'95 325i is a little slow vs. '02 330

I own two BMW's, a 2002 330 and a recently purchased 95
325i. The 325i seems very sluggish compared to the 330. I
know there is a big horsepower difference, but is the
gearing in the 325i that much different from the
330....whether that's transmission gearing or axle
gearing....are they that much different? Or is my whole
perception of sloooooow-ness due to the horsepower
difference? Both cars, by the way, are automatic transmissions.

"Tom Allen" > wrote
>I own two BMW's, a 2002 330 and a recently purchased 95
> 325i. The 325i seems very sluggish compared to the 330. I
> know there is a big horsepower difference, but is the
> gearing in the 325i that much different from the
> 330....whether that's transmission gearing or axle
> gearing....are they that much different? Or is my whole
> perception of sloooooow-ness due to the horsepower
> difference? Both cars, by the way, are automatic transmissions.

The difference in torque is probably what you are feeling, rather
than the HP difference. Torque is what you feel in your backside
when you stomp the pedal.

Floyd

Viva diesel!

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> Torque is what you feel in your backside
> when you stomp the pedal.
>
> Floyd

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> "Tom Allen" > wrote
>
>> I own two BMW's, a 2002 330 and a recently purchased 95 325i. The
>> 325i seems very sluggish compared to the 330. I know there is a big
>> horsepower difference, but is the gearing in the 325i that much
>> different from the 330....whether that's transmission gearing or axle
>> gearing....are they that much different? Or is my whole perception of
>> sloooooow-ness due to the horsepower difference? Both cars, by the
>> way, are automatic transmissions.
>
>
> The difference in torque is probably what you are feeling, rather
> than the HP difference. Torque is what you feel in your backside
> when you stomp the pedal.
>
> Floyd

Yes, what Floyd said. Plus there is a much bigger difference in torque
than Horsepower between a '95 2.5 liter engine and the '02 3.0, partly
because of the displacement and partly because the '95 is single VANOS
and the '02 is dual VANOS.

Also, with an auto box in the '95 you never really get the engine up
into the power band of that engine. I have a '95 and the best power
doesn't really come-on until ~4000 rpm. With an automatic the
transmission shifts before you can ring it out. How does it feel when
you put the trans in "sport" mode? Better?

Finally, it could be that your '95 has some problems that make it feel
wimpy. Try to find another '95 you can drive and do a comparison.

-Fred W

In article >,
Malt_Hound > wrote:
> Also, with an auto box in the '95 you never really get the engine up
> into the power band of that engine. I have a '95 and the best power
> doesn't really come-on until ~4000 rpm. With an automatic the
> transmission shifts before you can ring it out. How does it feel when
> you put the trans in "sport" mode? Better?

Eh? Every auto I've ever owned runs to the redline in kickdown.

--
*It was all so different before everything changed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Malt_Hound" > wrote in message
...
>> Also, with an auto box in the '95 you never really get the engine up
> into the power band of that engine. I have a '95 and the best power
> doesn't really come-on until ~4000 rpm. With an automatic the
> transmission shifts before you can ring it out. How does it feel when
> you put the trans in "sport" mode? Better?

I compared a 328auto vs a 528 manual back to back once, and the E39 felt far
more lively than the E46. Quite a difference. Both were 1997 models with
the same motor.

-Russ.

Don't you mean E36?

Somebody wrote:

>
> I compared a 328auto vs a 528 manual back to back once, and the E39 felt far
> more lively than the E46. Quite a difference. Both were 1997 models with
> the same motor.
>
> -Russ.
>
>

In article >,
Tom Allen > wrote:
> I own two BMW's, a 2002 330 and a recently purchased 95
> 325i. The 325i seems very sluggish compared to the 330. I
> know there is a big horsepower difference, but is the
> gearing in the 325i that much different from the
> 330....whether that's transmission gearing or axle
> gearing....are they that much different? Or is my whole
> perception of sloooooow-ness due to the horsepower
> difference? Both cars, by the way, are automatic transmissions.

Are they both ZF autos? Some US BMWs have locally sourced GM? boxes which
aren't as good.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article >,
> Malt_Hound > wrote:
>
>>Also, with an auto box in the '95 you never really get the engine up
>>into the power band of that engine. I have a '95 and the best power
>>doesn't really come-on until ~4000 rpm. With an automatic the
>>transmission shifts before you can ring it out. How does it feel when
>>you put the trans in "sport" mode? Better?
>
>
> Eh? Every auto I've ever owned runs to the redline in kickdown.
>

Is that how you normally drive your cars Dave?

I have a 540iA (only automatic car in the mini-fleet) and I could
probably count the number of times I have mashed the kick-down switch on
both hands. It will down-shift under acceleration without mashing the
switch and accelerate quite nicely. It has only been under *extremely*
(ahem) spirited driving that that switch has been actuated.

My point was that, under normal everyday driving conditions, the later
models 2.8 and 3.0 dual vanos engines, with their fatter torque curves
biased toward slightly lower rpms, will feel a lot peppier in car
equipped with an automatic transmission than the 2.5 liter single (or
non) vanos engines of the early 90's.

-Fred W

In article >,
Malt_Hound > wrote:
> >>Also, with an auto box in the '95 you never really get the engine up
> >>into the power band of that engine. I have a '95 and the best power
> >>doesn't really come-on until ~4000 rpm. With an automatic the
> >>transmission shifts before you can ring it out. How does it feel when
> >>you put the trans in "sport" mode? Better?
> >
> >
> > Eh? Every auto I've ever owned runs to the redline in kickdown.
> >

> Is that how you normally drive your cars Dave?

If I want to 'ring it out', yes. Otherwise I'm happy to have it change up
normally. I can't see any point in using high revs on a light throttle,
but then YMMV.

> I have a 540iA (only automatic car in the mini-fleet) and I could
> probably count the number of times I have mashed the kick-down switch on
> both hands. It will down-shift under acceleration without mashing the
> switch and accelerate quite nicely. It has only been under *extremely*
> (ahem) spirited driving that that switch has been actuated.

Yes. So I don't really see your original point?

> My point was that, under normal everyday driving conditions, the later
> models 2.8 and 3.0 dual vanos engines, with their fatter torque curves
> biased toward slightly lower rpms, will feel a lot peppier in car
> equipped with an automatic transmission than the 2.5 liter single (or
> non) vanos engines of the early 90's.

But that equally applied to the manual cars. If you wished to make fast
progress you had to rev them regardless of auto or manual. And the auto
will up the shift point on wider throttle settings.

So saying, I'm referring to the ZF as fitted in the UK. IIRC many US cars
didn't use this.

--
*If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of payments *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.