160 re map comparison

coab · 9th February 2015, 12:56

The BMW 320d 160 bhp performance figures are here..
320d 4d
8.0 secs
140 mph
160 bhp
How do they compare to our diesel 160 bhp cars. I know the BMW is 6 speed but would they be miles away from these figures? Yes Im bored...

Frank Incensed · 9th February 2015, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by coab

................................
How do they compare to our diesel 160 bhp cars. ................. Yes Im bored...

Why not take Simon up on his open invitation for 22nd February and find out for yourself?

http://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/foru...177983&page=21

The official manufacturers figures are (like the mpg figures) not achievable without employing certain advantages. I'd like to see what a stock 320d can actually do. No doubt it would be quicker - because it's about 300kg lighter for a start.

coab · 9th February 2015, 13:31

I was just curious if anyone had done any tests. Ive noticed that most stock 2.5 v6 190 bhp cars such as the Vectra GSi and the ST200 and the ZT 190 the performance figures are pretty much similar.

DMGRS · 9th February 2015, 14:25

From memory the 320d is a bit lighter than our cars, also the VNT turbo will give a bit of a more even torque curve.
Being a 6 speed shouldn't make much difference to a 0-60 run.

Frank Incensed · 9th February 2015, 14:29

I suggest the BMW would be about 2 seconds quicker to 60 and would get there in about 10 seconds.

If people with standard 320d BMW's and 160 BHP CDTi's wish to prove me wrong on a drag strip, then I will applaud their efforts.

Dakta · 9th February 2015, 14:58

My 2p: The VNT turbo is superior in almost every way to the turbochargers the 75/ZT diesel has, so regardless of tuning the BMW has the advantage I'm afraid.

If both were taken side by side as stock the BMW would also have it, but I beleive it'd also have it when tuned (the Beemer would tune higher).

If a tuned 75 was compared to a stock 320D 160 I still beleive the BMW would have it, once again due to the low spool vnt and better breathing up top. We're not doing well are we lol, that said the 75 will have a torque advantage initially because remaps are generally quite torque intensive so you might be able to make one panic a bit when the turbo initially kicks in but the top end would belong to the bmw

Jakg · 9th February 2015, 15:59

With 150HP I could only get 10.3 secs 0-60.

Even with 170HP I don't think I've taken a full 2 seconds off that - so I'd say no.

James.uk · 9th February 2015, 16:15

beemer = race horse...

Rover = Shire horse...

= no contest, the beemer wins...

Question raised is, why would anyone seeking speed buy a rover saloon???

...

Jakg · 9th February 2015, 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by James.uk

beemer = race horse...

Rover = Shire horse...

= no contest, the beemer wins...

Question raised is, why would anyone seeking speed buy a rover saloon???

...

What about those of us who bought an MG?

Departed 32016 · 9th February 2015, 16:36

The bmw is much quicker in 0-60, in gear acceleration counts too in fact a 143bhp 2.0 bmw 318d is considerably quicker.

9th February 2015, 12:56	#1
coab This is my second home 2007 57 GOLF GTi EDITION 30 DSG Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Newport Shropshire and Coventry. Posts: 5,137 Thanks: 2,424 Thanked 1,452 Times in 852 Posts	160 re map comparison The BMW 320d 160 bhp performance figures are here.. 320d 4d 8.0 secs 140 mph 160 bhp How do they compare to our diesel 160 bhp cars. I know the BMW is 6 speed but would they be miles away from these figures? Yes Im bored...

9th February 2015, 14:25	#4
DMGRS Discount MG Rover Spares Rover 75 CDTi, 2x MG ZS180 Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Hythe, Southampton Posts: 11,320 Thanks: 456 Thanked 3,377 Times in 2,027 Posts	From memory the 320d is a bit lighter than our cars, also the VNT turbo will give a bit of a more even torque curve. Being a 6 speed shouldn't make much difference to a 0-60 run. __________________ Your trusted MG Rover specialist! Tel: 02380 001133 / Email: [email protected] We now have a 'chat' function on our site for even quicker replies. Give it a try! Remember - discount code FORUM5 for 5% off

9th February 2015, 14:29	#5
Frank Incensed Ex 75 Owner 75 Tourerless Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Manchester Posts: 2,147 Thanks: 60 Thanked 156 Times in 93 Posts	A Real World Guess, Based on Weight Difference I suggest the BMW would be about 2 seconds quicker to 60 and would get there in about 10 seconds. If people with standard 320d BMW's and 160 BHP CDTi's wish to prove me wrong on a drag strip, then I will applaud their efforts. __________________ Beyoncé's Green Light Used More Rubber 355188 of 355194

9th February 2015, 14:58	#6
Dakta Regular poster MG ZR + 45 TDi + Rover 75 Tourer Conn Se Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Wakefield/Leeds Posts: 62 Thanks: 8 Thanked 15 Times in 10 Posts	My 2p: The VNT turbo is superior in almost every way to the turbochargers the 75/ZT diesel has, so regardless of tuning the BMW has the advantage I'm afraid. If both were taken side by side as stock the BMW would also have it, but I beleive it'd also have it when tuned (the Beemer would tune higher). If a tuned 75 was compared to a stock 320D 160 I still beleive the BMW would have it, once again due to the low spool vnt and better breathing up top. We're not doing well are we lol, that said the 75 will have a torque advantage initially because remaps are generally quite torque intensive so you might be able to make one panic a bit when the turbo initially kicks in but the top end would belong to the bmw Last edited by Dakta; 9th February 2015 at 15:09..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

9th February 2015, 13:31	#3
coab This is my second home 2007 57 GOLF GTi EDITION 30 DSG Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Newport Shropshire and Coventry. Posts: 5,137 Thanks: 2,424 Thanked 1,452 Times in 852 Posts	I was just curious if anyone had done any tests. Ive noticed that most stock 2.5 v6 190 bhp cars such as the Vectra GSi and the ST200 and the ZT 190 the performance figures are pretty much similar.

9th February 2015, 15:59	#7
Jakg This is my second home N/A Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Suffolk Posts: 6,867 Thanks: 0 Thanked 397 Times in 302 Posts	With 150HP I could only get 10.3 secs 0-60. Even with 170HP I don't think I've taken a full 2 seconds off that - so I'd say no.

9th February 2015, 16:15	#8
James.uk Passed Away 2002 Pale Blue. Rover 75 CDTi Connoisseur auto. 170K miles Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Near the M67. Posts: 14,509 Thanks: 199 Thanked 585 Times in 397 Posts	beemer = race horse... Rover = Shire horse... = no contest, the beemer wins... Question raised is, why would anyone seeking speed buy a rover saloon??? ...

9th February 2015, 16:36	#10
Departed 32016 This is my second home Rover 75 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 5,190 Thanks: 101 Thanked 257 Times in 145 Posts	The bmw is much quicker in 0-60, in gear acceleration counts too in fact a 143bhp 2.0 bmw 318d is considerably quicker.