1985 vs 2001 BMW 5-series performance comparison

[OVERKILL]

Since urchin seems [censored]-bent on comparing the performance of his 1985 BMW to everything made since, I've gone to the trouble and looked up the spec's:

Assuming it is a 1985 535i (if I'm wrong, I'm sure he'll correct me):

Source for some


Specs:

Engine Code : M106
Displacement : 3460 cm3
Output : 185 cv (136 kW) @ 5400 rpm
Torque : 290 Nm (213 lb.ft) @ 4000 rpm
Gearbox : 5 speed Manual
Wheelbase : 262.5 cm
Length : 462 cm
Width : 171 cm
Height : 139.7 cm
Cx : 0.37
Front Brakes : Vented Discs (285 mm)
Rear Brakes : Discs (285 mm)
Front Tyres : 220/55 R390
Rear Tyres : 220/55 R390
Kerb Weight : 1370 kg (3,020lbs)
Weight/Output Ratio : 7.41 kg/cv

Braking 70-0 228ft. Skidpad .73g. city/highway 19/29mpg. top speed 127.

R&T: 0-60 in 8.3 seconds. 1/4 mile 16.4 at 85 mph. 60-0 149 feet. skidpad .78g.

MT: 0-60 7.9 seconds. 1/4 mile 16.25 at 83. skidpad .80g.
Top speed 125mph


Now, lets for fun compare it to the E39 M5:

Engine Code: S62
Displacement: 4.941 liter / 301.5 cu in
Power: 400 bhp / 298 KW @ 6600 rpm
Torque: 500 Nm / 369 ft lbs @ 3800 rpm
BHP/Liter: 81 bhp / liter
Gearbox: 6 speed Manual
Drag coefficient: 0.310
Front tires: 245/40 ZR 18
Rear tires: 275/35 ZR 18
Front Brakes: 354 mm
Rear Brakes: 328 mm
Weight: 1720 kilo / 3792 lbs
Length / Width / Height 4784 mm (188.3 in) / 1800 mm (70.9 in) / 1432 mm (56.4 in)
Wheelbase / Track (fr/r) 2830 mm (111.4 in) / 1515 mm (59.6 in) / 1527 mm (60.1 in)
Power to weight: 0.23 bhp / kg
Top Speed: 250 km/h (155 mph) (limited) (300Km/h uncorked)
0-60 mph: 4.8s
1/4 mile: 13.2 @ 108Mph
Skidpad: .90gA
Slalom Speed: 64.7 mph
60-0.......116 Ft
70-0.......156 Ft
100-0......328 Ft

Now, unless I'm blind, the E39 appears to do EVERYTHING better. Acceleration, skidpad, BRAKING (ahem....).

And compared to many, MANY cars, the E39 doesn't even come close. There are plenty of newer cars that are faster, stop better, corner better, accelerate faster....etc.

Now, I chose these cars because they were the ones being discussed, feel free to add your own examples as to how things have improved since the 80's

 

[urchin]

@Overkill:

The numbers do not tell you everything.

Balance....study that word and get back to me.

Tactile feel....study that word too and then get back to me.

Nimbleness....study that word in addition and then get back to me.

I have driven BOTH of those models and the older car is more fun and involving to drive. Period.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: urchin
@Overkill:

The numbers do not tell you everything.

Balance....study that word and get back to me.


That's a rather empty reply sir.

You stated that your '85 stopped better with smaller wheels and brakes.

It doesn't.

The numbers don't lie.

I'll be more than willing to study whatever version of balance you think you are defending when you can tell me that you've familiarized yourself with the phrase "through rose-coloured glasses". Which is how I think you've ended up with such a jaded view on this subject.

 

[OVERKILL]

In regards to your edit:

Yes, fun and involving can apply to many a car from that era. I came from an '87 Mustang GT. It wasn't balanced. It wasn't composed, but it sure as [censored] was a lot of FUN and INVOLVING to drive.

The similarities between the E39 and the Mustang end at the fact they both had V8's are are RWD. However, I turn off DSC, I turn ON SPORT, and I drive the car without the nannies a good 95% of the time because, I LIKE the car to be FUN and INVOLVING to drive. But it does those two things with far more finesse and predictability than the Mustang. It has fantastic steering feedback, it is quite nimble for a car that weighs close to 4,000lbs, and will light the tires up in 3rd gear when prompted. It is indeed a LOT of FUN. Keep the nannies ON? It's a 4-door sedan with a 6spd.

I have a novel idea: Let us try to keep this to some form of reasonable and level-headed discussion among adults, rather than you resorting to condescension and curmudgeon-like behaviour. Threads are much more productive that way.

 

[urchin]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

@Overkill:


That's a rather empty reply sir.


I would think for someone who ONLY cares about stats it might be.

The older car is a BETTER car to drive. If you have had the experience of driving these older BMWs and other models like it you would understand.

Better stats don't automatically make for more engaging driving experiences.

 

[SLCraig]

I'd take the E39.
But I would also take the E39 over all these dumb new BMW's too. I haven't liked one since.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: urchin
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

@Overkill:


That's a rather empty reply sir.


I would think for someone who ONLY cares about stats it might be.

The older car is a BETTER car to drive. If you have had the experience of driving these older BMWs and other models like it you would understand.

Better stats don't automatically make for more engaging driving experiences.




Comically, my sister owned an E34. That's the oldest BMW I've driven. It was a 535i. It was a very nice car to drive. The M5 is better. In EVERY way.

You make a lot of assumptions about me sir.

I brought up the stats because YOU stated in another thread that the E28 had a better stopping distance with smaller wheels and tires. It does not. We can use the numbers to end that argument. Fair enough?

The topic of an engaging driving experience has nothing to do with the stopping distance, which was our original conflict. If you would like to discuss that topic (which I feel is a bit subjective) I would be more than willing to. That is why this thread exists.

 

[JHZR2]

Ummmmm, seriously?

What kind of a comparison is that?

For the record, I wouldnt trade my E30 for even a car as beautiful as an E39. It's why I didnt get rid of it when I bought my new 135i, and its also partly why I bought my 135i, no other car replicates the feel of the nimble, light E30. And while the 135i is a beast and performs like crazy (it would be fun to compare the 135i to your E39 M5, not because I think mine would win, it likely wouldnt, but just out of curiosity), the 318 has a feel to it that isnt replicated.

Different kind of car, sure, but the newer, bigger ones just feel different.

It's like comparing my 82 300CD to my father's 96 E300D. The 96 does everything better, but just doesnt feel the same. Its not like you can reasonably exist and drive at the limit all the time, to use the excess overcapacity that most cars have. This is why I always say that the typical driver doesnt need more than 120 hp. This still holds true (OK, my E30 has 138).

And if youre REALLY going to do a bona-fide comparison, at least use an E39 530i or something similar.

 

[urchin]

How about another relative fail for driving enjoyment....

1991 VW Golf GTI 16v 100% more involving experience than 2011 VW Golf GTI 2L Turbo.

Yes, the numbers are all better in the new model but the fun factor is simply NOT there in the newer car. The driver is more detached, less feedback, less connection with the road, ect.

 

[urchin]

I'm simply not going to argue with Overkill.

He can believe whatever he wants but he doesn't speak from experience on this.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Ummmmm, seriously?

What kind of a comparison is that?

For the record, I wouldnt trade my E30 for even a car as beautiful as an E39. It's why I didnt get rid of it when I bought my new 135i, and its also partly why I bought my 135i, no other car replicates the feel of the nimble, light E30. And while the 135i is a beast and performs like crazy (it would be fun to compare the 135i to your E39 M5, not because I think mine would win, it likely wouldnt, but just out of curiosity), the 318 has a feel to it that isnt replicated.

Different kind of car, sure, but the newer, bigger ones just feel different.

It's like comparing my 82 300CD to my father's 96 E300D. The 96 does everything better, but just doesnt feel the same.

And if youre REALLY going to do a bona-fide comparison, at least use an E39 530i or something similar.


The ONLY reason I used the M5 was because it was one of the cars being discussed in the other thread. The discussion was derailing the topic, so I figured I'd make a thread for us to discuss this. If you want to dig up the spec's for another model so we could see how it stacks up, please go right ahead!

And I know exactly what you mean. The E34 was different from the E39. And the Fox, well, it was nothing like either of them. Sort of like driving a shopping cart with 300HP. But it was a LOT of fun

You always felt like you were going to die in it. At 220 the M5 is at the top of 4th gear, and is very much "lalala", whilst at 220, the Fox was rattling in places I didn't know could rattle and you had to be careful how you applied the brakes, lest it attempt to throw you in one of the ditches with it's awesome stock brakes!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: urchin
I'm simply not going to argue with Overkill.

He can believe whatever he wants but he doesn't speak from experience on this.


I'm not arguing! I prefer the term "debate"

I have a fair bit of experience with a variety of different cars ranging from the 60's to now. However my 80's BMW experience is somewhat limited

Seriously, I'd like to keep this civil. And I think a lot of it is subjective. How a car "feels" really does come down to the person driving it. Obviously massive differences between types of cars is going to project some sort of general driving dynamic onto any driver, but when talking about small differences in attitude and feedback, it really comes down to the person behind the wheel.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
At 220 the M5 is at the top of 4th gear, and is very much "lalala"


Yet I can say that at least from my time at 120 MPH in my saab, which only has 175hp and far less muscle everywhere else.

And Ill bet that urchin's car is fairly well composed (even if noisier, which I bet it is) at that speed. It may not get there as fast or flawlessly, but it doesnt mean that older cars can't feel super composed at high speeds. This is something that always surprises w123 drivers when getting into a GOOD MB diesel, how composed it is. How it responds to being pushed, how it responds to issues (e.g. tire blowout), etc. WHile chassis have gotten stiffer and better performing, good chassis dynamics wasnt invented yesterday.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
At 220 the M5 is at the top of 4th gear, and is very much "lalala"


Yet I can say that at least from my time at 120 MPH in my saab, which only has 175hp and far less muscle everywhere else.

And Ill bet that urchin's car is fairly well composed (even if noisier, which I bet it is) at that speed. It may not get there as fast or flawlessly, but it doesnt mean that older cars can't feel super composed at high speeds. This is something that always surprises w123 drivers when getting into a GOOD MB diesel, how composed it is. How it responds to being pushed, how it responds to issues (e.g. tire blowout), etc. WHile chassis have gotten stiffer and better performing, good chassis dynamics wasnt invented yesterday.


I agree completely. My issues was with the statement that the older car stopped better with smaller wheels and brakes. It didn't. The E39 has more rubber on the road and much better stopping power behind that rubber. I think that's expected, it is a much newer car. And that in NO WAY takes away from the fact that I bet the E28 is an incredible car to drive and likely does FEEL a lot more nimble (it is almost 900lbs lighter) as well. Those sorts of dynamics were not what I was contesting. It was the topic of large wheels, brakes, and stopping distance. Which come coupled with cars that have a heck of a lot more power now. More power = more speed, more speed, on a track, means you need more brakes. Pretty logical course of development in my mind.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I'm not arguing! I prefer the term "debate"

I have a fair bit of experience with a variety of different cars ranging from the 60's to now.


You know, even my dad would have agreed with you, and he fit the definition of curmudgeon/old codger when it came to vehicles. He liked his rear wheel drive land yachts, yet he certainly saw the writing on the wall when it came to car designs and had no illusions about the "good old days."

He shook his head at people who have trucks like my 1984 F-150 and revert the electronic ignition to points for simplicity's sake, and thought I was nuts to keep the vehicle in the first place. He said it bluntly - it's too old.

He liked old vehicles, but did not see them with rose tinted glasses. The old truck is easy to fix. That's fortunate, since it needed a lot of fixing. He could easily tune a carb and time a vehicle perfectly when equipped with points. Believe me, he didn't miss carbs or points, though.

Old cars have character? Yes. We forget that character traits can be good and bad, and have included, depending on the vehicle, huge fuel dilution, 3000 mile or less OCIs, annual tuneups, grocery cart suspensions and handling, sludge, wind noise, AM only radio, three speed automatics, and bias ply tires.

I like the old BMWs, Benzes, and Audis. Of course they have some advantages over the newer ones, price being most obvious. Anyone using a 1985 anything today as a daily driver is certainly not getting the best fuel mileage, ride, handling, or reliability. And there will be lots of repairs to do, no matter how good the maintenance was. I know. I rebuilt the 1985 F-150 virtually from the ground up over the last three years (tranny, suspension, brakes, steering components, rear end, and engine), and the 1991 Audi is not far behind.

Looking back on the past fondly is one thing. Actually owning old vehicles with character can definitely tax one's patience.

 

[Trajan]

Gotta go with OverK1ll on this one.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
In regards to your edit:

Yes, fun and involving can apply to many a car from that era. I came from an '87 Mustang GT. It wasn't balanced. It wasn't composed, but it sure as [censored] was a lot of FUN and INVOLVING to drive.
...


That made me smile.

I have similar memories of my '86 Daytona Turbo Z C/S.

Balanced?

no.
Composed?

No.
Fun to drive? Oh yeah.

Honestly, it was too big with too small of an engine to be fast and propelled by the wrong wheels to be fast, but don't tell it that. Make the boost gauge wiggle around in the red at what I guess would have been about 8 or 9 psi and stuff that K-car twist beam rear axled chassis into a corner.

But back on topic, wouldn't a 2001 BMW 530i be a more fair comparison to the '85 535i?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
But back on topic, wouldn't a 2001 BMW 530i be a more fair comparison to the '85 535i?


If not that, perhaps something a 1985 535i was actually competing against in the 1984/5 market in the first place.

 

[rslifkin]

I'm actually quite entertained by the specs on the '85 BMW. It may be a fun, pleasant car to drive, but the specs are pretty sad. The E39, however, has some pretty good #s to show for itself.

As far as comparing the '85 to other vehicles, sorry Urchin, but my 13 year old solid axle box on wheels (the Jeep) is faster 0-60, pulls the same numbers on a skidpad, stops faster (despite being terribly under-braked), and will go just as fast or slightly faster in a straight line with the speed limiter removed.

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
But back on topic, wouldn't a 2001 BMW 530i be a more fair comparison to the '85 535i?


If not that, perhaps something a 1985 535i was actually competing against in the 1984/5 market in the first place.

That misses the point Overkill is trying to make - mainly that the larger brakes and tires on new cars results in better braking performance.