2001 3.0 5spd is as fast as 4.4 V8...

[SchagenWagen]

Originally Posted by JCL

Your K&N is not likely worth any horsepower. The 94 octane fuel is similarly a non-factor, unless he was using 87. The gearing is different between the two vehicles, so it is hard to do a direct comparison over a specific speed range. If you had kept going above the 110 mph (not suggesting you should) you would likely have seen the effect of his greater hp.

he had more air to push than me ...

[dkl]

ShagenWagen, What you're saying is simply NOT possible...even with your funny math!

Your standard 3.0 pumps out 225hp, plus your claimed 7hp from the k&n filter, plus the 10hp of your non-auto. This equates to 242hp (225+7+10). The average 3.0i weights in at about 4652 lb per Edmunds.com. So your power to weight ratio is 19.22 lb/hp.

A standard 4.4 pumps out 282hp (I'm taking a pre-2004 as an example to show how ludicrous your claim is). The average 4.4i weights in at about 4828 lb per autobytel.com. The power to weight ratio works out to be 17.12 lb/hp. Even an all out optioned 4.4i that weights in at 5000 lb still have a power to weight ratio of 17.73 lb/hp. This margin gets even further apart if we sampled a post-2004 315hp 4.4i.

This simple paper calculation just shows how comical your claim is. And when you put other factors into the equation such as torque differences, etc., the gaps widen in favor of the 4.4i.

[Eric5273]

According to the 2006 X5 brochure, these are the 0-60 times:

X5 3.0 Auto: 8.3
X5 3.0 6spd: 7.8
X5 4.4 Auto: 6.8

That said, BMW's 0-60 claims for manual transmission cars are usually on the high side. The road tests published by magazines like Car & Driver, Road & Track, and MotorTrend usually beat their times by a comfortable margain -- probably due to their launch technique. Usually they are able to shave at least a half of a second off the 0-60 times.

So if you drop the clutch and launch really hard, you will get off the line quicker than a 4.4, but the 4.4 will eventually catch you and then pass you.

As far as comparing horsepower, that is just rediculous. Peak horsepower means very little. It is the overall curve that means more.

[PeteM]

I still say its a question of the drivers in this instance not the cars.

[Ajogu]

Originally Posted by SchagenWagen

sorry if repost, but last week I had a chance to run 50-110 mph with 4.4L V8 model. He gained maybe an inch or two on me, but overall it looked even. My mods so far: K&N filter and factory sunroof delete.. Both of us were on 19inch wheels and with passenger.

You're kidding, right? When you say "he gained an inch or two... ", doesn't that mean he was behind you?
Anyhow, I agree with PeteM. If the 4.4 was racing you, you were the better driver

[J.Seven]

Originally Posted by blondboinsd

Do you have a pic? I've never seen an X5 without a sunroof

Unfortunately mine came without sunroof


J.Seven

[SchagenWagen]

Originally Posted by dkl

ShagenWagen, What you're saying is simply NOT possible...even with your funny math!

Your standard 3.0 pumps out 225hp, plus your claimed 7hp from the k&n filter, plus the 10hp of your non-auto. This equates to 242hp (225+7+10). The average 3.0i weights in at about 4652 lb per Edmunds.com. So your power to weight ratio is 19.22 lb/hp.

A standard 4.4 pumps out 282hp (I'm taking a pre-2004 as an example to show how ludicrous your claim is). The average 4.4i weights in at about 4828 lb per autobytel.com. The power to weight ratio works out to be 17.12 lb/hp. Even an all out optioned 4.4i that weights in at 5000 lb still have a power to weight ratio of 17.73 lb/hp. This margin gets even further apart if we sampled a post-2004 315hp 4.4i.

This simple paper calculation just shows how comical your claim is. And when you put other factors into the equation such as torque differences, etc., the gaps widen in favor of the 4.4i.

my car is below average weightwise, so I would deduct atleast 50 lbs from your Edmunds estimate. I had less than 1/4 tank at the time. That puts me in a 18.7 lbs/hp range. You also do not account for difference in gearing. I will need more time to research difference in ratios and it's effect on acceleration. I do agree with torque curve of V8 and admit that those inches lost were when we first floor it. However that 1-1.5 lb/hp difference was not enough to show that V8 model is visialy (significantly) faster than manual 3.0. That is all I am trying to say here. Just as an observation, back in 90's my friend had a manual SC300 and raced numerous times against auto SC400 with nearly identical results. So, that experience with 3.0 X5 vs 4.4 came as a surprise but did not raise my scepticism to fully discount the possibility.

Cheers,

Andrew
2001 x5 5 spd 230? hp
2002 S4 Avant 6 spd MTM 440 hp
2001 A4 5 spd MTM 230 hp
1997 540i 6 spd 300 hp

[PENER]

Originally Posted by J.Seven

Unfortunately mine came without sunroof

but you can say now it's a very rare X5

[Boston X5 4.4]

You should have thrown out the seats, door panels, ash tray and hired a steeplechase jockey to race for you.........then you would have really smoked him
J/K

[PeteM]

Originally Posted by J.Seven

Unfortunately mine came without sunroof


J.Seven

Are you up a tree for that pic?