.

[fluffyman15]

@Grodinz

how many could afford the cars that you mention at that time and how many can afford this z4? see something? haha

[Grodinz]

@fluffyman15

Except your point is moot, even most 90s sports cars are faster.

[staggabob]

@Grodinz What's your definition of a 80s/90s sports car? The fastest Lancia Delta HF Integrale Evo 2 could hit 60 in 5.7, a Ferrari Testarossa took more than 5. You'd be hard pressed to find anything less than a supercar from that era hitting 100km/h in less than 5 seconds. Cars these days are getting slower because of the weight of extra safety features and electronics, better fuel economy and laws that demand lower emissions. This Z4 can do this but still get 40mpg.

[Grodinz]

@staggabob

1993 911 Turbo 4.5s

1989 300ZX ~ 5.0

1989 Lotus Esprit Turbo SE ~5.0

1992 Vipers ~ 4.6

1997+ Vettes : ~ 4.7

BMW Z3M ~5.0

Need i go on? And were not even talking supercar class yet.

[staggabob]

@Grodinz "Supercar class" is open to interpretation. I'd include a 911 Turbo, Esprit Turbo and Viper in that category certainly- Wiki always helps :) " It has been defined specifically as "a very expensive, fast or powerful car".[1] Stated in more general terms: "it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match," "it should be sleek and eye-catching" and its price should be "one in a rarefied atmosphere of its own" I'd also remind you of your statement "Many 80s....MOST 90's"....

[staggabob]

@staggabob You've mentioned 2 from the 80's, 1 of them a bona fida supercar and 3 from the 90's, again mostly expensive sports/ supercar models. The Vette might be a bargain in the US but in Europe you have to pay a minimum of $78k for a base model, a similar story for the Viper. The only comparative car in your list is the 300ZX which was a bargain but "Performance varied from 0-60 times of 5.0-6.0 seconds depending on the source" Not 4.x then? Or 2 other cars you mention? Yes, please go on :P

[staggabob]

@staggabob Actually I called it a bargain but at 1996 prices ($50k) a 300ZX would cost $72k today!

[Grodinz]

@staggabob

Yeah, but point being that this really isnt some kind of technical breakthrough or even that fast car to begin with, especially for its price.

Fun car to drive yes, but fast? No.

Z4 starts at what 47k and goes up to 62k $ or so, for an example you can get a corvette for this price. And looking at laptimes at the ring, even old C5 vette did 7:56 where Z4M could only do 8:12. And C5 is 90s.

Obviously the BMW is better quality, but looking at the performance, im not impressed.

[staggabob]

@Grodinz But that wasn't your point. You said that MOST 90s sports cars hit 60 in under 5 seconds which wasn't true.

No-one here said the Z4 was the fastest car on the road, you could name a whole bunch of quicker modern cars- Evo, Scooby...even the new Megane RS without having to stretch to supercars. But it's definitely not slow!

[Grodinz]

@staggabob

Well that depends what you consider sports cars. Most of the ones i know go under 5. Theres only a few that dont. Vette, 911, 97+ NSX, 98+ Trans Am / Camaro all go under 5. And few come very close, M3, RX7..

[cooperonline]

@rherold9 BMW states 5.6 seconds for 3.0si model.

[Grodinz]

Slooooow.

[cybershotty]

LOL."You know what mean 500Nm"Ofcourse i do!I own a turbo saab(torquey car)

And you should know,that with torque only,you wont get anywhere..I still dont believe that your astra goes from 0-200 in 22~ secs..Video please!So i could see how you are doing"the same"

[erazorxp]

@cybershotty

my astra goes 0-200 in ~18 sec... have a look!

[cybershotty]

@erazorxp lol sry for late response^^Well,your astra is heavily modded...He said his GTC with 205 hp does the same,which is hard to believe...Anyways,nice astra you got there:)

[cybershotty]

Your Opel astra do,what?Ha...The same?Dont be ridiculous....10~seconds slower is the same?

Even Opel astra OPC 240ps doesnt"do the same"

Funny guy!

[truzzopower]

You know what mean 500Nm?! the engine power isn't the only parameter to compare 2 engine...Torque is the tendency of a force to rotate...bigger torque mean more moment of force...i saw car with 100Hp less than other make better...the only bug of turbo engine il the initial turbo-lag...the NA engine has the advantage that have all power immediately available with no LAG time...

[truzzopower]

My Opel astra GTC 1.9 CDTI with 205HP do the same...it's very slow for a 3.0 si whit 265 HP...this is the reason why i don't buy an aspirated car...i love TURBO ENGINE!

[Don355555]

gear shifts a bit slow

[Acid5782]

why don't you let us see your mileage??

[ArmandoBaez]

thats what i said hahah

[BIGBOIIz8888]

SLOW!