01-27-2013, 10:21 PM | #1 |
Second Lieutenant
16
Rep 206
Posts |
First xDrive35i review
Intersting review.
They claim 0-60 was 6.1s yet the xDrive28i is reviewing at 6.4s and the xDrive35i should be near 5.3s so that .8s slower than claimed for the xDrive35i. The note I guess is it's high altitude but I can't imagine .8s slower for that. |
01-27-2013, 11:24 PM | #2 |
Lieutenant
275
Rep 515
Posts |
Bad tires again? I can only say I could feel the difference in pck up test driving even with the lighter SDrive on the four cylinder.
Edit- just watched, no idea how he achieved the time, probably just stomping on the gas, perhaps he'd do better shifting gears or vice versa. In any case he himself said that he is bigger and heavier then most test drivers he needs to shave some weight off for better times Last edited by M3tallicar; 01-27-2013 at 11:39 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-27-2013, 11:34 PM | #3 |
Captain
17
Rep 675
Posts |
All-season tires strike again? I hate to think that was his best 0-60 run (or his only).
I watched the video on my iPhone in the X1 via Bluetooth audio for SQ (I'm waiting for my wife to get off of work). Hearing the sound helps me fondly remember my N54 335i (torque galore). Perhaps the 6AT really is best mated to the 35i despite how much I love the 8AT with the 28i.
__________________
Past: E36 325i, E39 540i, F46 323i (AA tuned), E82 3.0NA, E84/F30 N20 BMS Stage 1, E70 X5 N55, F06 N55
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-28-2013, 12:56 AM | #4 |
Captain
17
Rep 675
Posts |
I also wonder if he was just using Drive instead of Drive Sport?
__________________
Past: E36 325i, E39 540i, F46 323i (AA tuned), E82 3.0NA, E84/F30 N20 BMS Stage 1, E70 X5 N55, F06 N55
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-28-2013, 06:49 AM | #5 |
Major General
4465
Rep 9,160
Posts |
It isn't the transmission. Recall that just about every test of the F30 335i has it being slower than the E90 335i largely because of the extra shift the 8s needs to hit 60 mph.
I'd guess this result is a really green car, or just one that doesn't make good power. It's not uncommon for a few motors to be down 10% on power compared to the norm. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-28-2013, 07:22 AM | #6 |
Private
8
Rep 75
Posts |
0-60 def. affected by the 1-mile high altitude, so 6.1 sec. isn't too terrible. You should see how other cars in their tests are impacted, especially ones without turbos... pretty dramatic differences. Cadillac ATS 3.6 clocked 7.51 to 60 (with both of those goofballs inside), or nearly 1.5-2 sec. off other's tests.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-29-2013, 10:48 PM | #7 |
Second Lieutenant
16
Rep 206
Posts |
The same two guys just did the Volvo xc60. Expected 0-60 was 6.4 with some tests showing 6.6. At their same altitude it did 6.99, so about half a second off other tests for the xc60. Do some very inaccurate math and a ratio adjustment to the X1's 6.1 and you get about .4s-.6s difference which puts the X1 (projected) at 5.5s-5.7s for 0-60.
Hopefully someone will do a review of the X1 in better 0-60 environments since we don't have any non BMW originated 0-60 numbers yet. Here's the video: *spoilder, the guy saying the xc60 will be faster than the X1 rides the scooter home* |
Appreciate
0
|
01-30-2013, 12:26 AM | #8 |
Private First Class
8
Rep 101
Posts |
I liked Chubby Cheddar's review better. This one has too many artsy camera moves that made me a bit ill. Ironically considering his name Chubby also told fewer fat jokes.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-30-2013, 02:19 PM | #9 |
Private First Class
19
Rep 100
Posts |
Edmuns.com (used to be insideline.com) tested the 35i x-line:
http://www.edmunds.com/bmw/x1/2013/road-test1.html Seem like the LRR tires really hurting the car. And they hate the seat... |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|